🧐 Jake, The Fake Eyeguru: An Ode To Dr. Bates


Jake the Fake. Kinda got a ring to it, doesn’t it? :thinking::grimacing:

I’ll repost the entire e-mail here, for the collective enjoyment:

Jake the Fake -the eye guru that never was.

Dear Jake

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.



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. :grimacing:


Woah 3.00D in less than a week!! Give me some of that “He does this. Doctors hate him” clickbait. Maybe that could me help see clear of how i was brainwashed by this Fake Eyeguru and spread this new secret to all my myopic friends. Wow!!! Glasses are now useless considering we all could improve ours eyes quickly!!

Joking aside, I can’t believe I read more of what he has said than what I intended.


That’s the point. This is clearly a frustrated person. That’s all!
I found really great that you posted this, it was very intersting for me (which I follow both Endmyopia and Bates) to see how some people can’t understand methods and concepts (in this case Grumann is several times out of track!)
I see Endmyopia, Bates, Plus therapy, Power Vision System, etc as different ways to treat myopia and they all should be on the same side of the barricade against myopia and its standard treatment, glasses.
Of course we all could discuss about efficiency and what’s right or wrong in any single method, but an attack like this is useless and just a frustration act.
Thanks Jake for sharing dissent mails, this makes you even more our eye bearded guru and a great person.


@Mickypenna I like your balanced approach. The amount of ad hominem in this email makes it impossible for me to seriously consider any of his arguments, although some may have some validity to them. The weaker the argument, the more ad hominem is required.

I actually feel sorry for this guy. His bile is hurting his stomach. :nauseated_face:


This guy has a major hard on for the Bates method. It’s like you insulted his girlfriend. I mean how dare you mention that it isn’t sufficient to get people back to 20/20. You are a clearly misguided spawn of satan.

I mean, having a disagreement with a random person online is a very good reason to drop heavy insults. It is a sure fire way to get people to listen better and think you mean well.

Plus you gotta admire the guys efforts. I wonder if he had to type it up in word before he e-mailed it to you. Longest random rant I’ve ever taken the time to read…


Yeh something going iffy there with a shite load of personal attacks.

Maybe my quote of the day in the other thread by Upton Sinclair is a good starting point.
or maybe that other quote “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Who knows…

I agree with Mickypenna, shouldn’t we all just be against mainstream optometry…isnt that enough effort already?

Having said that if I get the time I’d like to read his journal links. see if there is anything interesting in there.


It doesn’t sit quite right with me to expose someone online with their full name, even if the tone was way off.
The actual content of the email and the articles about extraocular accommodation are quite interesting to me, I hadn’t properly considered it but it does make sense that the muscles squeezing and moving around an eye ball would affect its shape and length. At least it’s worthy of consideration.
So I don’t agree with bashing each other’s methods and attempts at reversing myopia, on any “side”, because it’s really the same side.


There is reported pseudomyopia larger than that. So it’s totally possible if someone doesn’t have true myopia, just pseudomyopia.

I’ve checked the evidences. They are all interesting, but not really prove his point.

This paper is not a trial or not even a theory. They simply describe a hypothesis. So they describe how it could work if it would be true. But they don’t even suggest that it’s true:

An attempt has been made in the foregoing to outline a theory of accommodation proposed some years ago by Robert Simpkins,

He should have read the paper. The conclusion is:

My own conclusion, from studying the history of the subject, and from the careful and complete tests made in the two cases here reported, is, *That the accommodation present in the lensless eye is due chiefly if not solely to the ability of the patient in such cases, to interpret dispersion circles.

Ie.: they got good at reading blurry text.

The interesting part here is:

In the normal eye the change in curvature of the cornea, by accommodative effort, is some cases very marked. The most rnarked case of this kind that I have seen occurred in the person of Dr. C. H. Johnson, a former House-surgeon at the Manhattan Eye and Ear Hospital. The ophthalmometer showed him to have ordinarily an astigmatism .50 D. ax. 90+ 180-, both eyes. He could, however, without in any way changing the direction of his eye, voluntarily, by efforts at accommodation, change this in the right eye to 2 D., and in the left to 1.50 D. he was able to do this while the upper lid was held up with the finger, showing that it was not due to lid-pressure. He did this many times, and the same change was observed by a number of the staff at the hospital. Desiring to know if this change was due to the action of the ciliary muscle or to that of the external muscles of the eye, I wrote to Dr. J. M. Ray of Louisville, where Dr. Johnson now resides, to put Dr. Johnson’s eyes under the influence of a mydriatic (the doctor permitting), and in that way eliminate the question of the ciliary muscle.

