High myopia is now the leading cause of blindness in Japan, China, and Taiwan
wired.com
wired.com
Based on recent studies in Australia and Asia they recommend two hours of daily time outdoors for children to prevent myopia.
So it isn’t caused by looking at things close up, the confound was that people who spend a lot of time looking at things close up tend to do so under artificial light.
I don't even have very bad myopia (-2.75/-3.25), but I kick myself for not spending as much time outside during my childhood as some of my friends did.
The laser is definitely uncomfortable, hard to say if it's even pain when your ocular globe is injected with so much anesthetic. Brain freeze, but extremely acute and right behind your eyeball might be accurate. During one of the prophylactic treatments he did some 'spot welds' near my optic nerve. I couldn't tell if I was even looking at his ear like he told me to, every burst of green triggered my reflexes. It was impossible to keep my other eye open. At least the discomfort is so temporary, I forget about it until someone asks if it was painful.
All the science since I was born seems to be all study, no fix.
https://www.aao.org/eye-health/news/low-dose-atropine-kids-w...
Otherwise it looks like an option not considered seriously. I'm not going to medicate daily for the rest of my life to "decrease or slow by about a half". The promised result is wimpy - you still need to wear the same glasses till the end of your life, but hey, they have different numbers.
You wouldn't medicate for the rest of your life, just until adolescence, when eye growth slows down.
The promised result is far fewer high myopes, which means fewer retinal detachments and other risks of high myopia.
If it’s genetic, the numbers should stay relatively stable.
If its from a behaviour, there might be variation
You do realize that "natural evolution" doesn't happen within time scales of less than a single generation, right? The environment can change faster than that.
We’re talking about probabilities and statistics over large populations. Not every child who plays outside will avoid myopia, like yourself. But looking at the population, the expectation is that children who get more sunlight tend to have a lower incidence of myopia and weaker myopia.
Both my parents are past -8, maybe -9 or -10? I forget, got some realllly thick glasses.
My workbench is illuminated to 10,000 lux, which compares to common daylight conditions. Just lighting that small area requires 120 watts of high-efficiency LEDs. Lighting the whole room to that level would require nearly two kilowatts of LEDs. Most "super strong indoor lighting" is in fact very dim compared to sunlight. We don't realise it, because our visual system is incredibly adaptable to changing illumination conditions.
Sunlight is just incredibly bright. There's a reason why film crews often need to use huge metal halide lamps powered by a generator truck - it takes an immense amount of power to compete with daylight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminance
https://www.arri.com/en/lighting/daylight/arri-daylight-18-1...
Normal indoor lighting is a few hundred lux and with the right setup, I was able to increase it to 1000 lux at where my head is generally physically located.
You would probably have to put stage lighting in your house to get the same affect as being outside. My eyes behave pretty different and seem to get a "workout" when I am outside in sunny weather.
But regarding the lighting itself, yes i do think it is similar to stage lighting (brighter, i assume). Thermal and power is a significant concern with the lighting iirc, but i'm not too familiar. If i recall correctly the post that advocated these as a video and had an explanation on the difficulties. It heated up the room significantly.
With that said i want to stress that this was some post i saw several years ago, and i can't seem to find the video anymore. Iirc the lights were insanely bright, though.
"Upon transcranial delivery, NIR light has been shown to significantly increase cytochrome oxidase and superoxide dismutase activities which suggests its role in inducing metabolic and antioxidant beneficial effects. Furthermore, NIR light may also boost cerebral blood flow and cognitive functions in humans without adverse effects. In this review, we highlight the value of NIR therapy as a novel paradigm for treatment of visual and neurological conditions, and provide scientific evidence to support the use of NIR therapy with emphasis on molecular and cellular mechanisms in eye diseases." [1]
NIR = near infrared light, 670 nm wavelength. This wavelength is present in sunlight, but not found in basically any indoor lighting with the possible exception of full spectrum LEDs and IR bulbs. Another study found improvement from NIR exposure, but only from exposure in the morning (for three minutes, once a week, at 670nm wavelength), and only in individuals older than 38. The study proposes that the effects they found from NIR exposure is due to improved mitochondrial function in the retina. [2]
The human retina ages faster than other organs, with a 70% decline in functional ATP production by mitochondria over a lifetime. The aging mitochondria, in addition to not producing as much ATP, also spit out junk amino acids that can cause chronic inflammation in the area (and signal cell death where none is called for?). As an aside, improved mitochondrial function is also proposed to be responsible for the significant health benefits of fasting and prolonged calorie restriction.
