Endmyopia is Biased

Brace yourselves, this is going to be wild.

So, I recently watched Neil deGrasse Tyson’s MasterClass on Scientific Thinking and Communication. It made me realise a few things.

To tell you the truth, I wasn’t sceptical at all about Endmyopia. I just submitted all my trust to the almighty Jake Steiner @jakey which could easily be a double-edged sword on my part: I could have just fallen as easily for Mark Warren’s Myopia is Mental which one could argue is equally scientifically convincing to the laypeople. I guess it was fate or something that I ended up here, hehe.

Someone in the Facebook group linked to a Dr Por Yong Ming’s response to a Quora question about the reliability of Endmyopia. I know, you might squirm at the very mention of Quora. But this one kinda strikes me. Even though I disagree with a lot of what he says, I must agree with the fact that Endmyopia lacks scientific evidence, is full of testimonies and anecdotes, and is based from assumptions.


Mainstream science will probably never accept Endmyopia unless convincing, scientific evidence is given. As of now, most of our ‘evidence’ are testimonial and anecdotal: we give our prescription history and say we reduced x amount of dioptres in x years. For some of us (myself included), that’s enough evidence to convince us this method has truth behind it.

However, from a scientist’s point of view, this wouldn’t suffice. I mean, I can easily say I’ve reduced -1.00 dioptre over the past year, but that’s a testimony. Jake Steiner reduced -5.00 myopia, but what does that mean anything to scientists or those medical scums – uh, I mean, professionals? Where’s the evidence? They want to see DATA. They want to see how Jake’s axial length changed over that -5.00 drop, how his cycloplegic refractions changed as he released his ciliary spasm. Do we have any of that?

In the MasterClass, Neil talked about scepticism: ‘A proper sceptic questions what they are unsure of but recognises when valid evidence is presented to change their mind.’

I must admit the doctor is not in absolute denial as to there being any possibility of reversing myopia. His scepticism is quite made obvious as he states: ‘show me measurements of cycloplegic refractions and axial length changes throughout, then I will endorse this method’.

That is the truth. We DON’T have any proof that Endmyopia works. I’ve read some papers that have proven axial reduction but they are only identifying short-term changes of axial length. No one has ever tested the effects of long-term exposure to very minimal myopic defocus enhanced through active focus on axial length. Have we? No, we ASSUMED it would work based on our research – it is a hypothesis unproven. I mean, we don’t even have concrete proof that active focus exists.

Can Endmyopia really become mainstream without proper data and evidence? We are constantly attacked by doctors and professionals (with varying degrees of salt and denial) and unless we do have evidence that this works, it will be an unfading onslaught that brings us down to no more than a weird internet cult.

I’m biased towards Endmyopia, of course. I wouldn’t have written this if I am otherwise. I believe that it is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH that myopia is nothing more than a healthy eye responding to stimuli, and hence can be reversed.

But what will it take to distil the agitated waters of vision science with all its misconstrued ideas and political biases? What will it take for us to be ever-present in the media? starring in interviews, speaking in lecture halls, in schools, in ministries? to perhaps expose and reshape the invisible totalitarianism we face against the optometry industry?

What will it take?


At first I read your title as “Endmyopia is Based” and was like: yep, totally. :joy:

No matter how much “science” you have, you cannot make a theory watertight. Perhaps for the simple and good reason that nothing is perfect. A modern assumption is that the scientific method is the only way you can know something, but in reality, you can know things from experience and intuition just as much. And likewise, if you close yourself to learning from intuition and experience, you will fall into the trap of believing authority and giving away your right to decide what you think.

In other words, what would make EM mainstream is probably power, money, lobbying, all those things that don’t have much to do with actual science. And since healing profits no one, no business, no organisation, this is knowledge that is doomed, by its very nature, to be the privilege of those few who seek it. It will not come to you, it will not be taught in schools, the dominant institutions would not benefit from it.


Doing a proper scientific study would mean you have to follow hundreds (or better thousands) of people for several years, and perform regular measurements of axial length and probably a whole bunch of other stuff as well. This would cost a huge amount of time and money and like @Salt said, nobody stands to benefit from it in an economic sense. And since that (sadly) is the only thing that seems to count in our modern society, it would seem quite impossible to find funding for such research. Jake has stated he may want to do such a study in the future, but I think it will be very difficult.

