https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227763292_Storks_De...
Edit: I do wonder how some recent studies on myopia fit in with these other findings:
“ The decrease in heritability and the increased myopia prevalence in our sample may not be related to the age of the sample, but with the year of birth and the changes in the environment in what these subjects developed during the last two decades. Due to the higher academic skills of our study population, it can be considered that they have been highly exposed to one of the myopia risks factors related to abuse of near work and large periods exposed to low luminance environments11,19,20. Many studies showed an increasing trend of myopia incidence as we are approaching the era of modern industrialization along with increasing education level3,11,19,20. The older twin sample34 had in average a lower education level and possibly less prolonged near task. This may signify the connection of these trends with our obtained results with greater environmental influence on refractive error variance among studied millennials. The change in myopia prevalence is happening across the last few decades, where the increased offset cannot be explained by a change on genetic factors, as genetic evolution cannot take place in such short time span. On the other hand, less than 10% of the variance of refraction could be accounted for Genome-wide studies, where studies have identified, so far, more than 150 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with myopia44. Alternatively, the high heritability of refractive error observed in most of the twin studies can be a result of heritability overestimation by the classical twin study model. From any perspective, we must understand that heritability is the combined result of genotype and environment on a certain phenotypic trait. Hence, it appears that the sudden increase in myopia prevalence is a result of higher interaction with the environment.”
Please note that I don’t mean to say your anecdotal experiences can’t be interesting, just that they can’t be used as science until you do the work to actually prove that they aren’t just your experiences.
And you still believe in this paper because you didn't reproduce it yourself or you didn't see it being reproduced step-by-step in real life, you rely on this scientist who conducted the experiment reporting it legitimately and other scientists involved in peer review process to have actually read the paper and verified it through reproduction (which isn't all too common in academia btw.)