4 ms·

We live in a world where not long ago smoking was considered fine by doctors. Where fat is demonized on nutrition labels while obesity surges. Where leaded gaso

We live in a world where not long ago smoking was considered fine by doctors. Where fat is demonized on nutrition labels while obesity surges. Where leaded gasoline was banned in gas not that long ago. Where a dozen diseases are increasingly prevalent and we have no idea why. To suggest that medicine hasn't figured something out is completely sensible. It can be argued that mRNA vaccine breakthroughs might not have happened without COVID, before that we didn't have it figured out. How many ophthalmologists are doing research, and how many are doing their job and going home because research doesn't pay? In every age many are convinced we've reached the pinnacle of science and have everything figured out, and that is pants on head retarded.

alar44 4y ago
There's just no evidence for it. It's that fucking simple.
- Aulig 4y ago
  No evidence for what? Almost everything related to endmyopia is proven, aside from the whole thing put together. The main thing, axial length reduction through undercorrection, has been shown in plenty of animals and humans.
  - planarhobbit 4y ago
    I think what the parent is trying to say is that we have studies that show how myopia can be induced. I think EndMyopia gives examples in baby chickens or some such. But I’ve yet personally not come across a vetted study that shows reversal of myopia. And I support EndMyopia/Hormesis Theory as I’ve applied some of the ideas to help my one weaker eye get a bit sharper over time. I understand there’s an industry that wants to be paid for prescription glasses and lenses and whatnot, and that can throw a wrench and it does into the whole thing - see the Sugar vs Fat vs Whatever industry battle. But a little would go a long way.
  - ymolodtsov 4y ago
    Come on, it hasn't been proven on humans.
    - Aulig 4y ago
      Here are 3 studies that have shown axial length change in humans: https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2772368 https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2772368 https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2126435 https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2126435 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0161535#sec007 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourn...
      - cbruns 4y ago
        I only checked your first article, and you're not wrong that axial length change was observed in humans. But it makes the opposite point of what you hope. The myopic eyes only grew longer when subjected to any type of blur. "In addition, in myopes, calculated defocus caused longer eyes (+8.4 ± 9.0 µm, P = 0.001). Strikingly, myopic eyes became also longer with positive defocus (+9.1 ± 11.2 µm, P = 0.02)."
        Aulig 4y ago
        Please check out the other articles too or read some more of that article - they point out that their findings are not the norm and speculate as to why that could be. I suspect it's because they used too much defocus (you wouldn't be able to read anything with the amount of defocus they're using, so completely impractical for real life) - that has led to axial elongation in many other studies too.

alar44 4y ago

There's just no evidence for it. It's that fucking simple.

Aulig 4y ago
No evidence for what? Almost everything related to endmyopia is proven, aside from the whole thing put together. The main thing, axial length reduction through undercorrection, has been shown in plenty of animals and humans.
- planarhobbit 4y ago
  I think what the parent is trying to say is that we have studies that show how myopia can be induced. I think EndMyopia gives examples in baby chickens or some such. But I’ve yet personally not come across a vetted study that shows reversal of myopia. And I support EndMyopia/Hormesis Theory as I’ve applied some of the ideas to help my one weaker eye get a bit sharper over time. I understand there’s an industry that wants to be paid for prescription glasses and lenses and whatnot, and that can throw a wrench and it does into the whole thing - see the Sugar vs Fat vs Whatever industry battle. But a little would go a long way.
- ymolodtsov 4y ago
  Come on, it hasn't been proven on humans.
  - Aulig 4y ago
    Here are 3 studies that have shown axial length change in humans: https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2772368 https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2772368 https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2126435 https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2126435 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0161535#sec007 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourn...
    - cbruns 4y ago
      I only checked your first article, and you're not wrong that axial length change was observed in humans. But it makes the opposite point of what you hope. The myopic eyes only grew longer when subjected to any type of blur. "In addition, in myopes, calculated defocus caused longer eyes (+8.4 ± 9.0 µm, P = 0.001). Strikingly, myopic eyes became also longer with positive defocus (+9.1 ± 11.2 µm, P = 0.02)."
      - Aulig 4y ago
        Please check out the other articles too or read some more of that article - they point out that their findings are not the norm and speculate as to why that could be. I suspect it's because they used too much defocus (you wouldn't be able to read anything with the amount of defocus they're using, so completely impractical for real life) - that has led to axial elongation in many other studies too.