Another study also theorizes this mechanism:
"Our data suggest, 670 nm light can significantly improve aged retinal function, perhaps by providing additional adenosine triphosphate production for photoreceptor ion pumps or reduced aged inflammation." [3]
More study is clearly called for the better understand what is going on here and why. It seems like it could potentially have implications for age-related degeneration throughout the entire body, not just in the retina.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7738953/\\ [2] https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/e49/... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5364001/
NIR has been known to be useful for a while. Closer to 1000nm, penetrates deeper, but isn't as 'potent'
670nm is great, but you can notice it when it's on, ESPECIALLY if it's the only light in your room, which can be annoying.
It's true that NIR stuff is healthy for your eyes, but HOW much so, is up to debate.
I've bought 10 30 W NIR bulbs to no effect (range from 650nm-950nm), but on the other hand blue light bulbs have been helpful with increasing visual accuity (shorter wavelengths appear to your eyes as fuzzy, so your eyes push themselves to refocus more often, though at the downside of low dopamine levels and no will to do anything {maybe this goes away with time? But I've spent a few days doing nothing due to blue light and I like to be productive}, while red light has no effect on motivation, but worsens my eyesight (light appears in focus, no need to refocus, eyes get "lazy")
All of this anecdotal, but I really do like reading/learning about this stuff and NIR seems to be more fad than not in real world situations
Tell you to do something every day for the rest of your life. If it does not work, scold you for slacking off. If your vision does not degrade, praise it all on the topical bullshit therapy.
So maybe just being outside isn't enough, but it obviously has other health benefits.
Flashing light/dark spots are a sign of retinal detachment. Floaters are something different [0].
I was able to catch a retinal tear that had a very high chance of proceeding to a retinal detachment (horsehoe tear with sub-retinal fluid) by getting some new floaters checked out.
Floaters are commonly caused by a (mostly) benign aging phenomenon called posterior vitreous detachment, where the vitriol gel liquefies as a person ages.
Sometimes it worries me, but the condition is "stable".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_field_entoptic_phenomen...
They do indeed “float”. If I move my eyes they move with them, then have momentum when I stop moving my eyes. They’re way more visible against static, bright backgrounds (like blue sky) but I can see them in indoor lighting, too.
I’ve had them since I was very young. The white flashes you’re referring to I’ve only noticed recently, and are very different things. They do require a bright blue sky for me to see them.
They do look a whole lot like things we saw in biology class under microscope.
In response to top of thread, retinal detachment does usually start with new floaters.
My first floater came with an unusually timed cluster headache ( like a migraine but usually with predictable timing ) so I had accompanying visual auras. Because I didn’t recognize it as a cluster I described it to the on call eye doc as new floaters and sparkles. That got me an emergency trip to optical ER and a slightly disappointed surgeon.
I thought I had them when I was young, but I learned they were just a form of phosphenes.
And, the longer your eye is (the higher your myopia is), the earlier this happens.
Retinal detachment is rare though, even with tons of floaters and high myopia.
That might not be the case, given what the others have already mentioned about lifestyle --- I imagine most rural people will be outside a lot more and looking farther than city people.
I've had floaters since I was 18. A couple of years ago at 59 all of the sudden I had a huge increase in floaters accompanied by flashes in the left eye. I was sure I was having a retinal detachment. Got into an eye doc right away and she said told me it was the vitreous detachment and is something that happens normally at my age. It went on for several months with the flashing and floaters. The right eye followed suit about 6 months later. I had no idea that this was something that happens to pretty much everyone around age 60. Apparently, though, a lot of people don't notice it happening.
After the ophthalmologist checked my eye, she said what I'm seeing is called "mouches volantes" and it's something that happens when people get older. I'm "only" 37 and don't have any problems with my eyesight, which makes me wonder what caused these floaters in my case.
Anyway, it's something I have to get used to. It only really is annoying on sunny days because then I can see them clearly floating around.
I’d love to understand why you would post such a dogmatic dismissal without so much as a citation. Are you an ophthalmology researcher yourself who is familiar with contrary and well-vetted research? Are you someone with a strong personal experience that you have a hard time squaring with the data? Or are you someone who forms strong beliefs, firmly held, regardless of whatever new information life offers?
Is this your first time on hacker news?
As someone with an education in healthcare, nothing goes off the rails, and I mean really off the rails like a health related thread on HN.
You get some of the most ardent believers in some of the wildest hypotheses who are quick to dismiss a century or more of actual data.
That’s not to say that some early hypotheses won’t turn out to be correct, but there is a big difference between “I read this interesting paper with an interesting hypothesis” and “Hey guys, all of current medicine is 100% wrong and your doctor is conspiring to keep the truth from you (or so inept they probably can’t tie their own shoe).”
Optometrists are clothing salespeople. Only some ophthalmologists even know about atropine as an option.
And when you wear your full prescription without correcting for target distance, you just restart the process all over again. For some lucky people the axial length seems to be fixed after some point, but for most people that sets them on the path of increasing power.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/low-dose-atrop...
So far our best guess is to make sure kids get enough sunlight every day and spend time outside, because looking at things in the distance is what regulates eye lengthening during growth. Since things are typically further away outdoors, it helps normal eye development and slows down nearsightedness.
My impression was that near work was previously a leading hypothesis but that, in agreement with this article, sunlight exposure is now considered the most likely explanation. However, I don't think there's ironclad proof either way, and a scholarly consensus is lacking.
Do you have a link to a recent review article that adjudicates between these hypotheses?
Until you have a fix you are going to suffer these terrible discussions, after all is it more terriblier than having actual myopia?
Proven how? The article is pretty explicit about the relationship between near work and myopia being just a correlation, not causation.
I guess he was more right than he knew :-)
Anyhow, a large part of my childhood was spent outside. I've worn glasses since I was 6, with farsighted astigmatism.
In fact, there’s been no change in his prescription in a year.
In fact, one side went down 0.25 as my brilliant UK Opthalmologist deduced that he was not in need of it, and many kids opt for a slightly higher power than they need during the tests. Not to be fooled, this doc. The previous tests, the first, were conducted in Germany on similar equipment, but without a master sleuth operating them.
In short - MiyoSmart lenses are fricking brilliant and kids should be put into them immediately if they need glasses. They are twice the price in Germany than in the UK, like most things, but at least we had the choice.
When I was a lad, they only had a chart of ever-shrinking letters and can-you-tell-the-difference-between-Mickey-Mouse-and-Goofy-in-this-comic before they bolted a stronger pair of goggles on, fast forward 44 years and I’m a -10, and could well have been worse had I not found my optician 31 years ago. Now we monitor my eyes for diseases and potential retinal detachment.
But yes, be outdoors AND have passionate experts looking out for your vision.
If someone has also an experience of late myopia, I would be curious to hear from it, e.g. I would like to know if it stops someday, and if there are good solutions for it.
Get glasses and/or contacts and deal with it. You can't drive properly without correction, but 90% of daily activities are just fine.
I think no matter what your correction is, you should take the steps to not make it worse, and I find that there's very little information about that. Even doctors just say "look far once in a while" which doesn't see so efficient.
So it got better and better, until it became myopia? Was there a point in the middle where you had normal vision?
I’m going to leave this link [1] here for you to follow. Since I am just falling down this rabbit hole myself.
But if you do go down this rabbit hole, feel free to share info in this thread…I might also add my email in the bio. Anyways, good luck!
A July 2023 report from NIH (the US government's biomedical and public health research body) is titled "Low-dose atropine eyedrops no better than placebo for slowing myopia progression".
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/low-dose-atrop...
It infers a possible significant racial or genetic divide in the effectiveness of the atropine treatment, also given that some other atropine studies, which show success, tend (as far as I've seen) to involve Asian demographics.
In any case, I am a total layperson, only here to note that fairly authoritative sources (e.g. in this case, a co-author being a professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University) appear to still be at odds about the application and demographic effectiveness of the atropine treatment, about which several general claims are made elsewhere in these HN comments.
Seems like results may be mixed?
Or to put it bluntly: Don't take random medical advice from random yahoos on the intertubez.
1. Exposure to the sun prevents myopia
2. Short intense exposure delivers the same results as long, weak exposure *
Then logically, looking at the sun or other bright object with eyes closed for a few seconds would provide the optimal therapeutic benefits by triggering dopamine production in the least time necessary.
* https://www.aao.org/education/editors-choice/sunlight-exposu....
When I was a kid I got sometimes atropine drops, so my myopia could be measured precisely. I just hated it. I was forbidden to read while my pupils were stretched wide.
I wonder do Taiwanese medics forbid children to read when they prescribe atropine to them.
