Heads-Up: Jake is in Rant Mode
I come from a family of medical doctors, as you may know. My father was a general practitioner for a large part of his career, and my mother a pediatrician. They both had private practices, and ran clinics at various stages of their work.
We didn’t have the best relationship, while I was growing up. This should probably be a general disclaimer for this site, the fact that I probably have a chip on my shoulder about dogmatic thinking and a general disinterest in questioning purported facts. I’ve seen the various lavish gifts brought to the offices frequently from pharma reps, ranging from large TVs to fancy vacations. I’ve heard all the dinner table talk about how people in general are stupid and need to be told what to do.
That’s how you end up with eye gurus who prefer vagabonding the planet, question authority, and generally distrust various pars of the establishment.
Here’s a comment on my recent YouTube video on confirmation bias, with an interesting bit of perspective:
Ben makes a strong point. Trauma treatment, vs. chronic conditions.
To be fair, I’d call my mother if my baby boy has a cough, and get her advice. I’d prefer that over a Google search, and her 40 years as a pediatrician certainly warrants a degree of respect and faith in her ability to put together a solid diagnosis.
But by the same token, my father insists that I should take statins, and that my Hashimotos is a genetic condition (meanwhile, diet changes ‘fixed’ both issues, no pills necessary – a fact he chooses to ignore despite blood tests leaving no doubt in the facts).
There is, no question, a notable degree of quackery in modern retail medicine, especially on the chronic conditions treatment front. Kids being prescribed ADHD medication, adults living on insulin shots, the pill popping, pill selling, pill worshipping retail mentality, the big pharma lobby, the otherwise intelligent doctors accepting gifts and choosing to believe the pharma story. All of that, is quite simply epic quackery.
These days when optometrists or ophthalmologists contact me to ask for ‘studies’ or try to insult various guru-rific insights, I no longer try to present a logical case for natural myopia control. I used to, for a long time, for something that I since realized just amounts to trolling by what are simply quacks with a piece of paper conveying professional authority, on their office wall.
Anybody who claims to be interested (and ‘licensed’) regarding myopia control, needs to show us some meaningful and definitive results from their own practice, before questioning what we do. That or come with an appropriately humble attitude, to a place where all there is, is a massive amount of significant and consistent results. Almost everyone who comes to endmyopia and takes it seriously, improves their eyesight significantly. Conversely, I’ve yet to hear from a single so-called professional who can even show a single case of multi diopter improvement.
Not a single, solitary one. In decades of practices.
And of course, there is the other part, the vast majority of ‘professionals’ who claim that myopia is an incurable illness, a genetic failing, while selling glasses and generally being clueless. If you are willing to invest 90 days into testing what endmyopia claims to be effective myopia control and reversal, you yourself will come to the only logical conclusion – which is that they all have not the foggiest clue about myopia, or what they’re talking about. You can learn to reduce your own myopia, something said to be impossible, in less time than it took them to get through a single semester of school.
Here’s an example, to the general point of optometric quackery:
Salma’s young daughter has myopia and been given lenses. The first optometrist also ‘diagnosed’ astigmatism.
When Salma went to another optometrist, who clearly took more care in not senselessly selling however much lens correction he could, she discovered that her daughter doesn’t even have astigmatism at all. That’s right, no astigmatism. The kid’s vision is perfectly fine without that messy axis specific correction, that if worn would have lead to lens-induced, real astigmatism later on.
How qualified is that first optometrist? Would you trust your child’s eyes to that person? Why do we hear quacking noises in the background?
Cheers,
-Jake
