Is EndMyopia scientific?

Well, yes, it’s securely science-based, since Jake thoroughly soaked himself in studies available via Google Scholar. But it could be argued that the continuing development of the EndMyopia route to 20/20 vision is based on anecdote—to be sure, an increasingly complex interweaving of myriad anecdotes but, for that reason, possibly still succeptible to the sneers of the denizens of laboratories. But I thought of that as I read, in the wonderfully science-saturated recent novel of Edward St Aubyn (Double Blind), this exchange:

"Ah, yes, the anecdotal end of science," Olivia teased him.

"Well," said Martin, "what is a theory, after all, except an incredibly stable anecdote? And what is a fact, except an incredibly stable theory?"


Well haha quite nicely put but I’d argue that a theory is more than a stable anecdote, at least in natural sciences since it should fit the maths as well

But how is an anecdote stable if it doesn’t work out mathematically?

Is intermittent fasting scientific before there was science behind it?


Not all reality needs the scientific method to validate it.


I’ve seen a few times when bro-science is ahead of regular science (“big science”), and it especially seems to happen in medicine because there’s some (very reasonable) reluctance to try new and unproven things on human subjects.

Look at human flight: the hobbyists and entrepreneurs led the way there with the Wright Brothers who were bicycle makers, it didn’t come out of university or government labs.

[from Wikipedia]

A few newspapers published articles about the long flights, but no reporters or photographers had been there. The lack of splashy eyewitness press coverage was a major reason for disbelief in Washington, DC, and Europe, and in journals like Scientific American , whose editors doubted the “alleged experiments” and asked how U.S. newspapers, "alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice.[84]

The American military, having recently spent $50,000 on the Langley Aerodrome – a product of the nation’s foremost scientist – only to see it plunge twice into the Potomac River “like a handful of mortar”, was particularly unreceptive to the claims of two unknown bicycle makers from Ohio.[86] Thus, doubted or scorned, the Wright brothers continued their work in semi-obscurity, while other aviation pioneers like Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Léon Delagrange and American Glenn Curtiss entered the limelight.

Often times people have been doing something successfully for a while before anybody in academia or “official” decides to investigate. You would think there would be a bunch of optometrists and ophthalmologists trying to figure out what’s going on in this community already so they could help their patients but they won’t even investigate because they know it’s “impossible”. They would rather make videos attacking straw men. Meanwhile they’re projecting a myopic planet by 2050.

Another example:

In its 1977 paper, the American College of Sports Medicine concluded that steroids had no effect on muscle strength, a finding that resulted, Mr. Lamb said, from ‘‘precious little evidence.’’ More recent data, however, suggests otherwise.

It’s interesting that in 1977 anyone would publish something 40 years behind common practice and just shows how woefully out-of-touch the scientific and medical establishment can be. [Steroids and testosterone were discovered in the 1930’s and by 1977 had been used by athletes for decades.] East Germany had a State-Sponsored doping program with over 10,000 athletes since the late 1960’s. And it took until 1984 before the “American College of Sports Medicine” admitted they might be wrong.

Probably in 2047 the American Academy of Optometrists will “discover” that lens-induced myopia is reversible.


Maybe half and half?

The cause of myopia, science. Only worth mentioning because oddly, the cause is apparently unknown to retail optometry. Talking about NITM and lens induced myopia, not something the general public is remotely aware of, and even a lot of retail lens sellers will shrug and not indicate understanding or agreement.

Important since we should generally always ask how a treatment addresses a cause. If a treatment doesn’t address causality, … :man_shrugging: (sure, not always necessary or consequential - but often can be instructive of who is pitching you what treatment and why)

The second half, how we reverse myopia, is based on above. Address NITM, and lens induced myopia. Axial change has been shown to go both ways and an always operating mechanism. At least a good amount of evidence.

Do our methods actually do that? This is where we’re crossing from pretty good science over into the mystical realm of the interdimensional beard. Have we done studies, written papers, have them pass peer review?

Nope. Hencically, one may well argue that we’re a bunch of beard worshipping unicorn farmers.

Which is fine by me, I like to be realistic with well founded skepticism, even encourage it. There’s way too much blind belief out there with all kinds of health and ‘bio hacking’ fads (not sure what to call our thing, it’s not health really, myopia not being an illness).

Also learning from experience, like Improvement Pill’s fallout. Better us be the ones being very clear about the limitations of our insights, than the Internet outrage monkey keyboard warriors doing it for us. :grimacing::zipper_mouth_face:

We could do a study. I’ve got such a giant pile of data for so many years from BackTo20/20. I’ve even spent time talking to academic writers and digging into peer review and all of that. Came to the conclusion that the time and money required wasn’t yet fully justified. Our detractors don’t even acknowledge myopia cause science or the fact that their treatment causes more of it. So fat chance they’ll skip over all that and take our work seriously.

My only answer to all this is, grow a longer beard.


Someday, you’ll have even more data…an overwhelming amount (or a longer beard as you call it). At that point, it will be justifiable to statistically analyze it post-hoc. You’ll know when that is…because it will reach the floor…the floor of sufficient data-beard. I’m looking forward to that study someday.


It could be published on bioRxiv. As long as you present data, and let the data speak for themselves, it cannot be argued that it is not scientific, especially if you include a detailed Methods section that describes how the data were collected.

1 Like

Intriguing line of thought. I would’ve thought that there is no reality which actually needs to be validated by science.

Science is for our sake … it’s not for the sake of reality. :wink:

As for ending myopia, I offer my n=1 anecdote: I’ve gone from about -3.0 to current -0.75 based on suggestions found around this forum.

I’m not accusing science of anything … it’s just my reality :vulcan_salute:


as that wise guy once said “Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, it doesn’t go away.”


This also likely applies to conditions in sensitive areas best cured by penicillin.

With that definition reality is much less than most people think in my opinion :slight_smile: