I heard this quote, " In God we Trust, everyone else bring data." Like it or not this is the world we now inhabit. Data is King and imo more ‘valued’ by ‘experts’ than judgment. Yes, Weeda makes a valid argument that this is a steep uphill struggle. Fighting against Optometry’s foothold on ‘eyecare’ is no small fight. But, change does occur over time…
Very wise words…
Hi Jake, thanks for your encouragement. I would like to use my talents and skills to make sure natural vision improvement is more well-known, even if it’s just to prompt folks into curiosity. I am also notice a lack of British voices in the public arena of NVI. American voices dominate YouTube on this topic, as far as I can tell, so I certainly think there is an opportunity for a British voice, like mine, to get the work out there. Also, it needs to be a complementary resource - there is not point making more YouTube to duplicate what’s already out there - your videos are great. The gap I see is mutual support. The EndMyopia Facebook page is great for supporting folk on their DIY journey. Mentored courses are available for those able to commit the time and money. Lots of other teachers around as well. The gap I am seeing is accountability groups and peer-to-peer support. I have been running teams in the large and small businesses for years, so I am thinking this is something I could do. Haven’t quite worked out how to make that viable, but I am sure I will. Restoring my eyesight will take 5 years, and I’d like friends for my journey!
Agreed. I’ve been told the same by someone who helped Duolingo build that type of community, and suggested that we focus on that.
The how though … I’m not entirely sure about either!
I’m also not sold on the need to get this into the “mainstream.” I would be satisfied if all those who went to look for it found it.
But… if we were to try to get EM into the mainstream, could insurance companies be the way to go? Insurance that covers the cost of glasses has an incentive to keep you from needing glasses. But perhaps insurance companies would see EM as creating people who don’t need vision insurance. I don’t know.
What if there was just enough sciencific data to validate the existence of a new type of profession? It would be a “vision coach” of sorts who offers no medical advice, obviously, since myopia isn’t an illness but who coaches people on their way out of myopia. Man, imagine how many frames they could sell to someone who is reducing his diopters. Oh wait, what I just described sounds a lot like an optometrist. Why don’t they buy in??? I guess the only difference would be that the vision coach steals business from optometrists.
Hi “deadpan”, Thanks for your comment. I am interested in the idea of getting Insurance companies involved, and indeed, for the american market, that may well be the place to start. For us Brits, where health insurance is more of a privilege than a need, the challenges are different. I would estimate most people pay in UK for their own glasses. Yes, there are basic options paid by the ‘national health service’, but most people would do their best to avoid the narrow range of glasses frames available for free.
I think the goal of ‘mainstream’ is a long-way off in the future, but ‘knowing to go looking’ is an interim stage. My 40 years of ignorance is the frustrating part for me, hence the need for broader marketing, in my opinion.
That’s interesting that has come up before. I am heartened by that. I have begun a research phase on this topic (community and accountability for natural vision improvement students). I will let you know how I get on, and have something to report to the EndMyopia team.
Not with the dyop measurement: Better Than Eye Chart?
But with Snellen you still can’t differentiate between better acuity and just getting better recognizing blurry letters. Which is the main argument against any kind of visual improvement method when they show some improvement.
Perhaps. I have no experience with that method. But I doubt its use is widespread.
Nothing like a heretical title to get everyone’s blood boiling!
Chasing after the scientific carrot reminds me of all the eastern medicine that has slowly been adopted and eventually scientifically tested over the years, like TCM, acupuncture and meditation. Essentially the story goes…
- Western science denigrates eastern medicine by saying its all witchcraft mumbo jumbo.
- Eastern medicine just carries on its merry way with thousands of years of trail and error handed down generation after generation.
- A few hippies and fringe healers from the west start thinking there’s something to said eastern medicine.
- Western medicine denigrates hippies and fringe healers saying they “lack scientific evidience”
- Finally some pioneers in universities or independent labs start doing scientific tests on said eastern medicine.
- The western scientific method is finally applied to said eastern medicine.
- Western scientists and doctors run around like headless chickens thinking they’ve “discovered something new”
- Out pops a billion dollar app (like headspace)
- Eastern medicine carries on its merry little way…
I always think of
Phenomena first, science second vs science first, phenomena second
Unfortunately even the best of us get obsessed with a kind of scientism that elevates science, or scientific evidence before phenomena. This is bad science and unfortunately it happens all the time. Just look at the food and diet world for a raft of really well established doctors and scientists putting mechanisms before results (i.e. the cholesterol debate). People latch onto mechanisms or easily digestible science rather than phenomena.
Phenomena is tricky, elusive, full of anecdote and pitfalls and good science is a lense to help understand and see that phenomena.
EM is essentially phenomena without rigorous science. Without a clear lens behind it. And thats ok! We’re a bunch of people, thousand of people experiencing this incredible phenomena of myopia reduction and like eastern medicine, it sounds like we’re happy just to carry on our merry way while western science takes its sweet arse time…
Not perhaps, for sure It’s measuring resolution acuity, not recognition acuity by design. Of course you still have 25% chance to guess correctly, but that’s pure chance because you cannot use heuristics like you can use for character recognition.
But yeah, practically nobody uses this. Would be great for Endmyopia purposes (either for our “unscientific” measurements, or for a proper Endmyopia scientific study) though.
I disagree with the meaning attached to “scientific evidence”. We understand a phenomenon scientifically if we understand the identities of the entities involved and know how these identities result in the observed phenomenon, i.e., understand the causality involved.