And what is to be gained from it? Why would we need to have absolute scientific proof that it works? Everyone who is interested can try it out for themselves and experience first hand that it works. EM is not about convincing people who choose to reject the whole idea out of hand, but to show individuals who are open minded and willing to take back the responsibility for their own vision, how they can help themselves. I’m certainly not here to prove anything to anyone, but I’m here to fix my vision. And I think that’s true for most (if not all) of us.

So yes, the best most of us can to in terms of “proof” is show off our optometrist’s measurement results. And personally I won’t even go that far. For one thing I don’t have my last measurement results (my starting point) on paper, since I didn’t buy glasses at the shop where I had those measurements done, so they only told me verbally that both eyes had gotten -0.5 diopters worse. I had my previous “prescription” on paper though, so it was easy enough to figure out what glasses I needed (which I then ordered online). And I don’t plan to go back to an optometrist either to “officially confirm” my improvement. I don’t need that, and I don’t care. I have the proof of my own eyes! It doesn’t get any more real than that! And if others choose not to believe me, then so be it. The loss is theirs. I don’t have to prove anything to anybody. I’m doing this for me and no one else… :smiling_imp: That sounds a bit selfish maybe, but it’s the truth. Sure I’m perfectly willing to tell others who might be interested about this wonderful knowledge I stumbled upon. Whether or not they choose to believe me (without “real proof”) is completely up to them though.

And surely there are those who make equal claims about having improved by using Mark Warren’s method, the Bates method, or any other method. And as long as they are regular folks who are not trying to sell you something, I choose to believe them. Because why would somebody lie about something like this? What does anybody stand to gain from it? I believe all these methods have a chance of helping people to improve because of the simple fact that they all tell people to wear weaker glasses and/or no glasses, which gives the eyes a chance to improve naturally. So different people may prefer different methods. But the fact that something works for one person, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best method for another person. I don’t like to judge people for following another method. If it works for them, great! For me it’s EM that works, because I just like his method, because of the way it is all explained and makes sense from a scientific point of view (even it there is no hard scientific proof). It just sounds plausible and reasonable to me, whereas other methods do not, or not to the same degree. And I know this may sound a bit like unicorn farming, but I do think that you must believe in something in order for it to work (well). If you don’t, you’ll probably just end up sabotaging your own progress subconsciously.

Speaking about Mark Warren, in his latest video he talks about how his wife improved her vision, not by following his method, but simply by wearing her glasses less. I’ve had the same experience with my wife. I just told her some stuff about this journey I’m on, and after a while she decided to try to improve her own vision as well. She started out being very skeptical about the whole idea, and now she’s not really following EM either. Sure, I’ve used the knowledge I’ve gained to help her make some choices and to make her more aware of things. But ultimately for her it’s also mostly been about wearing weaker/no glasses. People who need hard scientific proof that reversing myopia is possible, before trying it out for themselves, are probably just out of luck. Because I don’t think such proof will come any time soon.


Check out all these scientific studies about how porn is completely destructive to everything. It’s really bad scientifically.

Result: no mainstream media attention, majority of people think it’s perfectly normal, spreads slowly by word of mouth online but not much real change, not even an entry for porn addiction in DSM.

Maybe we’ll get some science, maybe a lot of science some day. That not gonna do very much as far as I’m concerned, and the optometry companies will move fast to silence this stuff and protect their golden goose, just like the porn companies.

Science is great but in terms of spreading EM it’s a bit of a waste of time IMHO. I think we need more people to just lose their ciliary spasm, go ‘wow, this works like it said it would!’ and make some youtube videos.


I don’t agree with this, visual acuity is a good metric to use. If somebody sees 20/20 or better with whatever length eyes they have what’s the issue? They’re only picking axial length because it’s currently expensive and not readily measurable with simple equipment.

Suppose we show that axial length changes. So what? Then they’ll say show us that you corrected the underlying genetic defect causing myopia. Axial length is just a symptom.

It’s moving goalposts. You can’t win playing their game.

There are clinical trials right now that use visual acuity as their metric. “How many lines can a patient read on an eye chart?” is a perfectly valid scientific measurement. Just test it under controlled conditions. Example, patient is enrolled in double-blind study. Patient walks in. Researcher puts patient in chair, adjusts lights, puts up random numbers or letters on a screen. “Read me the smallest line you can see.” Opthamologist tests patient, makes sure there’s no LASIK, contact lenses, etc.