"(In 1989, an American ophthalmologist named Richard Stone found that he could induce myopia in chickens by manipulating light levels, and that there was less dopamine in the retinas of the myopic chickens.)"
And yet it took so many years to draw the conclusions for human myopia. I'm wondering how many insights are still hidden in scholar articles waiting to be put together. Would an LLM trained on scholar data be able to answer a well-posed question with new insights?
This is a fascinating historical tidbit and I'm curious to learn more, but Google fails me. Did ancient Chinese soldiers do this specifically to improve their vision? Was myopia a big problem among those soldiers?
I've also had 2 retinal holes and 1 horse shoe tear across both eyes in the last 3-4 years... And cataract surgery in my worst eye last year implanting a mono-vision IOL. I am 43 years old now.
Everyone in this thread worrying about your -2 and -3 myopia can just go sit down ... Lol.
My biggest concern at the moment is the slow moving cataract in my "good" eye, I'd rather not get surgery for ~10 years if it can be avoided.... I write code for a living ...
Everyone's eyes age and deteriorate as we get older. My eyes are simply more prone to complications due to the ROP as they never fully developed correctly due to the incubator I was placed in at birth (born 2mo early)...
I hope your eye troubles keep at bay for many moons to come!
I don't mean to pry, are the shots for macular degeneration or do you have retinopathy of diabetes? My mom has macular degeneration and has had some shots already (she is stable at the moment)... And the doctor says the MD could be hereditary.... Oh joy, but there's essentially little I can do about that. So (I figure) take an over the counter eye vitamin and basically try to stay away from more surgeries if possible ... Rarely are surgeries a better result (for anything) than yourself prior to the surgery; there are always tradeoffs to lens implants, replacement knees etc.
I don't know if that has been proven/disproven since.
That's how I see it (pardon the pun), anyway.
TLDR
High myopia is the medical term for extreme or severe nearsightedness. A person who needs a vision prescription of -6.00 diopters (D) or more has high myopia ... It's very important to manage myopia progression during childhood, before it becomes high myopia. Myopia typically begins during early childhood and progresses over time. The peak years of myopia progression are roughly between ages 7 and 15.5 ... For about 50% of people, myopia stabilizes by age 15, but it can progress until around age 24 for others. Low and moderate myopia fall between -0.25 D and -5.75 D.
High myopia causes
Nearsightedness primarily occurs as the result of a slightly elongated eyeball shape. When the eyeball is too long, light focuses too far in front of the retina. This causes distant objects to look blurry ... Inherited genes can play a role in the development of high myopia. Children have a greater risk of developing the condition when one or both parents have nearsightedness.
Severe myopia does not generally lead to vision loss on its own. Instead, the progressive lengthening of the eyeball stretches and thins the retina and other eye tissues. This makes them more vulnerable to damage and disease.
I myself was -5.75 and -6.25 with some non-negligible cylinders. I experienced discomfort when looking at my phone phone and reading book with my glasses on. I General check up said that my eyeball pressure and all were normal, but I know the discomfort is nothing good and can be quite serious. I read up online and found out that myopia could cause eyeball elongation, which could cause discomfort and ultimately could cause retinal damage/detachment. The discomfort I was experiencing was probably due to my elongated eyeball.
I prayed and began looking for way to work around my myopic eyes without having to get yet another thicker glasses... And I'm super thankful to have found out about this life-changing video by Todd Becker on how to reverse myopia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Efg42-Qn0. The TLDR is that eyeball elongation (and hence myopic eyes) can be reversed in a way very similar to how strength training is conducted (hormesis). You simply need to keep wearing reduced prescription and do eye-focus exercises regularly.
It sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? I was scared too at first, and when I went to a glasses store to get a lower prescription glasses, the store attendant warned me too. But I went ahead anyway. My latest eyes exam before the attempt (back in August 2021) was -6.75 and -6.5 with -0.25 and -0.5 cyls. After 2 years of wearing lower prescription whenever possible and doing eye-focus exercise quite inconsistently (by reading on Kindle with lower prescription at a distance that causes hormesis, as explained by Todd Becker), I am happy to announce that I'm now wearing -4.5 on both eyes (without cyls) when I need almost-perfect vision, and wearing -3.5 for training purposes. I have seen people online who seem to be much more consistent reported even faster progress.
