/ education

Can spectacles cause the very same problem for which they were created?

Disclaimer:This article discusses the negative repercussions of subjecting eye with minor refractive error to artificial lenses. It also answers why we are facing myopia explosion and details the effective methods using which refractive error of the eye can be corrected naturally.
The views expressed herein are supported by research. The author published this article after experimenting it himself to clear up the confusion for the online community. As the original research linked here has faced criticisms as of the recent past, but it’s the same using which the author was able to reduce his refractive error. As a researcher, I don’t want that readers believe whatever I say here. But rather go through the material critically and question everything- including the popular opinion. If you are experimenting, which is harmless as I did it myself, to check it’s authenticity, I’d appreciate if you fill up this form here. It’s always best to have as large sample group size as we can.

This article is in no way promoting the research papers linked herein, but rather it’s meant to establish a critical mindset and start a discussion. The author takes no responsibility for what readers do with the information provided in this article. Anyone experimenting with it is responsible for themselves.

Before we begin, we should understand what are the signs of “Bad Science”

The ideas expressed in this article has been confirmed by a team of researchers :

  1. Steven M. Beresford, Ph.D. American Vision Institute Inc. Sacramento, CA
  2. David W. Muris, O.D. Sacramento VisionCare Optometric Center Sacramento, CA
  3. Mara Tableman, Ph.D. Department of Mathematics and Statistics Portland State University, Portland, OR
  4. Francis A. Young, Ph.D. Primate Research Center Washington State University, Pullman, WA

For their complete research article check for the references and links below.

Traditional doctors blame it on your genes, but believe me they’ve got it all wrong. If someone closely observes the laws of nature, one would find that every system adapts itself when the factors controlling it are changed. Traditional ophthalmology is based upon an assumption that eye is an immutable optical system. Don’t know what logic they used to make such a flawed assumption. And it’s a pity that that tradition is still being followed and we’re brainwashed into believing it. And any attempt at reprimanding such a flawed concept is met with ridicule and contempt! The artificial lens create the very same problem for which they were created.

Nature never intended for us to wear specs to see clearly. Human eyes are designed to work best in bright light and with changing focus. Myopia or hyper-metropia is not genetic in all cases. And in view of recent myopia explosion, there is a clear proof that it happens because of misuse of eyes. Nowadays , a lot of our work like studying, using computer, watching tv, etc for long time actually adapts our eyes to adjust themselves to deal with near located objects- which means far objects would appear blurry. When this happens, you visit eye specialist, he prescribes a new set of lens and you’re happy you can see clear again. Now, over time with continuous use of specs to see clearly, your eye once again adapts to the new lens and while still dealing with near point objects for long durations. The result: unnatural myopia progression. The situation becomes worse when the refractive error crosses -3.00D which means you won’t be able to clearly see objects at your arms’ length like textbook, mobile, computer, tablet,etc. And to see them clearly you’ll again take the help of corrective lens and have no other option but to use them. Leading to vicious cycle of lifetime dependency on specs even to see your own face in mirror in some cases.

The fact is that the eyes contain muscles, are surrounded by muscles, and are embedded in adipose tissue, hence it seems inevitable that positive changes will take place in their shape and structure as a result of the forces exerted upon them by eye exercises, just as physical exercises can improve the shape and structure of the body.


Quoting from See clearly method:

“The primary goal of the See Clearly Method is to help people with minor visual problems such as incipient myopia or early presbyopia return to normal or near-normal vision and avoid or delay the need for corrective lenses. In cases where corrective lenses have produced negative adaptations and structural changes in the eye, the See Clearly Method attempts to reverse these negative adaptations and structural changes as much as possible. In medium to high myopia, the See Clearly Method can often help the person read and do close work without corrective lenses, which are usually restricted to activities requiring good distance acuity, such as driving or watching movies. The See Clearly Method also capitalizes on the fact that many patients who receive traditional eye care must “get used to” the progressively stronger corrective lenses that are usually prescribed. This fact underscores the remarkable plasticity of the visual system. The See Clearly Method uses the same principle in reverse, in which patients adapt to a series of progressively weaker corrective lenses until the maximum amount of reduction is obtained. We call this “progressive under-correction ”.

