Repost here of what I posted today in our Facebook group:  

HEADS UP! The media vultures are circling. :D A documentary film maker is yet again contacting students, looking for a scoop on natural myopia control, our approach, a take on mainstream alternatives, and generally doing a story on myopia. I turn these requests down for years now, since it’s quite the Pandora’s Box.

Here’s why:

It’s quite difficult to tell our story (or generally, any working natural myopia control), without also saying that the mainstream is doing the wrong thing. We’re talking it becoming apparent who created the myopia epidemic, a story that could be about profiteering, malpractice, involving a 100 billion dollar industry, shareholder, millions of licensed medical professionals. That’s a big group and we don’t really want to appear to be the authors of that kind of message.

Or it could be a story about individuals trying to defy the rules, which might turn out even less great for us.

One little group and their unorthodox ideas about myopia control. You see where I’m going? It’s a) somewhat unlikely that the final production would serve our interests, and either way, b) it never turns out well to be a small, casual group suggesting that a much bigger group with serious vested interests is doing the wrong thing.

Sure, the story could be told well. New ideas, alternatives, us being cutting edge and exploring options. No finger pointing, just established vs. experimental. I’ve told mainstream media who asked for my input that we’d need editorial control if they want to use our resources, to make sure all interests are well served. Barring that it would be naive to blindly (heh) trust anyone who will create material that will have to be marketable (sold to mainstream outlets), to be telling a story that will keep everyone happy.

Use your best judgment if you are contacted. We don’t want to stonewall obviously, we are happy to chat, but we also don’t want potentially unrequited enthusiasm to be used in a way that may not be to our benefit.

Make sense?

Journalists are a lot like cops.  They’ll be your best friend, looking for a story.  Your interests and their interests may not at all align though, and since they’re experts at concealing this (and you’re not), we could easily wind up in hot waters.  Or less sinister someone might just be excited like we are, a new scoop, a story to sell, and they don’t really have to worry about the fallout that could end up on us, not them.  

Remember that money trumps all.  Remember what happened to most early visionaries in history, going counter an established system.  

Few happy endings, for those sticking their noses past established boundaries.

Of course I’m paranoid.  But I also feel protective of this resource we built together, of the years of work and sharing that have gone into all of this, and making sure that others can find this resource intact in the future.  Figure that a pile of high paid lawyers from any lens manufacturers could shut us down in a heartbeat, and everybody would be back to myopia dark ages.

All that said, I don’t necessarily want to stop someone from telling a great story.  I’m merely suggesting that you realize that we should be careful what is said, and how it’s said, to a larger, potentially less open minded audience.

And if in doubt, just ask me via e-mail or in the Facebook group.