Endmyopia Reviewed: "Pseudoscientific Bogus" 👎

Juan explains what’s going on:

*"Unfortunately for you, the reversible kind is extremely rare, but the irreversible kind is the type most people have. *

So, unless you have gotten your axial length measured and are sure you have reversible myopia, stay away! Methods like this will not get you back to perfect vision or eliminate your prescription!"

And there we have it. You been wasting your preciously meow-rific times, here. :+1:

Now also, a grand time to leave your very own two-star reviews of endmyopia, here on Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/endmyopia.org


…Sad :roll_eyes::roll_eyes::roll_eyes:

1 Like

Rather sad that he could not benefit from it. I am not on facebook or any other social media, but if I were, I would give EM a 5 star review on the basis of the fact that it has worked for me.

1 Like

‘just reduced lens therapy’ :smiley:

looks out the window and does some reduced lens therapy


Two stars instead of one. Redeemable value!!!


TBH, it’s tempting to rant about the next Chung boilerplate argument. But some of the issues in this review are real and should be taken seriously. Likely, many people dismiss the whole topic for the same reasons.

It is true that there is no study showing long-term eye shortening from the Reduced Lens Method. Yet. :nerd_face: But my own shortening so far isn’t exactly reliable or easily predictable, so it’s not easy to convince people to scale things up.

The claim of everything being just pseudomyopia and measurement error is also important. Endmyopia progress reports tend to lack analysis to attribute changes to their most likely causes. Many have the form “from X diopters, optometrist prescription, to Y diopters, current self-chosen undercorrection.” This mixes four sources of change: overcorrection at the start, ciliary spasm at the start, undercorrection at the end, and finally, the most relevant value for the debate: long-term change from shortening. Some of the reports compare before-and-after optometrist results, which does remove the systematic error of undercorrection at the end, but in turn adds the statistical noise of optometry results, on which an educated reader will expect sampling bias. Either way, it is often difficult for an outside reader to deconstruct a given report into its likely components, or to assess its significance.

Point is, even though most of the review is nonsense, as things stand, I doubt we could reliably win an argument about it. The evidence is insufficient to concisely shut down all the criticism, which makes it easy for the mainstream to turn debates into mudfights. So for now, rather than getting caught up with this battle, it may be more productive to focus on ironing out the details.


I certainly would leave a review if I hadn’t already. :wink:
I liked in the response saying, " I have a whole troubleshooting video playlist on Youtube. Unless you’re philosophically enamored by being right more than getting to 20/20, I’d recommend checking that out."
Because for some people that is a real hurdle.


Which is actually missing from the stated formula of “from prescribed overcorrection to self-chosen undercorrection.”


1 Like

Yes… which isn’t to say progress reports must have biometric data. Sometimes it’s possible to infer it.

A detailed, long-term progress report may have an initial phase and a long-term improvement phase. If the measurement method stays roughly the same, it is likely that long-term trends are from shortening.

But it’s not easy for a random visitor to find such a pattern, especially when their attention on the website only lasts a few days or even just hours. And if we gather a few very fitting cases, detractors will rightfully say that they are cherry-picked.

IMO, the real solution here is to have more detailed and standardized logs to refer to. Then we could give quantitative data on what exactly works, and how well and reliable each part is. (Hence my personal enthusiasm about that stuff.)

1 Like

I was trying to understand how can the mainstream continue with glasses scam?! Surely, there have been people who have improved their eyesight. How do they explain that? They can’t just ignore it. Yet, if they acknowledged that eye sight can improve naturally, then how can they sell glasses or Lasik or PRK?

It seems to me that they have come up with 3 ways to explain away the vision improvement:

  1. Overcorrection: you were initially overcorrected. This can explain less than 1 diopter improvements. (Though they do prescribe overcorrections routinely but I think most people’s eyes also adjust to these Overcorrection pretty quickly.).
  2. Blur Adaptation: your eyes have not improved, your mind has adapted to Blur. This can explain upto 1-2 diopters improvements.
  3. Special case: you are a special case and it cannot be applied to others. If there is more than 2-3 diopter improvement.