The problem with visual acuity is, you need to rely on what the person tells you they see. Also the result can be influenced by using active focus. A measurement of the axial length on the other hand doesn’t require input from the test subject, and will therefore probably be more convincing to a scientist.

Indeed. That’s why I wouldn’t even want to try to convince the mainstream. Someone who doesn’t want to believe, will never do so, no matter how much proof you show them.


I was editing my post above, but under controlled conditions you can make sure the patient actually can see what they claim to see (randomized numbers, etc.) I don’t think the medical and scientific community currently acknowledges active focus. Moreover, what if the reason active focus works is that patients can change their axial length very slightly at will?

Axial length is a fine metric if what you care about is axial length, but it’s not the only valid metric to use in a scientific study.

Need some celebrities to talk about it. If Kim Kardashian, George Clooney, and Ariana Grande start talking about how they reduced their diopters, the media will cover it as an entertainment story, just like they do with all celebrity diets and workout fads.


Actually, this is exactly what I suspect to be the mechanism that is involved. :grin:

Honestly I have no idea what exactly is involded in measuring axial length. But I would think there’s less incentive to do AF while being scanned by some machine, as opposed to looking at text on an eye chart.

I think it should be. At least that’s what would interest me the most, since EM claims this all works by shortening the eyeballs over time. So the first thing I’d like to have hard evidence for is this shortening of the eyeballs.
One could argue that any precieved improvement is due to the visual cortex becoming more efficient and simply becoming able to produce a better picture based on the same old faulty input. By measuring axial length you could rule that out as a factor.

Interesting thought… So, @jakey needs to speciffically target celebrities and get them to do EM! :grin: :grin: :grin:
Who knows… some celebrities might be among us even now, without anybody knowing about it. :wink:


Some EMers are slightly biased to (and some are simply full blown obsessed with) the idea that EM has to replace the current “opto industry’s one truth” with “EM’s one truth”, and envisage this achieved by fighting the opto world with their means in their arena, with science defined by their definition or the current mainstream. (For example by showing axial length changes)

In my view, EM should just get on the table as an option. But will never fit everyone.

Last time I had a sports injury the surgeon looked at me - who is motivated by getting money for the operations performed - and asked if I wanted conservative treatment with lots of dedication and self drive (and zero money to him) or if I wanted a reconstructive surgery, a quick fix. I really appreciated it this way.
Similarly I feel that for better eyesight there should be natural methods, glasses and yes, even LASIK offered. Some people will always want quick fixes and / or no work or efforts. There’s no point arguing against that…


That’s how it should be.

EM should be one of the options on the table.

I’ve run across a bunch of children lately who have had (in my opinion) useless and unsuccessful strabismus surgeries, whose parents have never even heard of vision therapy (no one ever suggested it to them as being an option). Certainly surgery has its place, but it should be a second-line treatment after more conservative options have failed (or the patient doesn’t want conservative treatment.)

Out-of-the-office vision therapy for myopia (EM) should be a thing.

Usually there should be a range of treatment options, and the more conservative, less-invasive methods should be tried first. Education, Lifestyle modifications (EM), Exercise, Physical Therapy; then Drugs, and then surgery as a last resort if those other options don’t work.


Yeah I talked with NottNott about this previously too. Like the AF stuff is cool but honestly most people will improve just by reducing their lens.

Porn doesn’t have an obvious physical correlate like vision does though. Plus porn is not that different from other destructive habits that a therapist would be able to address.
There’s pretty decent literature in psychology already for addressing this type of stuff.

Video game addiction on the other hand… is more out of science’s field. Due to things like rapdily evolving, constant meta changes, advancement of technology towards realism, different types of immersion structures, etc…
So many studies were done on understanding Guild psychology. Nowadays, most games don’t even engage in that type of stuff. It’s more solo dolo, less reliant on others, higher uptime of gameplay.

Porn on the other hand is a pretty simple thing to understand. The psych field has a pretty good grasp of it. The harder to study stuff like sexual relations, BDSM, sex workers, whatever, are the areas where the science actually lacks. Porn, nah. Also the DSM is just for insurance purposes more than it is for anything else.


In my mind this is a theory of how EM works that makes sense, but there are not data to support it. We don’t have before and after axial length measurements to find out.

