⛈ Does Endmyopia ... Suck? (website feedback request)

A bit of a clickbait title.


I’m wondering whether we’re on the right path here, as far as initial impressions. One big thing that needs improvement is going to be addressed hopefully by the “rough guide” - to make it easier for newbies to not give up, get enough of a starting point to be able to manage the whole myopia process.

That’s been a consistent complaint and I really think that’s a big one. The 7 day e-mail is just not quite enough to get a lot of people confident enough to tackle the subject.

So that’s hopefully going to be addressed soon.

The other thing is the presentation of the site / content / angle of things. We’re currently doing a lot of podcast outreach, and the response rate isn’t huge. I wonder if we toned down the Jake-factor, and went more heavy on science and quoting studies on the top level, it may be more of a credible starting point for investigation.

   Not sure I'd buy whatever this guy is selling.  😂 

This is a big question mark, really.

It looks to me almost like sites by people selling diet plans and fitness advice and their bestseller book things.

Vs. more of this nerdy-type stuff, maybe cleaned up visually somehow:

And just like I don’t want the ‘rough guide’ to become the bible or full layout of every last detail, same with the site I don’t necessarily want to oversell us.

I worry if we go too hard on credibility we may be seen as a legitimate threat, and there’s no way I can afford to fight off an army of in-house lawyers from a billion dollar lens manufacturer.

And we’ve got some really nice podcasts pending, just as a side note. It may all be fine, that might work itself out over time just by the roster of podcasts we’ll eventually have to point to.

Who knows. I guess I’m really asking your opinion to get some more community feedback of where YOU see this all should be heading.

Also a side note, I hired an army of SEO people and writers. Yes a whole army of them (not an agency either, but one by one piecemeal of ingredient-minions I think we’ll need). Mostly I’ve got zero interest in SEO but the site traffic has fallen off a cliff the last two months, and also I realize that we don’t rank well for about a billion keywords that desperate myopes type into google. All they find is the mainstream dogma talk, and Bates Method eye exercises, the poor things. So keywords have to be staged, content has to be written that addresses those questions and is also Google friendly, and sites have to be found to link to us and give thumbs up to our content.

It’s something I genuinely don’t want to wade into but our traffic especially on relevant eyeball keywords is just sad. I’ve always hoped Google would figure out which way the beard blows, but that’s not the case at all.

Naturally this will as usual cost about four billion dollars and result mostly in headaches and lots of lessons on what not to do, and firing (or executing, either way) half of the SEO army. But we can’t keep on ignoring this forever and it seems it won’t just fix itself either.

All of the above, basically a very subtle cry for help - or at least feedback so it’s not just one psychotropic drug addled brain making decisions (which may impact a lot of people down the line).


I wonder what the grounds for these billion dollar optometry companies for sueing you would be. You already state ‘no diopter prescription advice’, not sure if you state ‘see your optometrist’. You could go for legitimacy but also spam the website with disclaimers saying that it’s not medical advice. What’s the claim against the site in such a case?

Podcasts are great, can’t wait for the video chats. Maybe ‘Why Jake’ could be renamed to ‘Introduction’. If that rough guide is exactly what it sounds like, a rough guide and summary of all EM experiences it will turbocharge people’s first experiences of the method. To be honest, I think a lawsuit is probably the only thing that could stop the contagion of EM across the internet. You should consider making website dumps of all content on the website available online so internet vigilantes can take up the fight incase EM goes down. Worst case scenario.


Re: response rate - do you have any comparisons to other sites with outreach efforts? Not an apples to apples comparison, but response rates in direct sales are generally pretty low. It’d be good to have some basis to determine if the response rate you’re getting is similar to others.


With regards to the keywords in search engines:
I do not know how this searching thing on Google works, but I have found Endmyopia.org while I was searching “does Bates method work?”
Then the first link in google was Endmyopia.org with “why Bates method does not work” sentence.

Supposedly I should thank to Mr.Bates for guiding me to Endmyopia.org somehow :slight_smile:

Or finding what usually myopic people search for.
It does not have to be exactly myopia cure.

  • Myopia caused headaches
  • Continuously increasing diopters
  • see like an eagle
  • perfect vision and selfconfidence
  • natural myopia healing/reduction
  • Will I go blind?
  • sick of being a four eyed nerd rejected by girls?

Okay, some of them are probably not the best…

But my core idea is to give people opportunity to find Endmyopia.org even if they do not know the right words for searching it.

I mean, I was lucky as it was on the top of findings list and the probability was maybe 1 in a billion, but who knows how many potential kittens are unluckily missing EM?


lol yeah I also came upon this while watching youtube vids on bates methods and eye yoga going like I don’t understand bates method but it’s fun to try


Isn’t that a good thing for you? I mean, if they are confident then your help is not required?


my big fear with mainstreaming is that they will not go after you per se but the eyeglass companies selling without prescription (lobbyists anyone…they do have billions of dollars to fix laws).