Why do I bring that up here?
Because this review talks about Blur Adaptation.
Mostly people seem to give up glasses when they have really low myopia like -1.50 diopters. And then their eyes improve, this is explained away as clinical Blur Adaptation.

I can Active focus and not just clear the blur of text, but also pictures & objects or anything. The general clarity has improved by leaps & bounds. So, the reviewer is wrong. Vision does improve. But, he is wrong because he was convinced by the theory of Blur Adaptation that his vision improvement (which he experienced) was not real, just imagination.

For me, EM wasn’t about studies, or proof.

Jake presented a believable explanation for myopia progression, and a reasonable method of reversing the process. I read enough to convince myself the idea should work.

The entire EM program is going to be hard to prove to anyone that wants to dispute it’s effectiveness.


Shut it down boys, we’re all just crazy outliers!


The amount people write about whether myopia reversal is possible or not is inversely proportional to the myopia they have reversed.


I fear that it’s really lens thinning, since nobody has actual results that are more than choroidal tissue thickness. It also explains the increase in floaters, if parts of your lens are breaking down. If so, then there’s going to be a hard limit as to how much can be done. But I should still be able to get those first few diopters that other people are getting. If I could get into a -10 contact that would open up options for me.

This is definitely a factor for many people. Even one of the “optometrist confirmed” reports recently reported that the doc gave her a prescription for lower acuity, which falls into blur tolerance not just clinical blur adaption.

Enough special cases does still make the method worthwhile. The first year’s worth of glasses investment isn’t more than a conventional pair bought at the doctor’s office, and nobody has demonstrated any true harm done by the method. If we could say it was about special cases, the next step is to identify those special cases before they try the method and give people realistic expectations up front.


this. I’ve also pointed this out before. It is misleading to post from x down to y when y is normalised

EM is obviously not for everyone. People who talk about science often don’t understand how science even comes to be. EndMyopia isn’t based on science (depending on your definition of “based” at least), it is based on what works in practice, and then as studies explaining why this works are released, it uses them for its narratives.
Which is how science always works: Wim Hof had been swimming in ice forever before researchers decided to verify scientifically the effects of his method (which arguably has been around for centuries). That’s always the cycle of science: practical experimentation -> people feel results -> many people reproduce it -> research becomes curious about it and studies are done.
If people needed scientific evidence for anything before applying it, there wouldn’t be scientific evidence for anything at all. The only evidence I need is the fact that it works. If I can see 20/20 what do I care what size my eyeballs are? The true metric that I follow is clear vision and whether that goes in the way of the scientific theories about the emmetropic eye or not, that is not my main concern. Of course if I get the regular eye shape it would be validating, but I am not tracking axial length, I am tracking vision acuity and that is my endgoal.



Aaaaand here’s a bit of a frustrated rant.

The problem with all of this is, who is going to come up with all that infrastructure, and what benefit will it serve to them to create it.

My whole goal was just to put a working solution out there. Expecting that people would be just, “great, that’s handy”. I didn’t consider that I’d then would be responsible to furnish endless inexhaustible data and truths and studies and context and explanations. That wasn’t either my intent, interest, or goal. Mostly meant as a “if you want a thing that probably, likely works, for your own benefit, go try this”.

Part of my philosophical struggle is that a lot of people putting out the “but studies, bro”, aren’t ever going to be interested in reversal. Over the years learned to recognize that behavior as looking for a debate rather than a solution.

But then those voices affect the innocent bystander curious person, looking to evaluate a solution.

When though, and how, am I expected to implement the sort of structure people appear to demand. I literally have other work, responsibilities, a life (gasp), and no big office or staff or otherwise funding to magically call into being a scientific think tank and foundation for all things natural myopia control.

