Jake the Fake. Kinda got a ring to it, doesn’t it?
I’ll repost the entire e-mail here, for the collective enjoyment:
Jake the Fake -the eye guru that never was.
Congratulations on making the biggest mistake of your life. You are not an eye guru you are a laughing stock. You are nothing more than a product of the eye industry you claim to have debunked!
You have the audacity to claim that Bates, the most pioneering and most advanced ophthalmologist ever to study the eye, lived in the dark ages. I’m afraid it is YOU Jake that is living in the dark, you are 100 years behind the times matey!
Let’s have a quick history lesson shall we Jake? The 1920’s were not the dark ages or medieval times as you would like your followers to believe. In fact it was the era of some of the most ground-breaking discoveries of all time, for example:
Albert Einstein, (born March 14, 1879, Ulm, Württemberg, Germany—died April 18, 1955, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.), German-born physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity and won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 for his explanation of the photoelectric effect.
Max Planck was a German theoretical physicist who discovered the quantum of action, now known as Planck’s constant, h, in 1900. This work laid the foundation for quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918.
During the same period Bates managed to discover the TRUE theory of accommodation and was able to PROVE it. It is a shame that the majority of scientists since then could not follow or understand such ground-breaking work, just as they find it impossible to comprehend Max Plancks discovery that proved the current scientific explanation of the material world to be wrong.
Are you suggesting for a moment that Einstein, Planck and Bates lived at a time when people did not understand the world around them? On the contrary Jake, they were decades ahead of everyone else and a century ahead of you. Maybe you should look at the long list of discoveries listed on Wikipedia during that time.
You like to mention the so called evidence provided by Google Scholar to back Endmyopia, yet you fail realise that most is produced by narrow minded scientists conditioned by the eye industry so that they cannot ‘see the wood for the trees’. They spend all their time looking at the inside of the eye (to bolster the theories promoted by the eye industry) and fail to see what is happening on the outside. It is here that mother nature’s magic takes place. I don’t dispute that there are subtle changes within the eye but these are not enough to be responsible for the amount of accommodation required to see from distance to near.
You have the nerve to say that Bates’ work was a stab in the dark. That proves you obviously did not study his work, probably because you lack the intelligence to understand it. Let’s take a look at what Bates managed to PROVE shall we? I’ve tried to keep things as simple as possible Jake so even someone with your low level of intellect can understand it.
Mainstream ophthalmologists who have been brainwashed by the eye industry use atropine eye drops to paralyse the so called ‘ciliary muscle’ thinking it will prevent a change in curvature of the lens and thus prevent accommodation. It does not work, and I have seen the evidence myself numerous times whilst working in the eye clinic of my local hospital, as did Bates 100 years ago.
Sometimes it produces myopia or changes hypermetropia into myopia, and will produce myopia and hypermetropia in persons over 70 when the lens is supposed to be hard as stone. Patients with normal eyes can, after the use of atropine, develop various forms of astigmatism and can even manage to read small print at close distances.
When accommodation continues to occur, it is evident that it must be due to some factor other than the lens and ciliary muscle.
The only way to truly prevent accommodation is to inject atropine deep into the orbit (the eye socket) so as to reach the oblique muscles (extra-ocular muscles responsible for accommodation as described in the article below).
Here is the evidence Jake:
⦁ Accommodation takes place by the eye altering it’s length like a camera does.
Read the following article for the TRUTH about accommodation and weep Jake:
⦁ Accommodation takes place in aphakic (lensless) eyes.
The following 125 year old article proves your understanding about the role of the lens and ciliary muscle to be BULLSHIT! Read and weep again Jake!
⦁ Accommodation occurs in pseudophakic (intra-ocular lens implanted after cataract surgery) eyes.
⦁ CONCLUSION - THE LENS IS NOT A FACTOR IN ACCOMODATION.
You’ve been brainwashed by the eye industry Jake!
Do you really think the eye grows longer during myopia? If you do then please explain how the eye then grows shorter when subjected to ophthalmic lenses of reduced power? All Endmyopia does is very slowly, and I emphasize VERY SLOWLY, allow the oblique eye muscles to return to their normal position. High myopes are at risk of retinal detachment due to the oblique muscles stretching the eye to account for the hyperopic defocus caused by wearing concave minus lenses when viewing close up. If the eye was actually growing longer then myopes would not be at risk of detachment as the retina would also grow at the same time as the rest of the eye.
Your theory behind Endmyopia is:
The evidence is there in black and white and always has been since the greatest ophthalmologist in history discovered the truth - William Horatio Bates M.D. R.I.P.
Even if for one moment everything written above was wrong and your theory about the lens and ciliary muscle being responsible for accommodation was true then explain the following Jake:
Why can’t YOU help people with hypermetropia or presbyopia as well???
Bates was able to help people with all errors of refraction because he new the truth about accomodation and how the eye works. It didn’t work for you because you failed to understand his method just as you’ve failed to understand myopia.
I cured myself of -3.00D in less than a week using the Bates method and will never have to wear lenses for distance or near vision in my life, even though the industry wants everyone to believe that presbyopia is unavoidable. Maybe you should think about that Jake as you reach for your reading specs as you grow older. No way would I wait years like the followers of Endmyopia who will end up having to wear convex plus lenses later in life for near vision - what a con!
You’ve discovered NOTHING Jake and the cheering in the background at the beginning of your videos is a sign of insecurity from someone who thinks they are smarter than they really are.
It is such a shame that you were unable to ‘see the wood for the trees’ and understand the Bates method. With all the effort you’ve put in over the years you could have turned Endmyopia into End-all-opias and become a genuine eye guru. Instead you are nothing but a misguided, condescending, narcissistic wannabe.
Yours in disappointment
So there we have it.
It would have been a cool theory, all nicely formatted, and with supporting links, and various debate-able arguments. Not sure why Glenn had to go all full frontal personal attacks right from the world go, though.
Maybe he didn’t see himself succeeding in making his point, despite clearly very inspired efforts?
Maybe it’s my fault, for presenting myself as not open minded enough?
Or maybe Glenn in general just has no friends, because he frames all of his arguments as attacks on people. Not at all like a certain bearded genius makes fun of the mainstream establishment.
Anyway, here you have it.
If there’s something to what he says, in your opinion, it’s all here for debate - because I didn’t actually read it (maybe did but … “lens plays no role in accommodation”), too many insults to have to look past to get to his point.