We may have the explanation how astigmatism can be “corrected” with “AF” :slight_smile:

Then he says that

the change in the curve of the cornea is brought about mainly by the external muscles of the eye

But I as I understand that’s just an assumption. But we know that the axial length of the eye can change a lot in short term. So I think it’s more likely than external muscles.

He should have read the paper… again. Because “biconvex type intraocular lens” (which they investigated) is exactly those (new) type of lens which allows accommodation So they designed to be able to behave similarly as the organic lens. So no it’s no surprise that people can accommodate with them.

Anyhow what I found interesting is that

The decreased mean value of AC depth with accommodation from distances of 5 m to 30 cm was 0.17 mm in patients in their teens, 0.15 mm in patients in their 20 s, 0.10 mm in the 30 s, 0.06 mm in the 40 s, 0.05 mm in the 50 s, and 0.03 mm in the 60 s. The decrease of AC depth with accommodation at a distance of 10 cm was 0 in patients in their 60 s.

Which makes no sense to me. I would say that they simply measure the lens changes, but then why there is no change with the “biconvex type intraocular lens”? Or maybe that works differently than the natural lens?


I’ve edited out the name.

1 Like

Ah-ha! A grammatical error, the whole argument is invalidated!
Better luck next time, Glenn.

Anyway, speaking seriously, I have some serious doubts he cured -3.00D in less than a week. Bates method was the first I tried and didn’t do jack squat, and I was at the same range -2.75-3.00.
I’m pretty sure if this Glenn dude actually got improvements he would’ve gloated about the methods he used in detail, smearing it all over your face.

Instead his rant is completely devoid of personal experiences, maybe he’s just a seething Bates worshiper?

1 Like

Thanks Hannie I really appreciate your thought.
I just wish to say that anyone should find its way for improvement and something that won’t work for someone could work for someone else. That’s why there’s no a set way to reverse or prevent myopia. I’ve found my balance in several months and I do not advacate any method for the same reasons above. If someone ask me what’s good for myopia surely I’ll address this person to Endmyopia and Bates, and explain some more methods I studied. (For example I’m writing these words with my +1.00 glasses!)
Any attack, denigration, demonizetion… about any methods or techniques are useless for any intelligent debate concerning the ways to improve myopia.


My question is if this guy did go -3 to 20/20 Why doesnt HE share it with the world. And how did he find @jakey ? And what did you say about Einstein lol I guess I missed the conversation where you told the world the geniuses of the 1900s were in the dark???
On a realistic note. Bates is a dedication to time that most people cannot commit to… we have jobs we need to use those lenses. It is a commitment to decrese but I too tried Bates 1st and it caused serious pain to do excercises. I had to stop all of the methods I tried because none of it was feasible in my real life. But Jakes method changed all that. And I think we all know this reduction method works. And now that I am down to the -1.50 -1.25 lenses I can clear things up to near 20/20 temporarily. But there are still challenges to it, time of day, stress, light. Bates didnt get ditched out the window just not the method that has made solid improvements.


Not sure what his problem is. He’s lucky if it worked for him, I guess. No reason to be a hater…

If Bates did indeed work, I’d not be here. I’ve known about Bates-ian techniques for 40 years, but never had a single reduction. Sure the work here is slow, but is working and what’s more, I feel it’s up to date work. Bates has nothing to say about computer time, for sure.

1 Like

I have had reduction with the Bates method, although I did not know then how to measure it accurately. I was also not able to sustain it as soon as I stopped the exercises.

1 Like

Thanks! I like to share dissenting views (sadly this one could have done without those extras).

Especially when it’s in a context where we all understand the common ground of how to evaluate ideas. And also I really don’t want to lose sight (heh) of the possibility that we’re wrong (for sure, always, on some counts), and keep ideas flowing.

