Similar Questions:

Do raster glasses, like these, work for improving eyesight (if you are for example short-sighted)?

VISION FIX trains the muscles of the eye by forcing the eye to jump from hole to hole to see a complete picture. As a result of this ocular muscles are working and thus becoming stronger.


Vision Fix eyetrainers stimulate ocular muscles and the blood supply of the eyes. They improve visual acuity and stop the exhaustion of the eyes.


Raster glasses developement is based on researches and discoveries of famous oftalmologists (Bates, Koplak, Schneider) who find out that we can fix eyesight with special techniques and exercises but very few people have the time and patience to practise exercises. That is why the raster glasses are perfect solution and alternative because they provide ocular muscle training that can be done during daily activities.


Based on researches made by institut of science and technology from Russian ministry of health was given positive opinion about the effects of wearing the raster glasses by prof. doc. N.P. Pashtaeva.

I am interested in the long-term improvement: correcting your eye sight.

  • they have the effect similar to the narrowing of the pupil (or diaphragm in a camera) which widens the field of focus Commented Jan 22, 2012 at 17:20
  • 1
    Are you talking about immediate improvement (pinhole effect) or are you talking about long-term, permanent, improvement?
    – Zano
    Commented Jan 22, 2012 at 20:31
  • Long-term. I've updated my question accordingly.
    – duality_
    Commented Jan 23, 2012 at 0:48
  • 1
    "oftalmologists"? Doesn't make me think much of the domain knowledge of the vendor... Commented Jan 23, 2012 at 19:39
  • 3
    @LarryOBrien, I'll note that the site appears located in Slovenia, and the language definitely isn't English - so translating the phth in ophthalmologist to an ft, isn't necessarily a sign of poor domain knowledge, so much as linguistic knowledge. (Although I'm fairly sure the product doesn't work, but for non-linguistic reasons).
    – John C
    Commented Jan 24, 2012 at 13:10

1 Answer 1


While the immediate effect of increasing focus at the expense of "lightness" is well established, there seem to be no studies supporting long-term vision improvement. In fact, companies selling this product in the United States are not allowed to claim any long-term effect due to the lack of formal clinical studies.

According to Casewatch:

In four separate cases, three companies and five individuals have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims about the vision-improvement benefits of their "pinhole eyeglasses," which are opaque plastic "lenses" with multiple pinholes. The FTC maintained that, among other things, the defendants represented that the pinhole glasses could correct vision disorders and permanently cure a wide range of vision deficiencies, including farsightedness, nearsightedness and astigmatism. The proposed settlements would prohibit the defendants in the future from making the alleged false claims or engaging in the practices challenged by the FTC. In addition, two of the companies have agreed to provide refunds to all consumers who purchased the pinhole eyeglasses from them.

Specifically, the FTC states that:

  • the use of pinhole eyeglasses does not result in long-term vision improvement in these vision problems;
  • pinhole eyeglasses do not cure, correct or ameliorate specific vision problems;
  • they are not an adequate substitute for prescription lenses or contact lenses; and
  • the defendants' eye-exercise programs do not strengthen muscles or improve vision; nor do they reduce or eliminate the need for prescription lenses.

To summarize: Probably not.

  • I'm also prone to believe that "probably not", but if I don't believe their claims, why should I believe Casewatch's? There isn't much proof of their claims either. I was hoping for some clinical trials or something along those lines. Oh, liked your answer though ;)
    – duality_
    Commented Jan 24, 2012 at 16:05
  • 4
    @duality_ Good question. It boils down to this: Since there are no studies (we don't have any reason to disbelieve that specific claim since it's easily falsifiable) we have no evidence for or against the claim. Except for this detail: our current understanding of optics and ophthalmology doesn't support the vendors' claim. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim that goes against established knowledge, in this case the vendors. In absence of studies corroborating this effect, we have no reason to believe it. Hence the "probably" in "probably not".
    – Zano
    Commented Jan 24, 2012 at 21:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .