Dr. Eye Health 🤪

So after watching the latest podcast jake put out I had a video pop up from Dr. Eye Health. I humored the video a :crazy_face:nd listened to what this guy had to say because he was on the topic of improving eyesight naturally.
He claimed he did his research on the topics of Bates and Active focus. Funny thing is he said these methods could be dangerous. :thinking: I have read Bates book and of course Endmyopia and can’t see how any danger could come from any methods. Although he did not give any kind of example to what could possibly happen or list dangers.
But what I found more humorous is that the comments had some le meow kittehs in it. And the good “Dr” made no efforts to make any comments back except to another “Dr”
So many topics have a counter and so few are willing to explore the topic more and then just believe the mainstream narrative.

6 Likes

I had a video pop up after Jake’s, and this was from a ‘mainstream’ guy, but a pretty good explanation of astigmatism that I was actually tempted to link to. But as his solution was glasses, contact lenses, or LASIK, I decided not to do so. A pity, really, as it was a very clear and concise explanation of astigmatism, both corneal and lenticular.

p.s. actually it was the same guy you watched, Dr. Eye Health.

3 Likes

Yup I wrote him an essay and he responded to it. Previous thread about that video https://community.endmyopia.org/search?q=eye%20health

Link to my comment:

'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KhpKPn0gYc&lc=Ugxitybek78vtw05GZ94AaABAg

2 Likes

Well maybe he will give only jakey a 2nd look. At its not to say he doesn’t have a good grasp on eye function but that it was funny to me that endmyopia students were commenting. Which probably means many more people watching the podcast had this guy come up as a counter video. Which is common in YouTube now.

2 Likes

Yep that was the one I watch. So you inspired this video?

1 Like

Oh, sorry, i meant to imply i wrote an essay in response to his video. I fixed the link it should properly link to my comment/essay now.

1 Like

Aw well now I am curious to see if he has made any new vids to address any of the endmyopia students

1 Like

I subscribe to his channel and posted a link to the video when I saw it, and lots of people followed that link from here and commented.

1 Like

I’m slightly uncomfortable with his notion that “most people are born with astigmatism and we can correct for it”. I definitely didn’t have astigmatism before wearing glasses, and if people are born with it then it’s probably a feature rather than a bug. In the common narrative, astigmatism is about as common as myopia (or even more so) and I don’t like it.
(Here’s the video in question by the way, someone might benefit from it actually https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYxq28-PBk)

2 Likes

Saw your comment and looked at the conversation I had not seen in le meow. Didnt see any videos that indicated he looked at endmyopia. But maybe he will be curious some time.

1 Like

Azn is a personage of action. I like it!

So I commented, on the comment.

Now if “others” (meaning, more of us?) opt to comment on that comment, commenting that yay, it would be great to witness such a chat, then le great doctor health might be swayed.

By the endearing voices of the Internet heathens.

Eh? Ehhhhhh? :yum::+1:t2:

6 Likes

I think he is talking about small degrees of it at birth, which doesn’t bother me, as nothing in the body is ‘perfect’ He is obviously unaware of the fact that it worsens with correction. I do think the video itself is pretty informative.

It would be nice if we had a hypothesis for the mechanism for the reduction in astigmatism, but as I have found nothing that convinces me, it is again a thing to take on trust on the basis of people who have succeeded in doing so with EM. That’s fine with me, although at present the first point of ghosting remains stubbornly at 19-20 cm while the distance to overall blur seems to have increased to 27 cm from 25 cm in the left eye. In the right eye the remaining astigmatism hardly bothers me, as I only see it in monocular vision.

3 Likes

I still find pathologizing a trait shared across the species disturbing. In a way, nature is beyond perfect in that if there is something that most humans are born with, it likely either serves a very important function we’re unaware of or it is just in need of calibrating during the early period of development (like babies’ hyperopia). Saying that it gets ‘worse’ with age is saying it’s a fault in the first place (even though perhaps it goes away at a certain point) If at any age, light does not get focused into one point on the retina without glasses in a fully healthy, emmetropic individual, then I’d rather see that astigmatism as a physical fact that might have some functional reason rather than a defect. If all of us have some astigmatism by default, it just means that the “basketball shape” eyeball is abnormal and a practical model to study physics/optics, not a standard of health.
I don’t want to come off as ranty (though I probably am), I definitely get what you mean and I agree. It just upsets me when I hear some things from medical professionals (more so than if I heard them from physicists).

I’d be extremely interested as well. Whenever we get podcasts of people reversing high astigmatism, I am split between “Amazing!” and “How on earth did you do it”. Now that I only have directional blur up close it feels like this is all that’s keeping me away from clarity, so I’ll try and see if anything that I do can make a difference. Nothing for me to lose at this point.

3 Likes

I like well-founded and moderately expressed rants, and these are of course not really to be classified as rants. I agree with all you said.
As for Al’s amazing progress on astigmatism, saying you no longer use or need a cylinder correction does not necessarily mean that all astigmatism is reversed. If I used this measure, I would be able to say that both my myopia and astigmatism are 100% reversed because I wear no correction at all and function perfectly well without it. My cm measurements tell me otherwise, and so would an autorefractor. :no_mouth:

3 Likes

I can see how some aspects of Bates can be misused as current vision therapy sometimes includes eye exercises that are similar to exercises from Bates method and was told that if some of them are misused they can lead to unwanted double vision (brach string). Was also told that if convergence training which includes the focusing on a pencil or finger part from Bates was done first before divergence training it could lead to over convergence.

But I don’t agree with this guy for the most part.

I think Dr gallop would have something on this as he says he’s eliminated astigmatism and has the corneal changes to prove it

Couple of thoughts… nature/evolution probably selects for traits which improve your chances of reaching age of reproduction. Beyond that, a trait which ends up getting worse with age doesn’t really affect natural selection. That said, surviving to help with looking after grandchildren probably does also improve the survival prospects of a trait, so it’s obviously not quite as simple as that.

Also, genes tend to control multiple features at once. So a gene might give you one trait which is beneficial at earlier stage in life, but has a side effect which kicks in later.

It makes sense to me that the eye is “designed” to tune itself using feedback, rather than attempting to construct it perfectly from the outset. (Especially since children need to be able to see tigers even as they physically grow bigger over the years.) But modern lifestyle (in the West) provides a very different environment from when the eye developed. It’s not surprising that the feedback loop isn’t working so well. (Or maybe it works perfectly… for those of us spending most of our time indoors, it makes perfect sense that our eyes tune themselves to the distances they encounter most often. Unfortunately, glasses screw up that self-calibration.)

4 Likes

There’s some ideas in the psychology literature that eyes are initially optimized for facial recognition.

Presumably in the software (processing) rather than the hardware (optics) ?

And I think it’s not just initially - we tend to see faces in all sorts of odd places, don’t we ?

3 Likes

Definitely in the processing. Maybe? in the hardware. Babies are born farsighted. They get progressively less far sighted as they become more interested in things that are within physical reach.