You gotta dig into supplement 1 to find the treatment:
") Input power <100VA, input voltage: AC10V-240V, 50Hz/60Hz
版本号 8 : 2.0，20200120 版
2) Low-level single-wavelength red-light wavelength: 650nm±10nm
3) Diameter of low-level single-wavelength red-light cursor: 7mm±3mm, spot at the observation port: 10mm ± 2mm
4) Light source output power: 2.0mW±0.5mW; At a distance of 100mm: 1.07-1.42mw
...the intervention group are treated with the intervention instrument twice a day from Monday to Friday, three minutes each time, with an interval of at least 4 hours (morning break before school and afternoon break before school), under the supervision of the school teacher/coordinator in addition to routine study and life. All children have a unique corresponding personal account and password. They need to swipe the card and log in the system for verification before starting the intervention device.... the optical energy will stop automatically after three minutes of use, leave the blue eye patch, close your eyes and rest for 3-5 minutes until the light spots before your eyes disappear."
^ So it sounds like the students might even have light spots (temporary blindness)? for a few minutes after the treatment.
No use of near-infrared (in the 850nm range), only red light (in the 650 range), so if attempting to recreate at home make sure the red light therapy device is in 650 not red + infrared combination as many are. Though if you Google you can find plenty of studies and resources suggesting NIR can be safe and effective for the eyes as well.
I use red and NIR for collagen boosting on the skin but had until now been too afraid to directly expose my closed eyelids w/o protective goggles as I noticed light spots (I use a close-up helmet). Taking the leap of faith and using light therapy to the point that I have light spots for a few minutes after treatment as described in the study is a leap of faith that I'm afraid may be beyond me.
>if you Google you can find plenty of studies and resources suggesting NIR can be safe and effective for the eyes as well.
Infrared in the eye causes cataracts, a fact that is all over Google search results. Workers in steel mills for example are about 26 times more likely to need cataract surgery than others their age, but maybe it is not the near-infrared fraction doing that?
I've seen many studies of the effects of red light on the eye, but none of the effects of NIR on the eye, but in avoiding exposing the eyes of experimental human subjects to NIR, maybe researchers are using an overabundance of caution?
The wavelength is very important too. 808nm is damaging to the eyes for example, but has wound healing properties when applied directly to injuries[1]. This kind of stuff is a great example of the vast trove of interesting research that nobody outside the alt health world will ever do much with.
Most people in the health field don't know about a lot of it either. Unless they're a researcher, they just stick to the protocol on their Epic screen for the most part.
This is so sad but true. In my experience, most doctors learn approximately nothing after graduating medical school. The miracle of AI will be that it will replace these useless people.
You can melt rocks with any wavelength, it really depends on the power, cataracts included (assuming non ionizing wavelengths).
I work for hours in my VR headset, with eye tracking enabled...I should probably check up on what that power is.
edit: My point seems to have been missed. IR in the eyes will cause cataracts, but it requires extreme power. It's the heating from the extreme power causing the cataracts, not the wavelength of the photons. The wavelength of the photon just helps that power get absorbed in a way that it's not noticed by things like the retina. IR lasers are especially dangerous because you won't look away/blink, or know besides feeling the heat.
Well, that's technically false [1]. Metal laser cutting/surfacing is common. My point was (besides ionizing radiation), it's not the wavelength that matters, it's the intensity. I changed "steel" to "rocks" to help make the point clear.
> You gotta dig into supplement 1 to find the treatment: "[...] Light source output power: 2.0mW±0.5mW; At a distance of 100mm: 1.07-1.42mw"
Elsewhere it said class 2, which would be < 1 mW. A laser pointer.
> I use red and NIR for collagen boosting on the skin but had until now been too afraid to directly expose my closed eyelids w/o protective goggles as I noticed light spots (I use a close-up helmet). Taking the leap of faith and using light therapy to the point that I have light spots for a few minutes after treatment as described in the study is a leap of faith that I'm afraid may be beyond me.
That's a lot more power. I would avoid anything outside of the visible range and lasers with too much power. For those natural self protection mechanism probably only kicks in when its too late.
I'm not a doctor, but I believe the mechanism that causes spots isn't harmful. It's a form of exhaustion of the sensing cells and doesn't necessarily damage them.
Damage really only happens when you get photon burns, which I don't think is possible with closed eyelids and a conventional light-source.
> It's a form of exhaustion of the sensing cells and doesn't necessarily damage them.
As someone with experience in the field: this is half true at best, since you can get the same symptons with proper, permanent and irreversible damage. Claiming it is "just exhaustion" is a dangerous attitude to have.
There are optical illusions where you stare at a highly saturated color for a while and then close your eyes, seeing a negative of the image you stared at in your eyes.
Continuous color sensing is just one of the fictions our brains tell us unfortunately. If you play outside without sunglasses you will find that everything inside looks extremely dark. That's not just pupil contraction, although that plays a role. The photo receptors in your eye have a recharge rate, and very loud colors can exceed that. Your brain keeps adjusting to compensate but you can catch it via rapid changes, like closing your eyes.
