Eye docs are taught stuff that was established by anatomists and scientists during the last 200 years. Not from the evil-businessman textbook of science. Do you have any alternate explanations of the eye? You haven't provided any, and I have seen nothing else. Go get a cow eye. You will see that the anatomical parts in it are as I have described.
You have not detailed any of the alternatives to glasses or their mechanisms.
What makes Paul Chek the expert on the science of the human body? Is he not selling his courses for profit?

Would be nice if you had some numerical results of your progress with the exercises, and if you explained what they were. How are they different from "one-dimensional" exercises?

Anyone who has had improved visin from glasses? Well, it's much better when the glasses are on, right? Long-term? I'm sure you can find someone who had amblyopia (sometimes called a "lazy" eye, which is often mixed up with strabismus) treated with patching and wearing glasses. Wiht contacts? Ortho-k.

Even if eye docs were taught by people who ran the eye business, shouldn't the people who know about eyes naturally be the people who run the business? But actually the profs at the schools are not successful businessmen, that's why they become teachers. The universities are not run by business.
Ophthalmologists make no profit from glasses or contacts. Yet they do not disagree on their usefullness. They would be the ones who would actually make money on having alternatives. But I don't see any.