Take the case of a 14 year old boy who was a part of this research. The change in his vision is as follows:

Spherical number( myopia) : Initial : -3.50 Final( after one month) : -1.25 Change: +2.25

Cylindrical Number( astigmatism): Initial: -1.50 Final( after one month): -0.25 Change:+1.25

This change would be more surprising if one continues to do them after the period of one month and intakes nutrients which nourishes the eye muscles. This is my own conclusion.


The Problem with glasses
Years of experience have probably already demonstrated to you the sickening truth: over time, eye glasses make your vision worse. This was demonstrated in a scientific trial. Dr Earl Smith of the University of Houston College of Optometry fitted corrective lenses on monkeys with healthy vision. (Monkeys have near identical visual systems to humans.) Within weeks, the monkeys adapted to the lenses. Those wearing minus lenses (prescribed for nearsightedness) became nearsighted. Those wearing plus lenses (prescribed for farsightedness) became farsighted. And the same thing happened with glasses designed for astigmatism.The exact same natural reaction is likely to be happening with your own eyesight; so the first step to improving your vision naturally is to stop wearing your glasses when you don’t TRULY need them. This in itself is a liberating first step. The only exception is when you can’t physically see what you need to — or when it would be dangerous to do so (eg. when driving). If this seems impossible because your eyesight is really bad, switch to a weaker pair of glasses for now. It will still encourage your eyes to work harder on their own, without relying on overly strong prescription lenses.

I have done the hard work for you and gone through several articles and research articles. I’ve uploaded few of the important files on Google Drive to help you gain more insight. Click here to read the files listed below:

  • The exercises required for it have been detailed in the file named “ Treating myopia-Wynning vision program”.
  • Read” Research_Clinical evaluation of See clearly method” . Especially read from Page no. 9 to 22.
  • “FAQs -From Why Eyeglasses Are Harmful For Children And Young People, © 1969 Joseph J. Kennebeck, O.D.” is a must read.

Here’s a question: If it works and is so effective then why isnt it popular? It will be very hard for me to convince you unless you happen to already know what all is really going on in the world. In short, unless you have already experience cognitive dissonance in past.

Those who know about this natural method for curing eyes don’t popularize it because of professional ethics. And other doctors in practice probably aren’t much into research and experimentation and have probably never tried anything experimental apart from what they studied in college. This maybe for the safety of their patients. Those people driven by pure Logic have no problem in considering it as an alternative. To some it is unpopular- just like it was to me. But outside our environment it may not be. Perhaps its because the system has been designed to extract benefits from general public and keep them in delusion for the benefit of handful elite group. And partly, because most people dont have much time or resources to find out the truth for themselves. According to human psychology, most of us find it difficult to trust things which take us by surprise, is contrary to our earlier beliefs and we react negatively towards it. Cognitive dissonance is term used for such reaction. And if you want to know the truth, you really need to experience Cognitive Dissonace at an intense level for your own good. We must be ready to revisit existing ideas; be willing to rise above all kinds of biases and prejudices and become receptive to truth that may come from anywhere. We have a general tendency to take anything that contradicts our pre-conceived beliefs with denial and searching for all sorts of arguments to refute it. A very good natural response indeed ! ( No sarcasm intended).

Take for example, an incident from history: Wave theory of light,which was advanced in late 1600's by Huygens and used 123 years later by Young to explain double slit interference, was very slow in being adopted largely because it ran counter to Newton’s theory that light was a stream of particles. Newton’s view was prevailing view in French scientific circles of early 19th century, when Augustin Fresnel was a young military engineer. Fresnel believed in wave theory of light and submitted a paper to French academy of sciences describing his experiments with light and wave theory explanations of them. However, The Newtonians rejected it and one of them -S.D Poisson- pointed out that the “strange result” that if Fresnel’s theories were correct, then light waves should flare into bright spot at the centre of the shadow. A test of Poisson’s prediction was arranged and it was discovered that the predicted ‘Fresnel bright spot’ , as we call it today, was indeed there ! A young military engineer proved Newton wrong. It took time for Fresnel’s theory to be accepted. But eventually it did.

Conclusion: What I want to show is that we must keep everything aside- including our ego, preconceived beliefs, tradition, popular opinion- if we want to see the truth. And rely purely on Science of Deduction.

Humanity is enslaved by plethora of conjectures and it seems that it is never gonna change as there has to be variety among humans as it is in nature.

The worst thing a person can do is to try to control someone else’s life and his/her beliefs against their will. Therefore, I can’t and will not force you to believe me because you’re unique and gifted with free will and intelligence. You are free to choose but you’re not free from the consequence of your choice. I’ve given you research articles which you can read to build faith in this. Give it a try and see it for yourself. This would work for people whose eyes are still under development (under 20s). But with the help pf some drugs, we should be able to make it work for older people too. You need to concentrate more on fusion exercises , but don’t overdo it. (you’ll find details about fusion exercises in the file “wynning vision programme” ). You don’t necessarily need to stick to the sequence of doing exercises as detailed in ‘Wynning vision program’. What you need is to know their purpose and use it effectively according to your convenience. They have set it over five weeks, but you can do it after that period until you’re completely fine without specs.( I did it) And please don’t worry.. your eyes will only improve and will never ever deteriorate. Once you start, you’ll notice improvements within one week. I must say that you’ll meet meet people, including professional doctors, who will argue against it. I don’t understand why there is so much fuss about it? Can’t they bother themselves to just experiment with them and see which one is true instead of repeatedly citing the flawed assumptions which people of past made in utter ignorance? Even after going through the entire material, you’re finding it hard to be believed, please give a thought of experimenting with it at least.

“There are three principal means of acquiring knowledge… observation of nature, reflection, and experimentation. Observation collects facts; reflection combines them; experimentation verifies the result of that combination.”
-Denis Diderot

It would be great if we learn to respect other’s views as everyone thinks that he /she is right .. but it is only when we analyze all of them following The Scientific Method that we can discover the reality.

If you need any further help let me know or if you have any doubt feel free to ask me through the comments below. And once you’re done going through the material, please do share this with people who need it.

If you’ve read this far, thanks for reading. If you would like to participate, please fill this form here.

Update: After receiving critical comments claiming that this article makes lots of assumptions and that it is somewhat un-scientific. I would like to break it down for those critics in light of what are the signs of bad science:

In order to answer the critics who say that this article is un-scientific in nature, here is a breakdown of it based on the above criteria:

Sensationalized headlines | This article doesn’t have sensationalized headlines. It starts with a question to make people think.
Misinterpreted Results | It doesn’t misinterpret results. All the data is for you to see. You don’t need faith in science, for you can check yourself that it works.
Conflict of Interest | I was just a patient before I tried the alternative methods for there was no harm in it. Those who are calling the research papers cited illegal might be under the influence of the companies who might get affected by this. I’m not asking you to do anything except give it a try and see for yourself, or else you have the choice to keep away from alternatives and suffer myopia escalation.
Correlation and causation | There is no correlation without causation in this case. Changing the way we use our eyes and taking some steps detailed in this article will definitely make it clear that there is a strong link between correlation and causation.
Speculative Language | I’m not being speculative, rather I’m sure.
Sample size too small | No. Sample size was large enough in the original research. Infact, the very purpose why I wrote this is because it’d create a very large sample size.
Unrepresentative Samples | The basic structure of eye is same for almost all humans. There is no way large enough sample group can not represent larger population as a whole.
No control group used | There are plenty of people in control group, for example, people with myopic eyes who are against the opinions presented herein.
No blind testing | There is no way we can implement this. A subject will come to know whether he or she is in test or in control group. This is done primarily to eliminate placebo effect. In this case, the changes can be verified by a vision testing equipment.
Cherry-picked results | There is no cherry picking results to prove the point here. This worked effectively for all subjects aged under 20. But it was not the case with older adults.
Unreplicable results | I recommended it to several people in my life: my friends and family. And they reported positive results. Based on that, I can safely say that its 100% replicable.
Journals and Citations | This is the weak point in this article. I admit. The journals I’m citing was not met with a positive response as one reddit user pointed it out to me. However, just because it couldn’t make it to the major journals doesn’t mean it’s full of psuedo-science. A lot factors can determine its ultimate fate and it may not be its authenticity and accuracy. Having said that, even journals published in major magazine like Nature can still be flawed.
This is my response to the readers who completely disregard it without much-thought, just because it comes off as against the popular opinion. All I want is people to have better quality of life and have a critical attitude to even the popular belief. At the end of the day, it’s your life and you’re free to believe in anything you want. But when the outcomes of experiment goes against your beliefs, it’s better to let go of it.

Keep experimenting and debunking myths !