We do not “diagnose” myopia with an axial length measurement, as has been stated on this forum already. There is an amount of refraction necessary to focus light properly on the retina. This can be observed objectively with retinoscopy and confirmed by the client as to clarity with the lenses in front of the eye. The amount of refraction can be a bit different from one day to another, but a stable change of a full diopter or a gradual decrease in refractive requirement would be noteworthy.

That could actually be true. It would be quite a feat for the visual system to show clarity to 20/20 while maintaining a refractive error of significance. The post-EM refractions by optometrists show otherwise though. Corrective lenses ideally bend light to a point of focus on the retina resulting in best corrected vision. When light hits the retina with no lenses required, that is independent of whether the person can see or has a brain participating. The light refraction is physical.

But, as an analogy, in autism there are observed differences, when evaluated, in brain patterns and often the gut. When therapies are used, there may be no physical changes seen in the brain (brain scans are not done on the majority) but if a person, subsequent to some effective therapy, has a neuropsych eval. and “loses” an autism diagnosis, that seems to me as good as seeing well without glasses. External supports are no longer necessary.

In psychology and medicine these clients are generally proclaimed to have had a false diagnosis of autism. That is in keeping with optometry’s claim that a formerly myopic person was in fact not myopic at all but over-minused. Regardless, each “recovered” non-autistic, non-myopic person can be said to no longer have a diagnosis and function within a range that is considered normal.

I guess the point is that when seeking “proof” that EM or anything works, a randomized, controlled study is not the final word. Empirical data can allow us to see whether a predictable outcome occurs after an application of some method. Most therapeutic discoveries happen “at the bedside” and can then be challenged and confirmed or rejected.


This is incredibly on-point: the goalpost was “prove that you actually see 20/20 without lenses” and then when that was shown, they tried to (ir)rationalise it in all sorts of way, saying that if axial length doesn’t reduce (something that you can’t prove in most cases because you’re not diagnosed with myopia based on axial length and don’t know your initial value) it’s not true myopia reversal. It’s not a good faith argument and they know it. EM is already far more scientifically sound than what is mainstream, so it’s certainly not “more science” that we need.


This immediately reminded me of something I watched awhile ago in which Ariana Grande starred in Jimmy Fallon’s Tonight Show!

I had to painfully watch her squint every time the wheel turned and realised she is definitely myopic. But look at what everyone said :’)

Screenshot 2021-09-04 at 09.26.05

Maybe if @jakey could get Ariana Grande to try EM, maybe that’ll work XD


It can’t, won’t, and … we don’t care. :grimacing:

Also that guy is a bit of a clown. He has -10 diopter myopia and claims that’s fine and nothing to worry about. Ok fine not trusting us that’s par for the course. But he’s blatantly ignoring the massive risk factors double digit myopia is creating, and he’s also more than a bit unclear about various parts of known biology and science. I’ve e-mailed with him a few times and it was just a little bit aggravating. He’s very clearly giving bad advice to people even from a mainstream standpoint.

Here’s what I always say, about this whole scientific evidence thing: Mainstream optometry pretends myopia is a genetic illness. There is more than a passing amount of scientific evidence that it’s pseudomyopia > lens induced myopia what is actually going on.

Tens of thousands of articles and citations for that. Can you ask any retail optometrist and be told about this likely cause? No. Never.

So if they don’t even tell you that it’s a muscle spasm in the beginning, or that their 5,000% marked up lenses cause more of your myopia … do you think any amount of studies on myopia reversal will somehow make a difference?

For the record of course I care about the science and it’s somewhere in the top ten list. Just not chasing their stupid carrot of “if you have xyz study then we will take you seriously.” Cause the only thing they actually take seriously, is that 5000x profit margin.

Actually I just linked to this the other day: Study: "Failure To Discuss Myopia Control, Verging On Negligent" - Endmyopia® - Improve Eyesight Naturally

Now what does push my buttons is dudes like Mark W who just Internet Marketeer big claims and “one weird tricks” and yes that’s right, where do we differentiate our credibility with those clowns?

That part does bug me. But not quite enough to care.

This is niche. Super extra niche. There are way more people who care about weight loss and fitness and heart disease, and still so much of what is on offer there in terms of prevention rather than symptom treatment is very niche. We’re double, triple, way more niche than that since most people could care less about their eyes.

