anecdotal, holistic evidence? I could poke holes in that all day long. Fact is, holistics like to claim things work on testimonials alone. What they fail to address is placebo effect (which is monstrous) and the tons of other people for whom the regimen failed. In order for HGH to be proven to assist eyesight, there needs to be a study where you create 2 groups randomly. These groups are then given a drug, group A gets sugar pill, group B gets HGH. Then they would need to get serial eye exams to assess how much better their eyesight got. Then the result would have to stand up to p values and a 95% confidence interval. Fact is, no study HAS BEEN PUBLISHED to support your claim. What most non-medically savvy people do not understand is the amount of failed studies never make it to the market. Hence, holistics is created. Holistic therapies in and of themselves are not regulated by the FDA, so they could sell you salt water for all they care and they can get away with it. Also, many holistic remedies have already been shown to be ineffective or so mildly effective that they arent worth it for what they say they treat. Two problems, there is no money in publishing a report that states a product does not work, because for the most part, that kills the drug. If the drug is holistic, then they dont need the study, got it? I'll take this to the bank until a definitive study is released. If it is considered a "holistic treatment" and has been for awhile now, yet NOTHING is available claiming it is useful for said purpose, you can be sure that it has likely either been disproven or so minimally effective that it doesnt stand up to the confidence interval for said indication...