Ok, you're too busy to prove me wrong and improve your vision, yet you have time to look up further rhetoric on the net and make posts here.

Most of your arguments for this method of curing bad vision are:
a) straw man arguments (e.g. glasses don't cure your vision)
b) citing irrelevant truisms (e.g. use it or lose it, binocular vision exercises help binocular vision problems)or supposed authorities
c) "you may know more than me, but education is programmed by commercial interests and thus is full of falsehoods, and facts are relative anyway, and even if they aren't, human knowledge is not static, so anything is possible"


I never said that I don't believe people doing these exercises *felt* an improvement. I said I don't believe there was a significant objective permanent improvement.

If a person can read one or two lines away from perfect on an acuity chart, I indeed believe that they may consider themselves "blind". And if they have some small fluctuation/change in their prescription, due to their eye changing on its own, by squinting, by "learning how to see", or through what they ascribe to the power of some exercise, that's very nice. That was their experience. Yes, I heartily agree that perception of how well you see is very subjective. How well you *actually* see is not.

Now if there is a person who cannot see the big "E" on top of the chart and their prescription was like -3.00, and 1 year later, through whatever exercises they do, they can read the 20/20 line at the bottom, I'd like to know how they did it! That's not just someone's experience, that's real.
And I'm sure millions of people in this world would pay to know how to do it - they already pay thousands of dollars to have laser surgery.

The truth is that there is no coherent explanation for these exercises. Are you saying I cannot understand a physical theory of how the eye functions because I believe a different one?
Let me use a quote of something you said in an above post:

"I draw the line with the source and some logic and does it actually work"
Source: someone from a primitive medical period
Logic: no coherent explanation for conflicting observations
Does it actually work: no actual published proof other than testimonials

Are you going to accept some guy's medical theories from the 1920s just because they appeal to your "natural" approach to improving health?
Such as practicing incrementally seeing on visual acuity charts makes your sight better? This is like saying that if I practice jumping higher progressively, I will one day be able to jump over buildings.

As for the "educated" people you cite, I believe what they said was either:
a)lies or exaggeration, most likely for commercial gain,
b)taken out of context and not actually supporting these claims,
c)describing a small fluctuation,
or d)describing improvements due to physiological changes unrelated to any exercises

This sort of nonsense is easy to propagate for internal subjective/psychological problems like pain, depression, anxiety, lack of sense of well-being, but vision can externally and objectively be quantitatively measured. So proving or disproving these assertions is possible.
Do you honestly believe that there are people out there who can make significant refractive errors go away, but are too busy to publish an experiment showing it, and become filthy rich?

Whatever. If you're not legally required to wear glasses to drive by the ministry of transportation, your refractive error is not major anyway. In which case, your prescription is probably something like +1.00-0.75x180 and all your "results" would be highly subjective anyway, and not applicable to someone with serious trouble seeing.