Wikipedia page on myopia reversal

Hi folks, by sheer chance @Blake mentioned that having a Wikipedia page on myopia reversal would be great for exposure.

How about it? We could make a nice and neutral one (also mentioning Bates Method) and then have our great multinational following translate it into their own respective languages.


Sounds like a good idea! Are you thinking of a brief and easy explanation about how eye biology works and how Jake’s Endmyopia method works to improve vision? Or are you thinking of covering more ground than that?

Small observation. Some members of the low carb community were having trouble recently with someone who made it his mission in life to challenge, discredit, and even successfully lobby to have Wikipedia pages about some people deleted because he was offended by any idea that didn’t agree with official government nutritional guidelines. Being outside the conventional wisdom brought out some pretty interesting pushback. Since Jake and Endmyopia is also outside this conventional wisdom, it might be good to know that objections could possibly be raised here also. However, considering that is just life as usual for pretty much everyone here… :slight_smile: Perhaps we can just carry on!!!


Do you think it would actually be accepted and not removed or edited to say it’s not possible?

What if the passage was written in such a way that the mainstream accepted it? I don’t mind helping write some of the prose, but I don’t find generating references, citations, footnotes, and evidence fun, so so someone else would have to do that.

What if we just write about reversing spasm of acommodation and NITM only, and stick to accepted language and have lots of studies to back it up? I honestly think going into reversal of multi diopter myopia is something that wikipedia is not quite ready for yet. Eventually, yes. But we need to start somewhere, start small.

Also, if you reverse NITM over and over, guess what…you’re doing the real deal. As I’ve said before, technically, only very low myopia is reversible. But we do it over and over again. No one has to know that, yet. I feel like being conservative is best.

I recently asked a mainstream, but very careful optometrist how much change he’s seen in extreme cases over time in people over 40 in the hyperopic direction. He said quite a bit. I said, “like multiple diopters?”. His answer was “Yes.” And that is because he’s careful to try not to overcorrect, in my opinion.

If we can just stop overcorrection, and push optimal correction for distance, and intermediate lenses for near, I think we are good. A lot of people will improve without even trying, which is what we want. It needs to be clear this is not about an exercise, but reducing spasm, using good habits, and proper posture and lenses for clear vision at distance and comfortable vision at near.

I’ve seen a few people say they have improved corrected to just about 20/20. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible for most.


Here are some of my ideas:

-talk about overacommodation during auto refractions and subjective refractions as a major source of error, with studies to back it up.

-spasm of acommodation and how it leads to NITM

-good habits and reducing screen time to undo this

-studies showing the eye is not static over time

-a paragraph urging people to go to forward thinking vision care providers who will prescribe for comfortable clear vision, but not overdo it, and who are willing to provide intermediate glasses for near.

-nutfition and exercise and how they help

-and no mention of DIY glasses, please. The AOA will get very upset.


Kittehs here could unite and make entries in all our mothertongues wikipedias…

One option is for sure, to create endmyopa as a standalone entry.

We can also just alter the entry on myopia:

Just under 7, Alternative treatment

Add it in vision therapy entry under alternetive vision therapy:

There is one on Bates method in EN wikipedia:

In German wiki, there’s one about dr. bates, but not the method - could link there, roo…

What u think?

@jakey, please let us know your opinion on the whole thing… :wink:


TBH, I don’t like this. It’s yet another action that makes Endmyopia look like your typical horde of quacks. In normal internet terms, this here would be planning a raid, aimed to edit Wikipedia in a way that promotes the goals of this forum/website. If this isn’t against Wikipedia’s rules, at the very least it pushes its guidelines and principles to the limit.

So while this could work, it could also repulse the kind of people we need to really move forward on understanding myopia. When I saw the clearly coordinated bursts of positive reviews for Endmyopia, I almost dismissed all of this as a scam. People who work on an honest project usually don’t show such an artificial-looking distribution of reviews over time.

In my opinion, we should prioritize gathering more data and working on understanding the mechanisms behind myopia. The truth is incontrovertible, and a much greater asset than opinionated edit wars on public websites.


@Varakari, you do raise a valid point. My take on this is that we have to stick to the facts as much as possible. @FMR made some great suggestions on how to build such a topic. We could, after those facts are presented in a nice and readable fashion, provide a list of possible treatments. Without being biased or favouring any one of them.

Would that be something worth considering?


@Varakari, I think we need more time. This is almost like political action. Unfortunately a lot of industries work this way.

@Laurens, maybe we should focus on relationship building/networking instead. It’s a looooong term project though. I hope I can help with it someday. You never know who is going to end up as an officer in what professional organization someday…

If it were me, I’d put in a lot of time and not try to rush things. Once we get relationships solidified, and science advances, experts can be used to help write such a passage in an honest way. We are not experts…yet. We are taking baby steps.

The only problem, is what if some biased third party writes a Wikipedia page on us in the meantime, and tries to dismiss the concepts? Then we would have to have a response.

Also let’s be open minded ourselves. Syntonics is what Dr. Orfield credited with possibly helping get rid of her last bit of myopia.

There are still some researchers who think obesity is largely genetic and weight loss doesn’t work over the long term. It will never end.

I’m not sure about you guys, but I’m not going anywhere. I’m making this stuff my life’s work to figure out. I expect this site to still be around and you guys here, in ten, fifteen, twenty years! It’s one of the few topics I’m interested enough in to keep going long term with. @varakari, I hope you consider doing the same.


Also, until we know if the risk of retinal problems decreases or not, we are not ready for prime time.

I’ll let you guys in on a little secret…what my username means. FMR stands for “future myopia researcher”.

@Varakari, I think it’s great that you’re becoming a myopia researcher now.

Slow and steady.


If Jake will keep putting up with me I’ll stick around too for the foreseeable future.

How about we update the myopia page on Wikipedia with some facts we know and can back by science? That will create more awareness on the real cause and get people to start thinking again instead of remaining in sheeple mode. :sheep:

Cool username by the way, guess what mine stands for? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


@Laurens, your name!

Can’t wait to see @Varakari’s response…


@Laurens, of course there’s nothing wrong with updating relevant information on Wikipedia, etc. I just believe it will end up either watered down or contested. I’ve had my fair share of mudfights in public spaces – you need serious amounts of ammo and conviction to win these.

I’d actually love to start the public conflict about myopia causes, but IMO we need more ammo. If you add Endmyopia to Wikipedia right now, its classification is “Alternative and Pseudo Medicine”. Meh.

@FMR, well, it’s not clear if I can become a myopia researcher in the way I intend to, at least in the official sense. But of course I’ll keep trying to measure something. Catching an axial length reduction in the act would give the naysayers a hard pill to swallow, so that’s what I’m still trying to do. Cool thing about your username! :sunglasses:

That sounds good. But hard to tell how to best do this. For example, the animal models and visual environment are in the myopia article, but listed after the “genetics” heading right now. This ordering is a typical case of implicit bias. You could now go there and change the order, and then some edit warlord might change it back, or start some meta-argument. It’s murky stuff.

I went for dinner in the middle of typing it, so I guess it looked like I took ages. :sweat_smile:


:stuck_out_tongue:. It actually stems from the Roman emperors wearing the The meaning is someone wearing just that. Good in my case since I’m becoming balder every day :wink:


So it’s not your name?!

1 Like

It is, I just explained the meaning of my name

1 Like

@Laurens, lol.

Here is an excerpt from one of my college textbooks (Purves, 2008):

“Although the mechanism of light-
mediated control of eye growth is not
fully understood, many experts now
believe that the prevalence of myopia is
due to some aspect of modern civiliza-
tion—perhaps learning to read and write
at an early age—that interferes with the
normal feedback control of vision on eye
development, leading to abnormal elon-
gation of the eyeball. A corollary of this
hypothesis is that if children (or, more
likely, their parents) wanted to improve
their vision, they might be able to do so
by practicing far vision to counterbalance
the near work ‘overload.’ Practically, of
course, most people would probably
choose wearing glasses or contacts or
having corneal surgery rather than
indulging in the onerous daily practice
that would presumably be required. Not
everyone agrees, however, that such a
remedy would be effective, and a number
of investigators (and drug companies) are
exploring the possibility of pharmacologi-
cal intervention during the period of
childhood when abnormal eye growth is
presumed to occur. In any event, it is a
remarkable fact that deprivation of
focused light on the retina causes a com-
pensatory growth of the eye and that this
feedback loop is so easily perturbed.”

I never forgot this, and love the language the author used. Amazing how he dances around the mainstream opinion by using phrases like “presumed to occur”. Btw, he should join this forum…he would fit right in!


Ok, some very barely two cents here.

First very important to realize external perspectives. There’s a huge mainstream contingent that sees this all as quackery and impossible. Then on the other side most of the “alternative” is eye vitamins and eye exercises and “Bates Method” (so the mainstream kind of has a point, actually). A Wiki post’s chance of survival are small, unless carefully crafted.

Being aware of objections ahead of time is key to any “sale” (which in my mind is also including new ideas, you’re having to ‘sell’ something replacing something else).

When it comes to something like Wikipedia, I’d be inclined to go with as suggested in this thread. Stick to just the peer reviewed science, sow the seeds of doubt of “genetic myopia”, and leave endmyopia out of the narrative completely. If anything just leave some breadcrumbs to help people find endmyopia by using some terminology that you know a Google search will lead people to us. Sneaky and possibly effective, keeping the bait clean and up to readers to explore further. Also note that we show up high in searches for various scientific terminology (and we can easily add to that with new posts, if you have suggestions).

Guerrilla tactics, subversion, amusement via the non-obvious.


We could start working (in this thread or another post) on improving that Wikipedia page as suggested. Making it factual based with the proper references. Jim had some great articles which could come in handy already and there will probably be some nice related citations in there that we can use to build a solid article.

If we can make it bullet proof already in here there will be much less opposition once we want to publish it.


Yes, something akin to (careful not to plagiarize) the textbook passage in terms of style (but with citations).

Links to study thread: Interesting Scientific article


2 cents too…to me Endmyopia is like a hidden treasure. I like the grass roots campaign where myopic internet surfers stumble onto Jake’s site with real testimonies or
uncover one of his YouTube videos that have real passion. As someone mentioned, Wiki might be watering down this treasure because it’s too facts-based and uninspiring to those desperate to find vision improvement. People want results asking “does it work?”

I’ll admit I access Wiki quite a bit however if I tell my friends some Wiki fact, they laugh it off as a not so reliable resource due to its fluid nature and unknown contributors. I don’t think it gets the respect you would think.