I would also look at how to get selected with keywords including biohacking as that is the main drive right now whether it be diet, exercise, overall health why not eyesight biohacking :smiley:


From my point of view, the current site is good, but it needs a more direct approach for new people without getting too much into science stuff.

I recommended Endmyopia to a myope friend some time ago and he replies “I actually quite like glasses”. I sent him this video and stopped insisting. There are 2 crucial videos that address the main core of motivation, that one and this one.

People are used to glasses, they like them, like the “birds in a cage” Jake mentions. The first contact should be more aggressive and to the point, to remind people the harm glasses actually do to them, that they’re not broken and can fix it if they work towards it and all the life they are missing out. After that, with caught interest, the science stuff: why myopia happens and the basic principles of EM like AF or blur horizon. Sadly, people nowadays react first and foremost to emotion rather than logic.

Deep down, nobody likes glasses. Tell anyone to remove them for a minute and ask them if they are happy with what they see and if they would like to be able to see without them. For someone to follow this method wholeheartedly, they have to first realise that they live in a lie.


I want to amplify lykopsis33’s point. Endmyopia depends on glasses-without-prescription companies. If those companies are forced by the US FDA or other regulatory agencies to verify prescriptions, Endmyopia is sunk. Done. Not only the website and Facebook pages, but practicing the method altogether. Don’t underestimate this threat. I’m old enough to remember the demise of Napster.

I cringe, absolutely cringe, at the amount of public posts regarding people ordering without prescriptions, especially newbies who don’t know what they’re doing. Every post about someone self-prescribing is another step closer to the FDA stepping in and forcing Zenni to verify that prescriptions were written by optometrists. I fear the day we lose that freedom. I remember years before Zenni, begging my optometrist to take the -.50 astigmatism correction off my prescription, and him saying no…the condescension from the optometrist, and the feeling of powerlessness I had. I had no other option. Do not take for granted the freedom we now have.

We need to slow down and proceed more carefully, before the optometric associations use the FDA to go after us. Zenni is, after all, taking away business from the optometrists, so they are highly motivated to shut us down…and placing tighter checks on prescriptions would do just that. Especially for those of us in the US. Maybe it’s different elsewhere, but I couldn’t even buy a colored transparency last month because I was not “working under a doctor’s supervision.” Don’t give the optometric associations nor the FDA more evidence to build a case against us, or against the online glasses places.

My advice would be, in addition to the no-diopter-advice rule, to restrict posts about ordering without doctors’ prescriptions. Otherwise regulatory agencies may use those to shut us down.


but honestly this was too hard to find. I had to go thru a lot of bates method crap to find this but it’s hard to say.

also EM is too sciency for my tastes. I get the science behind it but I think CGHayes published a nice short version. correct to an indoors with natural lighting 20/40. order from zenni. go outside and have fun. decrease correction when able to clear the next or next 2 lines on the snellen.

I never really thought to look up stuff regarding vision improvement until almost a year ago so I think that was my biggest block regarding finding EM. it was more like this was always on the back of my mind every time I took off my glasses for closeup and tried to print push but never really thought to reach out to other ppl.

It’s already illegal to sell contact lenses in the US without a prescription but there’s medical justification for that. I think going after glasses would be harder considering the amount of stores selling readers for $10.

random thought our most powerful ally might be the Chinese government since they’ve got people publishing research on myopia control left and right and it was one of their public schools that gave me the info that convinced me to limit glasses use during close-up.


Prior to finding Endmyopia, optometrists were my favorite Dr appts because they didn’t cause pain like dentists and I didn’t have to undress. Endmyopia was the first time I saw optometrists painted in an unfavorable light.

It’s a stretch but optometrists could be EM’s greatest ally for the ones who buy into the reduced lens method. If they foresee their patients changing lenses at a faster rate then the annual eye check up (while keeping the same frames for glasses), the profitability factor may intrigue them. Their websites can provide EM links to illustrate they’re proactive in correcting vision habits. It would be similar to casinos providing the 800 line for gambling addiction or beer commercials reminding to drink responsibly.

I just discovered my optometrist has a website which mentions they provide everything from eye exams to advanced surgical procedures. I think if a site mentions they provide training on good vision habits via EM, a prospective client may be interested knowing the optometrist is an advocate for ending myopia.

EM may need to change its marketing angle to work with optometrists rather than fight against them. To do that, studies and testimonials will need to persuade them that the method works. If there’s no cost to provide the link, they will love that even more.


There’s a bunch of ‘people don’t want the science’ in this thread. On the contrary, the science presented cleanly to my face is what startled me and got me really interested on my first visit to EM. Even if people don’t know how to read the science, if it looks like it’s backed up by some ‘complicated science stuff’ it becomes more credible. The science is what separates EM from the typical ‘too good to be true’ sales scheme on the internet. Perhaps if Jake was to state the sentence ‘no eye pills, there’s nothing to buy from this website’ then it would become even more curious to the first time visitor.


That’s a lot of good feedback. Nice!