Also potentially highlight where and how these things go off the rails, and the “oh THREE DIOPTERS” claims, combined with science quotes that aren’t science quotes, are the ever present ingredients in soooo many Internet unicorn sales. Big claims appealing to the personal ‘greed’ (or desire for change etc), and then a bunch of citing things that nobody reads that go nowhere anyway.

David did a fine job of this one. :grimacing:

(Hey David, could we do a podcast style episode chat on these things? I don’t want to make another rant video, but these are fine examples of the things that bug me.)

It’s generally not effective in today’s context. It was way ahead of its time back in the day, in many ways. But doesn’t address root causes, our massive close-up use, or lens induced myopia. And he didn’t have the benefit of all the biology insights we have today. Lots of respect for the man, less so for what’s sold as “The Method” online today. But … of course bias. :thinking:

Yea. I actually know a few people who had those. They’re generally not totally thrilled, though that’s not really a surprised.

And awesome for actually reading the papers. I would have bet on this (though didn’t bother) since for endless years now these things have come on and gone and so many times I went chasing down their “proof”, just to find that they just headline read and keyword search and copy-paste, but usually don’t actually read. Or it’s some ‘study’ that’s not in a real journal, etc, always has gone nowhere.

And to be honest, kind of thought you would do exactly this, pick the thing apart. I’m terrible. :yum:

Also why I sometimes have a bit more of a caustic tone than people may expect. Just too many years of this annoyance, weird ideological thing, that just doesn’t add up to the claims. And people are following those rabbit holes, and then I get those e-mails, “oh Bates didn’t work, I think vision can’t be improved”.

I don’t really do a great job putting my rants and attitudes in context with experiences.


That was my bad. Left out the sender name, didn’t realize it was again in the signature. Wouldn’t have done so on purpose.


I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the Bates method. If looked at in the right context.
Bates was like Jake in his time. I think if his methods spread wide a 100 years ago, there would be less people with glasses now. (If for nothing else, because everybody would spend 1.5 hours screen free every day doing his exercises :joy:)

His context that needs to be considered: Screen free environment. Possibility to commit to the daily exercises up to 1.5 hours a day. People starting it in the pseudomyopia phase.
Today’s reality: You cannot avoid screens. People can’t commit to taking their vitamin every day, not to mention doing exercises. And because no alternative methods spread around the world, people who want to improve their eyesight are well over the pseudomyopia phase.
Bates exercises still help with relaxation and eye coordination, so can complement EM at certain steps.

Another difference in my view is that EM aims for clear vision close-up and distance, while Bates was more focusing on living without glasses, which means clear vision close-up but doesn’t necessarily mean sharp one at the distance - but again there were less neon lights to AF on at night in his time. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

What is sad about this e-mail is that a free alternative method attacks another free alternative method more than attacking the most wide-spread method: the opto’s billion dollar practice.
Should look for similarities and not for the differences.


If this guy managed to sort out his own eyesight in less than a week why isn’t he making zillions of $ from helping others? I tried Bates - it didn’t work for me. Read the Bates book, went to a Bates’ practitioner, went on a weekend course, and tried the exercises at home.

An attacking letter and personal attacks don’t serve any purpose.

I thank Dr. Bates for one thing - he persuaded me to ditch my glasses when my life circumstances changed in such a way that I could function safely without them other than for driving. 30 years of no burden of glasses is not something to be sneered at, and no almost inevitable diopter creep in those years had I continued wearing them for all distances. OK, I lived in blur in the distance, but I was already pretty tolerant of blur by then as previous to that I had never worn them when not absolutely necessary.

Sure :slight_smile:

Don’t worry, I totally anticipated that :smiley:

Yeah, a lot of people stuck in that phase. I were there too in the beginning :slight_smile: Years ago when I’ve found a study which contained the words I was looking for then I ran around victoriously waving it that “heeey, I have a proof” :smiley: Fortunately after a few times other people pointed out why it’s problematic, I’ve refined my ways :slight_smile: (which is seems like a superpower based on the internet). So yeah, usually it’s not that simple. Especially because these studies are not written in casual language, and many times people who are writing it are not native speaker, and even if they are native they may not a really good writer. So even if you found a full comprehensive sentence which says exactly what you want (ie.: “extra-ocular muscles cause myopia”) you should totally read the context, because what they says may actually means that their finding is the opposite :slight_smile: