NOT my research paper on myopia

I would like to draw attention to two published research works. One of them is under open-access.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429621000479?via=ihub

https://www.surveyophthalmol.com/article/S0039-6257(21)00142-9/fulltext00142-9/fulltext)

Anyone having put in the sincere effort to actually read and understand my work will immediately recognise the similarity between many of the ideas common to both of the papers when it comes to hypothesis and even some of the conclusions (feedback loop of Myopia, describing refractive equivalence).

This can only mean one of the two possibilities:A) There are two people independtly stumbling and researching/improving upon the exact same idea. In this case, the idea is indeed correct and physiologic Myopia is what it is – reversible.The scientific rationale and contributing evidences behind the idea is also sound.Two people independently arriving at the same wrong discovery makes little sense even if you are extremely sceptical.

B) I copied their idea because their work is earlier than mine. In this case, the idea is fraudulent/pseudoscientific and we are both frauds and Myopia is what optometric consensus claims to be – permanent and possibly progressive.

Even if you are very inclined to think of B being possible, it is very unlikely (although I won't prevent you from reasonably doubting me) because I have been independently researching about Myopia for years at this point. My older comments on this sub and other places well beyond this author's publication dates are enough evidence. The possibilities have shrunk against you even further.

That this paper independently exists alone vindicates the validity and truly scientific basis of my work. It also implies that most of the insights concerning my research work have been already Peer reviewed even before its publication.

To those who are still on the fence even after all this, how much more evidences in the form of novel research, prescription reductions, consistent explanations better than existing ones do we need to provide to even nudge you towards believing that we are not pseudoscientific frauds and that the discoveries are indeed totally real??