If you are interested to learn more, here are some resources I found super useful and forever grateful for: 1. Excellent science behind it, explained by Todd Becker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Efg42-Qn0 2. Article by Todd Becker: https://gettingstronger.org/2014/08/myopia-a-modern-yet-reve... 3. A mailing list with some guidance: https://endmyopia.org/ 4. Excellent PDF by C.G. Hayes with guidance on how to get lower prescription glasses: https://losetheglasses.org/cliffgnu-vision.pdf
On top of those resources, I am happy to share more of my experience and the exercise I did as well. Feel free to email me at denny at nusantara-cloud dot com if you want to have a chat with me!
I spent a lot of time reading as a kid. When I've heard other people, sometimes doctors, speak as though that somehow caused my high myopia, or my sister's, it has struck me as obviously laughable. The sunlight theory is interesting.
My sister and I also share an inherited retinal disease that causes photophobia (severe light sensitivity). Because the disease is progressive (degenerative) and we were only diagnosed as adults, we never had any ERGs taken as kids, so we don't know whether or how it was affecting us then. But from even pre-school, I remember walking around with not just my face pointed down, but my eyes closed, opening them only every couple seconds, in order to escape the extremely bright sun where we lived. So does she.
I wonder if to some extent, our early visual impairments and light sensitivity exacerbated our myopia by making outdoor times and outdoor activity less rewarding for us.
Aside: as someone with high myopia, content like this, seemingly fixated on preventing, curing or 'ending' myopia, reminds me a lot of some things I've seen on Reddit. Out of some personal interest, I sometimes browse r/myopia as well as r/blind. And it strikes me over and over how r/blind seems like a much more sane place to me. r/myopia is full of people absolutely panicking over myopia that is fully correctable! It's got post after post of people desperately trying to 'reverse' their myopia, people going to great lengths to try to shave one or two diopters. Many posters there describe feeling depressed and deflated by their first prescriptions, obtained in adolescence or young adulthood, and anxious about the future.
I've never really known what it's like to have normal vision. In that sense, I know I'm inclined to underestimate the sense of loss that some people will naturally and rightly feel when their once-perfect vision degrades. But I can't help but look at r/myopia and think it all seems a bit unhinged. It's strange to watch people with highly correctable vision, whose vision will likely never seriously affect their mobility, independence, or work act like the sky is falling because they're nominally myopic while half of my immediate family is blind or slowly going blind.
In contrast to r/myopia, r/blind seems so much more grounded. There's grief and worry there also, but for the most part, people posting there are just figuring out how to live their lives. It's a place that feels much less depressing, much less despairing, to me.
To some extent, I think the OP and the shift in thinking it describes is aligned with r/myopia, while the older view that myopia is largely genetic and something more to be managed than to avoided, with r/blind. I think from a public health perspective, interventions like the OP describes are absolutely warranted. But when it comes to individuals, I think a lot of people would serve themselves better by taking up a looser posture. Even 'high' myopia is extremely manageable, if that's all you've got going on. It's not the end of the world to be myopic (or even to be blind, as a brief scroll through r/blind makes clear). By all means, let school systems and health departments and scientists keep working out how to address myopia at scale. But individuals with myopia, or children with myopia, should know that they're okay.
> discovered a surprising relationship. The more time kids spent outside, the less likely they were to have myopia.
The more kids difficulty kids had seeing at distance, the less likely they were to spend outside.
Once I started wearing glasses, swimming / pool time was less fun cause I can't see. Other sports were fine with glasses, but sometimes they fly off and maybe get damaged which is a big deal and dampers enthusiasm. Some amusement parks are real strict about not wearing glasses and roller coasters are less fun when you can't see. Etc
I guess I'll just hang out inside with books and computers, thanks.
This is logical, but the evidence still points to something environmental causing a major shift in levels of myopia. In one generation the rate of myopia in some countries went from 20% to 80%[0]. This means that it isn't genetic, something environmental must have changed to cause this.
By the time I was...probably about 12, my myopia was bad enough that I could no longer read without glasses (or without holding the book uncomfortably close to my face). Similarly, attempting to interact with a screen would've been impractical, because it's all fine detail.
Outdoors, however, most things that I would need to care about were large enough that I could see them just fine. I wouldn't have had much trouble, for instance, playing soccer without my glasses on, because I didn't need to care which face was which or even the numbers on the backs of the shirts—I just needed to see the colors of the shirts, and the position of the ball, well enough to maneuver between them. (Well, I wouldn't have had trouble due to my myopia. The trouble I had playing soccer was from a different source.)
