Brooks on vision-improvement.

I think it is fair to say that this (Brooks and NoBones) represents
the
majority-opinion -- to the effect that vision clearing is
impossible.

Otis

+++++++++++

Anecdotally, I've watched this kind of process for years
(other people's experience with Bates, or other methods of natural
vision improvement).

Anecdotally, I have a strong hunch that Bates method can well
be used to help relieve accommodative spam (a/k/a pseudomyopia).

Anecdotally, I've seen lots of stories of people who relieved
a diopter (+/-) of pseudomyopia, then plateaued. Months of
further diligence yielded no further improvement.

What I would love to see is somebody working with an
optometrist before and during their efforts to quantify and
document their progress in terms of:

Accommodative amplitudes

Near point of focus

Visual acuity

Manifest refraction

Cycloplegic refraction [note: referred to by one poster as
"Deadens the eye. Not fair." Plenty fair, actually. It's how the
line between accommodative and axial-length myopia is drawn."

Other measures of accommodative and binocular function

I promise you that most people just exploring their options
would want to understand their potential for reducing refractive
error (eg, myopia). If they are found to have a 2.00d
accommodative component (ie, tonic accommodation) and 3.00d of
axial-length myopia, and if it's found that the former can be
'treated,' but the latter has not been shown to resolve with
current (non-pharmacological) interventions, then it would help
them to have a good understanding of possible outcomes.

It would also help by facilitating side-by-side comparisons
of the various natural vision improvement methods currently
available.

I find that--in this sense, and others--this pathological
fear-mongering (in regards to eye doctors) by some in the
"community" thwarts any opportunities to prove the concept. In
some cases (to be clear: NOT you, David), I believe that's
exactly why the fear-mongering continues.

If nobody's allowed to measure and document, then nobody can
INvalidate the method.

I've never seen any evidence that anybody's ever changed
their axial-length through vision therapy. I've been looking at
it for quite some time.

====================

Since Neil Brooks declares his is a layman, we must ask how
he is qualified to make ANY of statements or claims.

++++++++++++