My take on lenses and legality of buying, relatively good chance that “at home” tests are going to proliferate. A lot of phones already have the tech to make much of this work, and products like EyeQue (spelling?) are starting to get some traction. Once an Amazon or Alibaba get focused on online lens sales, it’s game over. The way the Internet eats retail, I’m leaning towards this as the direction. These guys eat one industry at a time, quite methodically. I’m sure the 100 billion dollar lens manufacturing industry, and nice profit margins is on that list.

Also compared to what you can buy over the counter in pill form (that can easily kill you), lenses aren’t that risky (besides driving, granted).

And for sure Bates Method. Especially videos. I sometimes dream of having costumes and doing a whole series of pretend-Bates-teacher videos. With candles and shakras and face paint.

Also quite love the biohacking related keywords idea. Great one!


What felt most off when I was first reading Endmyopia was how it seems to try to be an ecosystem rather than existing in one.

I’m not sure if “Jake-factor” is the right term for this. There’s lots of people who promote themselves successfully. Think Jordan Peterson or Richard Dawkins; they sure can put their name on anything and have it spread like wildfire, even in circles that usually don’t like personality cults.

Rather, the thing is that Endmyopia is highly self-referential. Most content refers from and to Endmyopia, its strange predecessor Frauenfeld Clinic, the guru, and fans who sing praises. Having a single entity in complete control of the narrative irks people, especially on a complex topic like myopia, where it’s not easy to know what to believe.

As things stand, the science section cannot solve this perfectly until it can refer to independent, credible sources that support the specific claims made on Endmyopia. But if we are perfectly honest, these sources do not exist. If you look at the researchers behind many of the papers quoted, you’ll find quite a few of them myopes, wearing thick lenses, convinced that nothing can be done at their age. None of them I know of have referred to the Reduced Lens Method as a possible treatment candidate.

I don’t think there’s a quick way to solve this impression by changing the look and feel of the Endmyopia website. For the science part, I still think an “in your face” dataset could greatly boost credibility. Otherwise, what could help is a more careful approach to things that involve uncertainty, and maybe referencing more viewpoints from elsewhere. What could also help is to put extra emphasis on the nature of Endmyopia as a down-to-earth approach that helped a variety of people in changing their day-to-day vision habits for the better, and that reports about improved refraction followed from there. A main challenge is to turn people who come looking for a way to make their diopters improve into people who realize there’s something off in how they’ve been using their eyes. That’s when the black-and-white “is this a scam” question turns into the more nuanced question how our various behaviors influence our eyesight in the long run.

TL;DR: I don’t think the funny Jake pics turn too many people off, but I do think a whole lot of people look at how self-referential Endmyopia is and quickly write it off as a scam or deluded alternative medicine group.


This is an amazing point. The science doesn’t have to validate ‘The Endmyopia Method’ too much for credibility (maybe it will with time!), but the science does already back up many of the claims made less directly. That’s good enough for most laymen!

The Jake factor and the whole ecosystem self-referential thing is a great point. Personality cults scream ‘dodgy’ to me, even if it is all in good jest. The whole legitimacy thing is the huge thing preventing a change away from that direction probably, because of all those potential lawsuits. In a free speech utopia though, I bet it would be much easier to make strides in a more legitimacy-sounding direction. Maybe Jake can walk the tightrope in that direction if he likes :wink:


Another thought based on my personal experience and what I’ve read on dr gallops website I think the em method is too unnecessarily convoluted.

Imo is much easier to say just use one normalized correction to push reductions. Correct to an indoors with natural lighting 20/40
For me outdoors during the day that was a good blue challenge but not too much. Since my computer screen is beyond arms reach this was also a challenge for the workday. I did not need a separate pair for computer work.

I think another member here also mentioned reducing on her own and working off of a single correction and she seemed rib progress at the standard rate of close to 1 diopter a year before finding us so this while two pairs of glasses may be too complicated for some people’s tastes esp when there is at least one established case where a single normalized improves at the same rate. Might be a good idea to ask the professionals what their patients typical improvement rates are


You can never go too hard. It depends on your goal with the site. One suggestion I have is to keyword “back to 2020”. I think that’s a step in the right direction!


@Varakari That sure sounds valid to me. Will include these thoughts in the ongoing mulling of how to steer the proceedings in the best possible direction.


The website badly needs ordinary navigation info i.e “where am I, what can I do from here, how much will it cost me”. The following should be put in a table on the top page at endmyopia.org or AT MOST one level down with a prominent, well-named link to the table from the top level.

Name: Facebook
Price: free
Access Method: web login
Resources: general chat

Name: https://endmyopia.org/
Price: free, no registration, no login
Access Method: web
Resources: almost all

Name: LeMeow Forum/blog
Price: free after passing a short exam
Access Method: login to https://community.endmyopia.org/
Resources: DIY and mutual support with some monitoring and cross-posting by Jake from the paid / private forum.

Name: paid private individual coaching and mentoring by Jake
Price: varies; contact Jake for current possible arrangements
Access Method: ??? ?? “paid forum” ??
Resources: all of the above plus personal guidance by Jake.


Yea that does make sense, John.

1 Like