...I have literally never encountered an amusement park where I couldn't wear my glasses. It seems to me that if there's really a danger, they should provide some kind of protection for you.
For other types of sports, you can wear contact lenses. Even if you're not comfortable wearing them all the time (I certainly am).
Last year I decided to get a laser eye surgery (PRK), and I'm now enjoying clear vision without glasses.
Actually nicer are cheap goggles from amazon with a close enough prescription, because they're cheap.
I'm not sticking contacts or lasers in my eyes either, thanks.
I'll try to explain what I understood from the article: the natural sunlight makes your body release dopamine, dopamine causes the eye not to elongate, not elongation equals not having near-sightedness.
Probably I got that only half right.
Anyhow the article claims it's not looking at close things and the real cause is being inside.
It makes me wish we would have had more P.E. classes outside, rather than 'giving our eyes a break' by playing kickball indoors under fluorescence.
That's a fairly large room, and we typically don't focus on the furthest point while indoors anyway. So with the 20ft requirement, it's a lot easier to fulfill while being outdoors.
The downsides however? We're completely ignoring them for whatever reason, and increasing myopia and rising child obesity rates are just one point on the giant list.
Good urbanization also, I believe, would discourage myopia. I've spent the past few months living in Barcelona and nearly everything here happens outside in the sun - going for dinner, meeting friends, playing a board game... people tend not to do as much inside under florescent lights when usable, comfortable, and safe outdoor spaces are available.
I know just my own life doesn't nullify the statement but all my friends were the same I mean outside but I don't know of them who has glasses as adults.
Take off your glasses and try to read a book at arm length, and close up. If you can easily read it at both distances, you might have good vision. If you can only read it when it's far, you are far sighted. If you can only read it when it's near, you're near sighted.
I know just my own life doesn't nullify the statement but all my friends were
the same I mean outside but I don't know of them who has glasses as adults.
You mean you _do not_ know of any friends who _do not_ wear eyeglasses as adults?
Let me rephrase that.
You played outside as a child. You now wear glasses.
All of your friends played outside as well. All your friends now wear glasses
as well.
My friends and I played outside as children. I began to wear eyeglasses at age 17. My friends at the time to the best of my knowledge did not wear eyeglasses (ages 0 to 18). I do not know any of the same people now so I cannot say if they as adults wear eyeglasses or not.
Do your glasses magnify or reduce things? The former is for aiding hyperopia and the latter for myopia.
Also, as far as I can recall, astigmatism is present at birth and not developed over time like some other eye conditions.
No, it's definitely not present at birth (at least to the same degree) and can be acquired during child development and even early adulthood.
Only started to get dioptries at 30 ish but the astigmatism was with me all my life.
I don't think he spent more time outdoors than I did or stared at screens less than myself. He is not any less geeky than me.
So the question is, what do we do to give happiness to everybody, for free (or at least inexpensively).
The double blind part is difficult, but they usualy give a silly task to the control group, so they don't know they are in the control group.
Myopia is a terrible thing to discuss, there are so many people guessing and making false claims about things.
> quackery
COVD, the professional association has existed for 40 years, https://www.covd.org/page/About_Us
The College of Optometrists in Vision Development (COVD) is a non-profit, international membership association of eye care professionals including optometrists, optometry students, and vision therapists. Established in 1970, COVD provides board certification for optometrists and vision therapists who are prepared to offer state-of-the-art services in Behavioral and developmental vision care, Vision therapy, Neuro-optometric rehabilitation.
Furthermore there are contact lenses that temporarily reshape the surface of the eye as well as new glasses, both of which are now either FDA approved or in late-stage trials.
"A likely explanation of the inverse association between pregnancy and myopia progression is the higher exposure to outdoor activities in pregnant women during their maternal leaves. Time of outdoors physical activity of 6.9 vs 5.2 h per week (P=0.002) in pregnant woman compared to non-pregnant woman."
Outdoor activities - the same thing as in the Wired article that's noted to slow down myopia progression. I don't think this study supports what you think it supports.
Also myopia didn't reverse, the rate of increase merely slowed down in the pregnant women.
> Jake has a vast wealth of valuable writing about the subject and his blog posts go into a lot of useful detail. Unfortunately, Jake has some issues ... I thought I'd take a crack at summarizing the most important findings across all these thinkers on one page, including stuff from community members and my own experiences ... it's time to stop treating this like property and start treating it like a common resource.