Eyeglasses and retail optometry are scams

[Tippit]

So you're admitting to being a troll.

Good to know.

Absolutely, except in this case, I'm trolling you by telling the truth, to expose the patent dishonesty of pseudo-skepticism. Much like people who claim that there has been no evidence provided when there has been evidence provided are trolling. Beautiful, isn't it?

 

[Tippit]

You have missed the point entirely. Even if you get 1000 ophthalmologists to sign off on your improved vision, it is still, on its own a worthless anecdote so far as demonstrating the efficacy of a procedure is concerned. What is needed is a blinded statistically significant trial with controls and elimination of confounding factors. You can post here till you are blue in the face about your wonderful recovery of acuity, but it is no different in kind from the claims of homeopathy and supplement users.

That is abject nonsense, and you're the one missing the point. While I agree that proving that I'm close to emmetropic says nothing about the efficacy of the method I used, the reality is that modern "science" puts forth the hypothesis that progressive myopia is an irreversible genetic condition. By reversing my myopia (and linking to peer-reviewed studies that show how axial elongation and axial shortening of the eyeball can be induced by hyperopic and myopic defocus, respectively), I have absolutely falsified the hypothesis that myopia is a "genetic condition", and, more importantly to me, reversed my myopia and restored my own eyesight.

So unless you're a coincidence theorist, and you're claiming that my improved vision is some kind of miracle coincidental to my undertaking of a specific method in January of 2018, then overwhelmingly more than likely, it's the method.

 

[hecd2]

While I agree that proving that I'm close to emmetropic says nothing about the efficacy of the method I used, the reality is that modern "science" puts forth the hypothesis that progressive myopia is an irreversible genetic condition. By reversing my myopia (and linking to peer-reviewed studies that show how axial elongation and axial shortening of the eyeball can be induced by hyperopic and myopic defocus, respectively), I have absolutely falsified the hypothesis that myopia is a "genetic condition", and, more importantly to me, reversed my myopia and restored my own eyesight.

What you believe you have done for yourself is your own business and I congratulate you on it. However, your personal anecdote is no more proof that you "have absolutely falsified the hypothesis that myopia is a "genetic condition"" than it is a demonstration of the efficacy of a corrective procedure. You don't seem to be able to get it through your head that, in the absence of controlled studies of sufficient power, individual anecdotes carry vanishingly little weight.

As for your vaunted peer-reviewed studies, I have been able to find two links that you provided in this thread - one was to a study of juvenile tree shrews, the other to a study in children. You have referenced no studies in human adults which demonstrate that the procedure you claim to have used is efficacious in adults. Note that I am not saying that it cannot be, but that you have not provided any evidence that it is so. Your anecdote certainly isn't such evidence.

So unless you're a coincidence theorist, and you're claiming that my improved vision is some kind of miracle coincidental to my undertaking of a specific method in January of 2018, then overwhelmingly more than likely, it's the method.

This is identical to the arguments that the homeopathists and other alt-med proponents make about their claims, and it is just as ridiculous. Dress it up how you like, it is a personal anecdote, and no more justifies your abuse of optometry than the personal anecdotes of homeopathy consumers justify their abuse of conventional medicine. Your claim might not be as dangerous as theirs, but it is as scurrilous.

 

[Mojo]

I think you are a waste of my time, but let me explain what falsifiability means. It means my claim can be proven false, or true. I can easily get tested by an ophthalmologist who can either confirm or deny my ability to see to a certain acuity, and who can also confirm an absence of surgery.

Would you like to buy my tiger-repelling rock? I’m sure I could easily get its efficacy tested by a zoologist who could either confirm or deny that my house is free from tigers, and a geologist who could confirm or deny the presence of the rock.

 

[Tippit]

What you believe you have done for yourself is your own business and I congratulate you on it. However, your personal anecdote is no more proof that you "have absolutely falsified the hypothesis that myopia is a "genetic condition"" than it is a demonstration of the efficacy of a corrective procedure. You don't seem to be able to get it through your head that, in the absence of controlled studies of sufficient power, individual anecdotes carry vanishingly little weight.

You don't actually sound very congratulatory, nor impressed, but thanks for actually clicking a link and reading. On the contrary, if we're to accept the hypothesis that progressive myopia is a genetically caused degenerative disease, then it should be impossible, neigh miraculous for me to have done what I've done. Remember, I'm making a falsifiable claim that my vision has improved, absent surgery. I am willing to bet your entire net worth should you wish to put your "skepticism" up for a wager on this matter. Assuming that I am telling the truth, and the thousands of other people that are documented on youtube who have used reduced lens therapy successfully are telling the truth, then the hypothesis for the cause of progressive myopia has been falsified. Are you accusing me of lying?

As for your vaunted peer-reviewed studies, I have been able to find two links that you provided in this thread - one was to a study of juvenile tree shrews, the other to a study in children. You have referenced no studies in human adults which demonstrate that the procedure you claim to have used is efficacious in adults. Note that I am not saying that it cannot be, but that you have not provided any evidence that it is so. Your anecdote certainly isn't such evidence.
This is identical to the arguments that the homeopathists and other alt-med proponents make about their claims, and it is just as ridiculous. Dress it up how you like, it is a personal anecdote, and no more justifies your abuse of optometry than the personal anecdotes of homeopathy consumers justify their abuse of conventional medicine. Your claim might not be as dangerous as theirs, but it is as scurrilous.

My anecdote, as well as the anecdotes of many others *is* evidence, it's just not sufficient to satisfy you. With all due respect, the opinion of a skeptic on a forum is about as important to me as my claim is to you. What evidence would satisfy you?

The only people making dangerous claims, are the ones peddling eyeglasses that cause actual harm in a market worth billions of dollars.

 

[Tippit]

Would you like to buy my tiger-repelling rock? I’m sure I could easily get its efficacy tested by a zoologist who could either confirm or deny that my house is free from tigers, and a geologist who could confirm or deny the presence of the rock.

I would be willing to wager your entire net worth against the efficacy of your "tiger-repelling" rock in a test, subject to certain conditions. Put up or shut up?

 

[Mojo]

I would be willing to wager your entire net worth against the efficacy of your "tiger-repelling" rock in a test, subject to certain conditions. Put up or shut up?

A test as rigorous as the one you are proposing for your claims? I’m pretty confident that my house is free from tigers, and that any suitably qualified zoologist will be able to confirm this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The reason near vision declines in our later years is the lens becomes stiff and the muscle that focuses that lens becomes weaker. I'm not sure I would call normal aging "genetic" but technically it is.

Mayo Clinic

The lens, unlike the cornea, is somewhat flexible and can change shape with the help of a circular muscle that surrounds it. When you look at something at a distance, the circular muscle relaxes. When you look at something nearby, the muscle constricts, allowing the relatively elastic lens to curve and change its focusing power.

Presbyopia is caused by a hardening of the lens of your eye, which occurs with aging. As your lens becomes less flexible, it can no longer change shape to focus on close-up images. ...

Risk factors
Certain factors can make you more likely to develop presbyopia, including:

Age. Age is the greatest risk factor for presbyopia. Almost everyone experiences some degree of presbyopia after age 40.

Other medical conditions. Being farsighted or having certain diseases — such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis or cardiovascular diseases — can increase your risk of premature presbyopia, which is presbyopia in people younger than 40.

Drugs. Certain drugs are associated with premature presbyopic symptoms, including antidepressants, antihistamines and diuretics.

Note you can buy reading glasses in the drug store, no optician or prescription needed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here are links to Jake Steiner's youtube channel, forum, and wiki, for those interested:

Jake Steiner

End Myopia Forum

End Myopia Wiki

Good luck!

Good luck? More like Good grief.

Maybe this has been posted but it is clear EndMyopia is junk science and doesn't belong in the science forum.
One telling comment on Reddit

...For those who don't know, Jake is a so called "eye-guru". He has this website called EndMyopia, where he posts non-scientifical "facts" which he presents as real facts. He slanders our profession on the regular, laughs at us, while scamming people. As i said, i reported this earlier on this subreddit and people advised me to let it go.
Well, turns out Jake saw that message too and wasn't very happy about it. He sent me a lovely message trying to scare me. THIS is the full message from Jake Steiner's own profile, u/jake_reddits . ...

I'd rather go to a proper ophthalmologist any day [...] over some optometrist hack" (saying optometry isn't a real profession, again implying he's the one with THE truth and knows more than us", "You can make MONEY and HELP PEOPLE if you just get your head out of your ass" (saying i don't know what i'm talking about and he clearly knows everything) etc.

As for the stories he's posting on his Facebook group (and subreddit and anywhere else) i guess we have to admit there's always going to be some rotten apples on the tree. There's always going to be people with the title 'optometrist' who don't know what they're doing or have a bad day, just like there's policemen, teachers, scientists who don't know what they're doing and everyone can have a bad day. It's inevitable i guess. The things that bothers me is that Jake can use these stories to fuel his own narrative. I went trough some of the comments on one of his videos and saw lots of people whose myopia did not get better. I reported on it, and got blocked on twitter. I continued reporting on his scams by viewing his tweets just in a browser without being logged in, but he has now put a following-only wall around his tweets.

Re that last line, you can't read his Twitter without signing in and noting you are "following him". Clever way to boost your "following" numbers and get more ad revenues.


Nuf said. There are no citations to actual scientific research I can find in those links. It's standard crap peddling the "cures they don't want you to know about".

 

[abaddon]

Good luck? More like Good grief.

Maybe this has been posted but it is clear EndMyopia is junk science and doesn't belong in the science forum.
One telling comment on RedditRe that last line, you can't read his Twitter without signing in and noting you are "following him". Clever way to boost your "following" numbers and get more ad revenues.


Nuf said. There are no citations to actual scientific research I can find in those links. It's standard crap peddling the "cures they don't want you to know about".

I can only speak from experience. Of my parents, one required corrective lenses, one did not. (both long since dead now). Of their four progeny, two require corrective lenses and two do not. Of the next generation, one does and three do not.

Somehow, Tippit is claiming that I am being persuaded by BIG OPTA to get glasses for no reason. That is an odd claim. Because it just does not happen.

Have the optometrists been price gouging? Maybe, but one can buy glasses for a couple of bucks if one sees the need. (scuse the pun)

 

[Tippit]

Good luck? More like Good grief.

Maybe this has been posted but it is clear EndMyopia is junk science and doesn't belong in the science forum.

Are you advocating censoring me by moving my thread to a different forum? Well isn't that... not surprising.

Nuf said. There are no citations to actual scientific research I can find in those links. It's standard crap peddling the "cures they don't want you to know about".

Learn to read, perhaps? One of you managed.

 

[Tippit]

The reason near vision declines in our later years is the lens becomes stiff and the muscle that focuses that lens becomes weaker. I'm not sure I would call normal aging "genetic" but technically it is.

Mayo Clinic


Note you can buy reading glasses in the drug store, no optician or prescription needed.

Age-related presbyopia is not progressive myopia. This has already been addressed in the thread that you did not read. Nothing you typed was relevant.

 

[Tippit]

A test as rigorous as the one you are proposing for your claims? I’m pretty confident that my house is free from tigers, and that any suitably qualified zoologist will be able to confirm this.

You are bad at analogies and running tests.

On the other hand, modern optometry claims that progressive myopia is a genetic condition that gets worse over time (progressively), so if we can find even one person who has improved their myopia without surgery, much less tens of thousands who have improved dramatically, we have falsified the hypothesis.

Just like how we need only find one black swan, to falsify the hypothesis that all swans are white.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you advocating censoring me by moving my thread to a different forum? Well isn't that... not surprising.

Learn to read, perhaps? One of you managed.

Relegating woo to the woo forum is not censorship.

This is classic woo the guy is promoting for a profit off scammed people. And you are helping spread the word.

 

[Tippit]

Relegating woo to the woo forum is not censorship.

This is classic woo the guy is promoting for a profit off scammed people. And you are helping spread the word.

If it’s “woo”, then you need only expose it with free speech. That you feel the need to censor people who you disagree with is only evidence of the weakness of your argument.

As far as Steiner, I haven’t given him a dime. You can learn all you need from his youtube videos and website.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hecd2]

If we're to accept the hypothesis that progressive myopia is a genetically caused degenerative disease, then it should be impossible, neigh miraculous for me to have done what I've done.

We don't know that all cases of progressive myopia have the same cause or only one cause, and no-one is suggesting that in every case the cause is purely genetic. Even if your claim to improvement were true, it does not have the power to "have absolutely falsified the hypothesis that myopia is a "genetic condition"".

Assuming that I am telling the truth, and the thousands of other people that are documented on youtube who have used reduced lens therapy successfully are telling the truth, then the hypothesis for the cause of progressive myopia has been falsified. Are you accusing me of lying?

No I am accusing you of putting almost infinitely more weight on your personal anecdote than it can carry. The same goes for the YouTube anecdotes (which are not even in evidence in this thread). Your claim is exactly of the same kind as that of all the social media warriors who insist that homeopathy or vitamin C supplements or crystal healing or aura manipulation has cured them of this or that condition, all of whom have their testimonials "documented" on YouTube.

As for the genetic component to progressive myopia, as I understand it, that has been established by observing the familial incidence of the condition.

My anecdote, as well as the anecdotes of many others *is* evidence, it's just not sufficient to satisfy you.

Yes, it is evidence. But it is not remotely sufficient to justify either the claim explicit in the title of this thread or the absurd proposition that your personal tale falsifies the genetic component of the condition. Nor is it remotely sufficient to demonstrate the efficacy of the procedure you claim to have used.