@jakey 's Endmyopia method is based on the following facts:
- Muscles spasm when contracted for long – we see this not just for the ciliary but for all muscles of the body.
- People can live for many years with increasing spasm without any awareness of the spasm – for example, people get debilitating back issues many years after the spasms in their leg muscles started and increased
- The body responds to stimulus – this is know for all parts of the body (e.g., calluses), not just the eye.
- The body can heal itself – even for bacterial infections, medicine just kills the bacteria; any damage done by the bacteria before they died needs to be healed by the body’s own healing mechanism; if a bone is broken, medicine just keeps the pieces stable while the body heals, and after healing, medicine provides proper stimulus for the bone and associated muscles to become stronger.
- Ray optics that explains the functioning of the ciliary muscle, specifically, its contraction for close-up.
The above scientific facts – for a genius such as @jakey – both explain myopia and suggest a way for recovery. The methods he teaches are techniques based on the above facts; people can adapt the techniques to their own situation. (Note that there is no need to bring in axial length into the discussion, although it can be done scientifically, with the proper understanding of what scientifically means. Also, as we get a tiny bit into Jake’s method, we will need to make explicit a fact #6: Human vision involves the brain resolving data from two eyes; this fact is partly present (but only implicitly present) in #5 as the controller of the ciliary muscle.)
As a parallel, Newton’s laws are established as scientific facts based on observations of tides and planetary motion. (There is a context for these facts – and the context for special or general relativity is different; relativity does not invalidate Newton’s laws for the context in they are applicable.) Using these laws, people engineered satellites and travels to the moon – these activities did not need any additional scientific discoveries. Likewise, what Jake has done is engineer a solution for himself based on the scientific facts and graciously shared his techniques for all who might care to adapt the techniques for their own specific cases. Every satellite and rocket is not identical and so are the adaptations people make of the EndMyopia techniques. If some people report that they went to the moon or Mars, this is not some “anecdotal” evidence to be dismissed. If a skier breaks his bones, heals and comes back skiing the next season, this is not just anecdotal evidence to be dismissed; if two people break the same bone in more or less the same place and in more or less similar accidents, their recover process could be very different.
PS: One must always keep in mind that concepts and theories refers to existents in their entirety – i.e., an existent does not equal the concepts or theories associated with it, but involves all of its attributes/features. (@jakey refers to the mistake of equating an existent with its associated concepts and theories as the “fallacy of reduction” – I call it the "fallacy of treating essences as metaphysical and treating existents as being the same as these “metaphysical essences”.) In particular, one keeps in mind that the ciliary is just part of the eye, and that the phenomenon of seeing involves the cornea, retina, brain, evolution etc.
PPS: The Endmyopia method will not work for people whose ciliary spasm is caused by issues such as incorrect breathing or mental concerns (nervousness, anxiety or such). Mental issues can cause people to have lock-jaw when they wake up in the morning – so maybe such causes can result in cilicary spasm too. Jake has never claimed to resolve myopia from such causes – he has always restricted himself to optical causes.
How many anecdotes do you need?
Criticism is nice. Somebody has to think about a thing long enough to find faults in it and be interested enough to take the time to share their take. Great especially if it has a basis in something that can be discussed, contrasted, maybe even help make our stuff better.
Plus what fun would it be if this was some super professional and unassailable sort of endeavor? We’d have to have standards and watch what we say and consider accountability and ‘the brand’ or whatever we’d be after.
Also, everything is biased.
If only we could do some rigorous science to prove Endmyopia, maybe Jake could get a Nobel Prize.
Hmmm… enough to riot with, I guess XD
I’ve tried my best : D
More than most!
Maybe it’s just the fun irony. I mean we literally call figurative shortsightedness the thing that defines a whole lot of human motivations.
“Well, that was shortsighted.”
Science science science.
Well before get too deep into the big sums of money needed to do scientific studies.
There is the “citizen scientist” thing going on. Amateur and professionals in their time off doing rigorous work that sometimes leads to great things…Any budding scientists/statisticians that are part of EM?
When I saw the title I legit just said “well, duh!” Took me a minute to get to reading down the whole thread though Been keeping busy and wanting to give the thread the proper attention lol
I mean tend to agree…
but I would like to see more people adding their pre-EM opto “scripts” with a few along the way for the public record here. Less anecdotal IMO.
And while I am on my wish list, I wish there were more people who have made it back to 20/20 who dropped a line… even if it was only like once a year, but i suppose they are just going about their 20/20 lives.
A few shortsighted podcasts with people who made it would be great! We have a few with those close enough to largely go without correction but they aren’t fully squared as yet. It would be really cool to have a couple of people fully there (I know there are posts on the website but putting a face to the story makes a difference) even if they were the short (like 20 minute) ones. Like: “When did you start? What were your starting diopters? When did you reach 20/20? What were your challenges along then way? Any advice for those currently underway?” and wrap.
I will if I ever make measurable progress.
Sure. The less they need from us, the more work to get them to do things for us.
With all of this stuff mainly it’s a question of time. Digging through past e-mails of people sharing their updates, asking how they’re getting on, if there’s a 20/20 one asking if they’re up for a chat (many are shy or busy or don’t want their face on the Internet), finding one, scheduling, recording, editing ,posting.
And for every person out there, there’s many improvement report steps but only one 20/20 one. So there’s that.
I’d really need to hire somebody to manage this to run it more seriously than it is currently. At this point it’s just whatever is in bound in my mailbox, if there’s a good story I might ask the person if they want to do a chat.