However, you must be very careful around possible IR or UV sources as there will be no reflex to keep your eyes closed, look away or close your pupils! You will at most feel the warmth of the light source in the skin of your face, at which point it is likely too late.
If intentionally sticking your head in a strong light source, wear eye protection.
Interesting, I wonder what the mechanism of action could be. Over-exposure to blue light is potentially related to macular degeneration, if blue light causes axial elongation (getting more nearsighted, eye getting more football shaped) that could potentially be related, since more nearsighted eyes are at higher risk for macula issues. There have also been links to red light use on the macula improving macular health, but not axial changes.
I also wonder, but it seems less likely, if the effect is related to defocusing of the eye, from intentionally not being in front of a screen for 3 minutes. Holding things close to the face, including computer, phone, and book use, causes nearsightnedness from emmetropization (NOT from muscle use, muscle strain has nothing to do with vision issues).
> I also wonder, but it seems less likely, if the effect is related to defocusing of the eye, from intentionally not being in front of a screen for 3 minutes.
Unfortunately, the control group did nothing, instead of looking at something far away for 3 minutes, that is not red light.
Another interesting control group could have used light at the other end of the visible range.
I think the prevailing theory is it's not so much about 'what red light does', but 'what red light deprivation causes.' the improvement is the human body behaving in the conditions it developed for.
Light therapy is providing the body with what it is deprived of more every generation as we move indoors and replace incandescent sources with LED light sources.
I despise the discussions that come out of talking about myopia. Everyone completely guesses at how things work, and so many people chime talking about things they don't understand. Mitochondria specifically respond to red light. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2996814/
Okay, I've noticed that red-text-on-blue-background or vice-versa is super hard to read, because our eyes have quite a bit of chromatic aberration and can't focus on both ends of the spectrum at the same time.
So is it perhaps just training the eye to focus on the red end rather than the blue end, as a sort of exercise?
(Also, did you ever notice that optometrists' signs are always deep blue, and thus hard to focus on? Ope, can't even see the sign, better head in and get an exam!)
>(NOT from muscle use, muscle strain has nothing to do with vision issues).
Eye strain that causes pseudo-pyopia is gznerally thought to be triggered by ciliary spasms.
The ciliary muscle, as its name indicates, is a muscle.
So I'm a bit confused here?
Heh, once again, my old optician John Rose in London is some years ahead of the curve, I’ll be darned. He’s had this red light therapy bed installed at his practice for a few years now.
I ordered one about a year ago and forgot all about it. After a few apologies for the lateness of the shipping, the order never arrived. This comment reminded me, so I just emailed them to see what's up.
I also bought these and I used them twice and then have forgotten all about them until right now. I'll have to put a reminder to start using them again, it's only 3 minutes once a week.
Yeah I also bought a "photo red" 665nm 1W diode after that last thread, stared at it occasionally at low power and never noticed any difference. I guess it's one of those things you gotta do for several decades and unless you leave one eye as a control there's nothing to compare to anyway.
China, where the prevalence of myopia is near 90% for high-schoolers, has mandated less screen time, less homework, and required outdoor time. It appears to have some effect as there's a small decrease in myopia:
Curious that this is considered new. When I was a kid in Russia (20 years ago), we had treatment for myopia that was basically applying a tube with a lot of red lights in it to your eyes for 3-4 minutes, 4 times a day.
The mechanisms for developing myopia have been pretty well understood for a while now.
I suspect the lack of an investigation into prevention had more to do with people not really caring until now. I bet that myopia prevalence in China is approaching 100%, especially for "children of the lockdown", and so it's getting critical attention as a public health crisis.
There were doctors who had technique for preventing/halting myopia from developing in children, but it wasn't this mainstream thing, and it certainly wasn't pushed on people.
Or will they have a monopoly on the therapeutic red light glasses that all kids will need? After all, the market could be even bigger than now because all parents would want to make sure their kids get their daily dose of red light.
That's great that a philosophy major has a blog and a Facebook group for his pet theory. There is no science here. I hate how vapid the this space is, there is so much guesswork and making things up. His comment about wearing underpowered lenses for example, has been repeatedly shown to either have no effect or worsen myopia https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cxo.12978 His idea that you can look at slightly doubled things in defocus and work to "fuse" them is insane, he just did something on a walk by chance and then somehow claimed it's part of the process.
Again, as far as science knows, there is no way to reverse myopia. It's like asking how to make your liver less elongated. The tissue has grown into the shape it's in, it doesn't reshape itself over time.
Anecdote: eye exercises and subsequent vision therapy (went to an ophthalmologist out of pocket) were very beneficial for me (someone with mild myopia and no other diagnosed conditions), I'm thankful I did it, and would recommend to everyone, even those without myopia. I had a small reduction in my rx, and many other benefits.
That field didn't exist 30-40 years ago, and it is increasingly common now treating conditions (not myopia) that were previously thought to be non-reversible. But who knows what the future holds.
I did it partially so your hard statements might need to be toned down.