It feels like a lot of demands, which if unmet, somehow put my name together with “Internet nonsense”. That’s a tough spot I stuck myself, my name and face, in. I can either ignore it all, or somehow try to figure out how to do EVERYTHING.

As an investor and generally business minded guy, I don’t see the upside (for myself) to turn this into a commercially viable entity. It’d be more than a full time job, and require a lot of connecting of dots with all sorts of existing interests and groups, staffing and funding and creating all that infrastructure. This is all just meant as my morning procrastination, sharing some DIY, ‘biohacking’, contributing back to the collective that is people interested in unconventional ideas. I want a big disclaimer that says something along those lines - and whoever has other entitlements or expectations of being owed some sort of a guaranteed solution … go see your favorite optometrist and buy some glasses.


But then I can’t just shrug it off either, because guys like that reviewer are plain wrong. Also his explanation of the biology is incorrect, and his starting premise that because he didn’t accomplish his goals, the whole thing isn’t feasible, also annoying. And I do very lightly tread toward some level of commercial viability (via the courses), and re-investing that into building more tools. It’s agonizingly slow though, and with endless tasks.

Total aside, phone app is meant to collect more data. Which just that one thing is taking up a ton of hours and quite a bit of money as well, and it’s not even out yet as a first beta product. 📱 iOS App - Getting Closer [Update: Not Closer 😭]

BackTo20/20 also collects participant data, though there too, now there is data. But then analyzing it and writing papers and getting them published, is a whole world of work onto its own. And I can just hear it now, “where is xyz and why don’t you have this and that and other bits as well.”

Exception here is you Georg, actually having gone out and sought your own answers to the questions that most others just put on me to answer. :wink:

OR … what most people tell me who do things online - don’t read the comments. :laughing:



Watched this video by of my favorite tinkerers, Rich Rebuilds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PWlkAZCojg

He got into fixing Teslas, and since then has been beaten up not only by Tesla itself but ironically, by the Tesla community at large.

Dude just loves fixing things, got all excited to share things and be part of a DIY community. Instead he’s getting giant piles of hate online and finally realizing he needs to find a DIY friendly niche community and stay away from the mainstream users of the product he likes messing around with.

I’m no Rich Rebuilds by any standard. But maybe the realization that this is meant to be a ‘tinker people’ type of solution, for people who understand what it means to play around with untested things, for their own benefit. Mindset of sharing and trying, vs. the sheeple mainstream who somehow expects you to just “fix it for me”.

If you don’t watch that whole video, that was my take-away. There is a super friendly and supportive community out there, people who are all into what you’re into - and there’s the bang-head-in-wall mainstream that may just not be worth be talking to, or trying to convince about new and interesting ideas.

Maybe endmyopia should be 'fringe eyball biohacking regal beard connoisseurs of the Interwebs". Spread good vibes, let everybody else just deal with their own problems. :wink:


My two cents - I like the fact that EndMyopia does not include the studies that the other people are missing. I hope that made sense, and I am mentioning it because Jake talked about the curious newbie bystander who is looking on, trying to make up their mind. May i just say that I took a little time to get into following EM because it seemed way too organized and mainstream for me to take seriously. Apologies. To me, it looks like - Having more studies to corroborate the solution, borders on ‘hard selling’ . Hard selling = corporate backing = capitalist agenda

Studies, and whoever funds them, are only so reliable these days. (For decades, studies showed that all kinds of fat were bad for health. And that sugar just made things sweet.)
Positive reviews from such a WIDE variety of people from across the world is what made EM so attractive for me. People who look and talk like real people. As long as there are enough of those, the negative reviews dont matter.

Also, I find it odd when websites DONT have any negative reviews. You feel someone’s sieving out the negative feedback, or that someone is paid to write only the positive reviews. Paid = corporate backing = capitalist agenda.

Negative feedback is good, especially on a project that isnt commercial.


That’s a good point. I used to say … if you don’t have haters, you’re not working hard enough. :joy: