Newsflash: We here at endmyopia do *not* know what we’re talking about.
We’re a pile of simpletons, students collective reducing hundreds (thousands?) of diopters, and ophthalmologists independently verifying such improvements, including optometrist confirmed complete elimination of astigmatism, stories of optometrists expressing amazement, and high myopia to 20/20 vision recoveries (5 diopters reversed!), all worthless. Even optometrists confirming their *own* improving eyesight, forget it. Ya’ll are a bunch of simpletons, ya hear?
Hey, Jake, you say. What’s your issue today?
Got this YouTube comment from a behavioral optometrist:
Jake, Your understanding of the visual process is shockingly simplistic. I began my search with the Bates method, but there is so much more that we know today than we know a hundred years ago when Bates did his excellent work. You claim to be an eye guru – whatever that is supposed to mean. You might be interested to know that vision is not in the eye. The visual process is much more than just seeing clearly and the issues often causing myopia are much more complex than what you are saying, and clearly much more than you understand. The visual process is a brain/body process that is consistently amenable to therapy. There is one thing you are getting right though: Eye exercises don’t work. I am a developmental optometrist and have been helping people improve their eyesight and their overall visual efficiency for 30 years. I have never done eye exercises with anyone. Ever. Vision therapy is a program designed to help people use their visual process with greater efficiency and less stress/effort by training the brain – NOT THE EYES. Developmental optometry directly addresses the real causes and complicating factors of myopia by the strategic use of lenses and therapy. You really should take some time and investigate what is really available instead of continuing your all-too-simplistic, but very slick messaging.
This, definitely topic of a future (super slick, naturally) YouTube video.
I have fond fondnesses for behavioral optometrists. They get lots of flak from the mainstream for being cutting edge, for looking for answers, for not being all unquestioning status quo. I never have a bad word to say about behavioral optometrists.
Which … may make this post harder to formulate.
So let’s try this.
Occam’s Razor. Or, the simplest answer is usually actually the right one.
That’s the premise. If you absolutely and beyond a shadow of a doubt conquered your multi diopter myopia, and you’ve observed hundreds (thousands?) of people do the same, you obviously found a solution. You’ve found a solution, that in principle at least is 1) very simple and 2) biologically sound.
When somebody comes to you who says, “hey that’s too simplistic”, while themselves not having found any other successful solution, simple or complex, what exactly does that make their argument?
Myopia is 1) a strain symptom and 2) later on a result of the silly lens treatment that’s advocated by the mainstream. Yes sure, that’s a very simple summary (also, because science says). Is it inaccurate because it’s simple? Well, depends what you’re looking for. Are you trying to validate why you haven’t found a solution, pointing to overwhelming complexity as culprit? Are you looking to irrefutably explain every single possible variable, understand every single aspect of the biology, irrespective of the practical, applicable value of such understanding? Are you chasing your proverbial tail?
Occam’s razor. Simplest answer, usually the correct one.
Of course there’s the ridiculousness of anyone coming here specifically, accusing us of being “too simplistic in our understanding”. Point us to a site then, with more collected vision science and clinical studies. No? Right, there isn’t one. Or point us to a site with more first hand accounts of empirically verifiable reducing myopia. No? Of course not, @endmyopia is where those are. Or perhaps a site with more quoted optometrist and ophthalmologists measuring actual diopter reductions in their patients. There isn’t one? Gee. Then tell the guy who runs it, who verifiably had -5D myopia and now has natural 20/20 vision himself, that he doesn’t understand the visual process. Do it while you yourself have no better answers, (and still wear glasses, most ironically). That’s rational and doesn’t suggest that the individual is actually afraid that the real answer is so simple that nobody needs a medical degree to understand or apply it.
And that’s the crux of the matter. The solution *is* simple. Medical ‘professionals’ hate to hear this. They don’t get to assert authority, point to all those years of study, confuse patients with jargon. There’s no fancy product to sell, no big billing to the insurance company.
Simplistic? My answer to that, yes indeed, it is. Thank you for noticing.