With all due respect, the opinion of a skeptic on a forum is about as important to me as my claim is to you.

I don't care what you believe to be important or otherwise, but since you are here voluntarily, I am pointing out how utterly threadbare your argument is.

What evidence would satisfy you?

You would know the answer to that if you had read my posts properly.

 

[Tippit]

We don't know that all cases of progressive myopia have the same cause or only one cause, and no-one is suggesting that in every case the cause is purely genetic. Even if your claim to improvement were true, it does not have the power to "have absolutely falsified the hypothesis that myopia is a "genetic condition"".

When I first received glasses at the age of 15 or 16, I was told my myopia was genetic, and irreversible. I have, at the very least, falsified that hypothesis. I can demonstrate this with a vision test, and by providing records of prior diagnoses. We know that the eyeball changes its shape as a result of refractive stimulus, axial elongation as the result of hyperopic defocus, and axial shortening as the result of myopia defocus. This is apparent from the studies that apparently only you in this forum bothered to read (to your credit), and apparent from all of the people who are cured by reduced lens therapy (myopic defocus).

My results prove that myopia isn't an irreversible condition, regardless of the role that genetics plays, and that it is not predominately a genetic condition, but epigenetic.

No I am accusing you of putting almost infinitely more weight on your personal anecdote than it can carry. The same goes for the YouTube anecdotes (which are not even in evidence in this thread). Your claim is exactly of the same kind as that of all the social media warriors who insist that homeopathy or vitamin C supplements or crystal healing or aura manipulation has cured them of this or that condition, all of whom have their testimonials "documented" on YouTube.

You are free to accuse me of lying, or understating the significance of my results, but the fact of the matter is that I was legally blind in my right eye, and dependent upon glasses for decades until I used this method. Not only does it work, it proves that glasses are actually harmful and change the refractive state of the eye over time due to hyperopic defocus.

As for the genetic component to progressive myopia, as I understand it, that has been established by observing the familial incidence of the condition.
Yes, it is evidence. But it is not remotely sufficient to justify either the claim explicit in the title of this thread or the absurd proposition that your personal tale falsifies the genetic component of the condition. Nor is it remotely sufficient to demonstrate the efficacy of the procedure you claim to have used.

The claim in the title to this thread is 100% true, retail optometry is a scam. I define a scam to be any treatment which actually causes harm, and perpetuates more of the same treatment. My results aren't exclusive. There are thousands of people now who have gotten similar results. We are what falsify the "genetic component of the condition". If you read the thread carefully and understand how chronic pseudomyopia occurs from poor visual hygiene, and then how hyperopic defocus caused by wearing glasses semi-permanently results in axial elongation, causing progressive myopia, then you will understand why retail optometry is junk science.

I don't care what you believe to be important or otherwise, but since you are here voluntarily, I am pointing out how utterly threadbare your argument is. You would know the answer to that if you had read my posts properly.

The only thing that is important, is the fact that I can see independently of eyeglasses. Whether or not some cynics and pseudo-skeptics on a forum doubt my claim or the implications, is unimportant.

I will at least give you credit for reading some of the science, even if you seem incapable of drawing the right conclusion. You are an actual skeptic. Congratulations.

 

[psionl0]

I have never seen this thread before. Maybe I need glasses ......

 

[Tero]

The reason near vision declines in our later years is the lens becomes stiff and the muscle that focuses that lens becomes weaker. I'm not sure I would call normal aging "genetic" but technically it is.

Mayo Clinic


Note you can buy reading glasses in the drug store, no optician or prescription needed.

No need to read the rest of this thread. I've advanced to bifocals. I find many people my age just never figure it out. I've had to type reports etc. at work, so I need all the parts of the lineless bifocals I can get. I also get the widest possible reading area. They start newbies with a very narrow one. Just enough to read a cell phone width.

 

[hecd2]

The claim in the title to this thread is 100% true, retail optometry is a scam. I define a scam to be any treatment which actually causes harm, and perpetuates more of the same treatment. My results aren't exclusive. There are thousands of people now who have gotten similar results. We are what falsify the "genetic component of the condition". If you read the thread carefully and understand how chronic pseudomyopia occurs from poor visual hygiene, and then how hyperopic defocus caused by wearing glasses semi-permanently results in axial elongation, causing progressive myopia, then you will understand why retail optometry is junk science.

Into the bin with the alt-med and the quantum healing and the homeopathy and all the other pseudoscience communities you go. You haven't begun in this thread to demonstrate these scurrilous assertions except by personal anecdote. Your only references to peer reviewed science, presumably the best you have, is to studies in juvenile animals and children - not a single adult study.