I have proof from several opthalmologist exams just in case one wonders. And the reversal has been subsequent (several diopters).
Although I haven't exactly followed the protocols on endmyopia but am aware of their existence, I have been scientific enough to try so I have this anecdotal result that it is possible at least.
As far as science knows, axial elongation is reversible in rhesus monkeys and isn't even fixed in the first place.
To clarify, none of the studies you linked to show reversal of myopia in humans. Some of them show a fast-acting (minutes to hours) effect of defocus on small axial length reduction. I don't know what is happening in the eye here (muscular?) but it's obviously not the physical reshaping of the eye's structure required to reverse myopia. The rest of the studies, like I've said, shown that myopia can be slowed, and maybe stopped, but there is no known way to reverse it. It's disgraceful that section is titled "Reversing Myopia".
There is one important study linked in there that I haven't seen before, which I'm guessing the grandparent comment is referring to: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23493295/ Assuming this effect isn't the same as the irrelevant short term effect, maybe there's something here. This study is kind of weird as non-standard meta analysis where they didn't do the trials themselves.
It's also important to call out that myopia happens primarily in youth, as the eye continuously grows to find focus. For most people this stops between 20-30 years old. The eye stops growing in response to over-focus. If there is a way to reverse myopia in humans (which there is still no evidence for, even with your link), then it may only be possible in youth, not adulthood, when the eye has stopped growing.
Miyosmart lenses for kids have proven to be excellent so far, but I have become happy with my myopic superpower of magnification. Just hope my eyes don’t fall apart internally as I get old.
In my opinion it's not worth it to bother with all of these "tricks". You need to adjust your lifestyle and you'll be able to get rid of myopia the same way you initially got it. Takes years though - I'm down about 3 diopters after 2.5 years.
I didn't have glasses (lens) as a teenager, so I wasn't wearing any up to when I got to about -2.0/-1.5. From that time I was generally wearing glasses more often than not, and my eyesight hasn't dramatically changed. For me your theory simply doesn't hold.
Myopia is usually caused by a combination of lifestyle and lens use. For example looking at a phone 33.33cm away is equivalent to wearing a -3 lens and looking into the distance.
These results sound great. I fear only that it will take a very long time before any of this becomes an approved treatment. They probably require more studies, and for that first money needs to be organized. And then the study itself needs to be organized. And finally conducted over several years. And then perhaps they require yet another, bigger study. By that time millions of kids around the world will be grown up to have myopia. Too late to be treated.
See other thread on how this works. I'm sure parents won't buy such devices without some very official stamp. Until then they are probably also forbidden to market it as what it is. It anyway looks like something that should be provided by school and kindergarten.
This result is not inconsistent with the "spend more time outdoors" advice. It's using visible red light that's very intense - more than we see indoors, and mechanisms as simple as "triggers dopamine release in the retina" could explain it.
If you really care about myopia prevention in children, take a look at Atropine eye drops. Meta-analysis studies show a consistent and powerful impact on treatment groups, to the point of over 0.5 diopter prevention per year.
Read somewhere of an old lady who kept her eyes sharp by facing the sun with closed eyelids every day. Don’t remember the source, but I think it might even have been on HN. Anyone else?
All the blue light from monitors and phones are simply too dim to be part of any physiological changes. All the papers that people quote that are of both quality and actually show anything involve blue light far brighter than your monitor; all the papers that are quality but involve relevant brightness show no effect.
There are also papers of low quality, which should not be mentioned, but seem to provide the backbone of the myth.
") Input power <100VA, input voltage: AC10V-240V, 50Hz/60Hz 版本号 8 : 2.0，20200120 版 2) Low-level single-wavelength red-light wavelength: 650nm±10nm 3) Diameter of low-level single-wavelength red-light cursor: 7mm±3mm, spot at the observation port: 10mm ± 2mm 4) Light source output power: 2.0mW±0.5mW; At a distance of 100mm: 1.07-1.42mw
...the intervention group are treated with the intervention instrument twice a day from Monday to Friday, three minutes each time, with an interval of at least 4 hours (morning break before school and afternoon break before school), under the supervision of the school teacher/coordinator in addition to routine study and life. All children have a unique corresponding personal account and password. They need to swipe the card and log in the system for verification before starting the intervention device.... the optical energy will stop automatically after three minutes of use, leave the blue eye patch, close your eyes and rest for 3-5 minutes until the light spots before your eyes disappear."
^ So it sounds like the students might even have light spots (temporary blindness)? for a few minutes after the treatment.
No use of near-infrared (in the 850nm range), only red light (in the 650 range), so if attempting to recreate at home make sure the red light therapy device is in 650 not red + infrared combination as many are. Though if you Google you can find plenty of studies and resources suggesting NIR can be safe and effective for the eyes as well.
I use red and NIR for collagen boosting on the skin but had until now been too afraid to directly expose my closed eyelids w/o protective goggles as I noticed light spots (I use a close-up helmet). Taking the leap of faith and using light therapy to the point that I have light spots for a few minutes after treatment as described in the study is a leap of faith that I'm afraid may be beyond me.