Today was supposed to be about optometry, hypocrisy, and pseudoscience.
Very fun and interesting stuff. Understanding pseudoscience as a premise will help understand where retail optometry strayed from the path of actual science.
You might say, Jake, it’s obvious. Mainstream optometry is a bunch of lens sales shops, making money. And you would of course be correct. But we get optometrists coming here, shouting, “show us the science”! Are they actually interested in science, though? Are they basing their current treatment and lens sales on real science, or is it actually all just pseudo scientific nonsense?
Understanding the rather key and fundamental difference between science and pseudo science, is key to understanding the optometrist’s claims and allegiances (whether it’s to truth and eye health, or dogma and profit). Define pseudoscience, gain the correct view point to understand the problem with @endmyopia vs. the mainstream.
See? Writes itself, this topic. And yet, … cliffhanger!
Because alas, it’s time to cover Paul’s progress real quick instead, today. Actual vision improvement accounts always trump theory and optometry hair-pulling. We’re about vision improvement and myopia education first, and who-wins-the-argument, and science discussion, second. 😉
If you feel overly teased right now and want to draw your own conclusions, go see CrashCourse’s great video explainer on pseudoscience (via our Twitter feed):
Follow @endmyopia on the Twitters!
Above screenshot, giving away the crux of it. “The only genuine test of a theory, is attempting to falsify it”.
But, Paul. That’s what this post is really about.
If you’re going to go all science on the premise of @endmyopia, you’ll try to disprove the theory that astigmatism can be eliminated, and myopia reduced. You do what Paul did over the past year and a half, and put the theory to the test.
Here’s what Paul found so far:
1.5 year findings:
One diopter of myopia reduced (in line with the stated average of 0.75 diopters per year improvement). Additionally, 0.75 diopters of astigmatism eliminated. Paul states his vision with the current reduced prescription is 20/20 and 20/15, respectively, incidentally also far beyond the (generally) state required 20/40 for uncorrected vision for driving.
This Is The Actual Challenge To Optometry: Prove Us Wrong.
We prove the mainstream wrong on a daily basis. Their claim that myopia is irreversible, we shattered it more times than I can count (until, logging tool!) They keep selling glasses and shouting, you guys show us the science on how you claim to reverse myopia!
But that’s a logical (and scientific) fallacy. It’s really in their court. Taking a few months to try our method, and trying to prove us wrong, is the only way not to show themselves to be plainly and simply, hypocrites enamored by pseudoscience (and profit).