If I were given three-or-seventeen wishes for endmyopia, it wouldn’t be mainstream credibility. It would be to make it more fun, more awesome, more community, more shared adventures, more inspiration. I don’t care if 10 people have an awesome experience or 10,000. It’s the awesome experience part. I want to see videos of darling fellow eyeball experimenters in hot air balloons and riding dirt bikes and going on bird watching expeditions and doing amazing things.

Of course that always changes and also who cares what I think. Just musings.

Also curious about these MasterClass things. Almost bought a subscription previously but then they lost me on the “gift a friend” thing add-on somehow.


Upon reading that I was kinda reassured he really lost it, lol.

Most people argue that most of these studies are done on chicks with like -6 dioptres of defocus. They say you can’t just assume that works the same for humans. We don’t get -6D defocus when using minus lenses on our computer and biology of chicks =/= biology of humans. Bla bla bla.

Argh, it’s so frustrating. Maybe we should just riot :rofl:

They are quite the thing! Garry Kasparov’s MasterClass was my first and it really stepped up my chess game! I saw on your Instagram that you’ve been starting to play chess. Perhaps you should give it a shot!


Very interesting debate/thread - thanks Team EM.
Interesting views expressed - AND we all like to hear from Jake.
My view is that earlier this year, when I first discovered that it was possible to restore eyesight naturally, I was most frustrated that I didn’t know about it before - it had completely passed me by. This is why my vote is that ‘Natural Vision Improvement’ should be in the mainstream knowledge, even if people choose to reject it. Compare this to reversing diabetes or threat of the onset of diabetes - we have been informed ‘in the public domain’ to stop eating sugar and lower carbohydrate intake. Some science, some books, some celebs, some YouTubers, some personal testimonials. Does everyone do this? It’s a simple recipe of 2 things! Yet, most people won’t do it. Reject it. Make an active choice to not do it with a flippant “It wont work for me” narrative.
Back in the 1940’s, British writer, Aldous Huxley of “Brave New World” fame, wrote a book called “The Art of Seeing” in support of Bates Method of eyesight improvement. (He would be considered a celeb.) In it, he laments that there would be no harm in the optical industry being open to the possibility or even acknowledge the validity of some of Bates findings as valid because “Human sloth and inertia will guarantee the opticians at least 9/10ths of their present business. … The trade in artificial lenses is not likely to suffer more than a trifling loss by reason of the official recognition of the new technique.” [Pg 9. “The Art of Seeing”]
Science may or may not be needed for that process of getting the NVI knowledge adopted into the mainstream. It likely needs to be a combination of several things to create a ground swell of knowledge, then adoption. You and I are the early adopters. Yes, it looks like this early adopter phase is going to last more than 100 years.
I am still thinking about how my skills and talents can be used to assist in the ground swell.
(My foray into Wikipedia editing did not go well - see separate post.)
Watch this space.
Thanks for being their folks.
Doing hard things is easier with other people!
Kind Regards, ALISON


Hmmm now you got me all intrigued. I guess I’ll sign up! (yes chess, been playing since I was a kid, but never well)

Love this. I should have a list somewhere of ongoing ideas and things that could benefit from fellow friends here and the various skills that may be floating about. :thinking:


Maybe cos diabetes costs governments money in terms of health care, while myopia mostly just costs private individuals money in terms of buying glasses and helps an industry make profit


I think it might be our culture, we don’t have a real society. We don’t spend enough time with kids, we have tiny tiny nuclear families with only one or two adults instead of big healthy communities. And even then we just send our kids to brainwashing factories schools and go to work and have little to no idea what their little heads have been filled with. This is happening because we gave up (for the benefit of governments and authorities) our power, right and responsibility to educate ourselves and our families. And when you stop and look at it, who would have an incentive to teach you cheap ways to stay strong and healthy? That is, who do you think has your best interest at heart? Not the government, not the banks, not optometry, but probably family and friends. Folk wisdom has always been preserved and transmitted by the benevolent elders, not much by scientific journals. Before there was modern science, people knew of all sorts of herbal remedies and taught them to their grandchildren, because grandma doesn’t have an incentive to make money off you, she is not going to feel threatened by you knowing how to preserve your health, far from it.

In other words, don’t waste your time trying to get this in school curricula or mainstream practice. Talk about it to the people who trust that you have their best interest at heart; your parents, your siblings, … And raise a new generation of free thinkers who’ll never have to put a curved piece of plastic in front of their eyes! :smile: