 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005Otis, what is your position on the Bates Method?
Otis, what is your position on the Bates Method? The Bates Method is based on emotional problems and says they are to blame for the beginning of all eyesight problems. This very subjective. Your method is very objective, which says that the eyes are based on an input output system and are purely mechanical and that the eye is dynamic. Surely only one of the two theories can be true. Otis, what is your position on the Bates Method? My Asian Brother, Subject: Respect for the natural eye as a dynamic system (which it always has been.) Re: Bates and his advocacy. I "encountered" Bates (via Aldus Huxley) when I was 14 years old. The ophthalmolgist that I was "seeing" said that he, and his method was a crock. So I believed him. But at least Bates has the guts to "buck" the 400 year-old system of the minus lens. In reviewing "Bates", and his data -- I came to some "different" conclusions. Bates was right about the over-prescribed minus. I think he was attempting to PREVENT nearsighedness BEFORE the minus was applied. However, it is my belief that his "preventive" methods are not effective -- just MY opinion. I think we MUST separate "medicine" from objective-science. If we do not, we will simply repeat the mistakes of the last 400 years. I regret the OD oppossition to a more rational approach -- but that then forces you to learn how to implement prevention under YOUR control -- and that is a VERY difficult thing to do. Rapaelson's commentary leads to that conclusion. People who "get the idea" about the preventive plus -- use it and "clear" back to 20/20 -- but this action then totally by-passes these ODs. This judgment then suggests that an OD NEEDS to explain this situation to a parent BEFORE that first minus is applied. This is the course of action now taken by our friendly OD, Steve Leung. I would gladly PAY HIM for that advice -- and that would make me responsible for implementing the "preventive" method acomplished by Dr. Stirling Colgate. We expect too much of the medical professiona -- and not enough of ourselves. Bates had scant information to work with -- and evaluate the natural eye's behavior. The data simply did not exist. Today, 80 years later, the dynamic behavior of the primate eye is proven -- and the ODs ask us to totally ignore it -- because THEY have chosen to totally ignore it. That should be a warning flag to us -- the WE should evalute the natural eye's behavior and make the connection between the proven behavior of the monkey-primate eye and the human-primate eye. The would be a scientific approach. You will find this SCIENTIFIC struggle for "concept" in a book by Thomas Kuhn, and the "paradigms" are a "box-camera" paradigm versus the predictive accuracy of a "dynamic-eye" paradigm. I will post the reference later. Best, Otis > However, it is my belief that his "preventive" > methods are not effective -- just > MY opinion. > > I think we MUST separate "medicine" from > objective-science. Yes. Let's rely on "belief" and ignore "efficacy." -MT >>>>I "encountered" Bates (via Aldus Huxley) >>>>when I was 14 years old. The ophthalmolgist that I was "seeing" >>>>said that he, and his method was a crock. So I believed him. Bates based his methods on things that were wrong. Like, back in that time period, they didn't know about a certain eye organ, rendering the Bates method totally useless. >>>>But at least Bates has the guts to "buck" the 400 year-old system >>>>of the minus lens. Second, Bates IS great for going against the use of minus lenses, and putting his entire family at risk. Nowadays, thanks to the Patriot Act, that would probably be impossible. >>>>I regret the OD oppossition to a more rational >>>>approach -- but that then forces you to learn how to implement prevention >>>>under YOUR control -- and that is a VERY difficult thing to do. It's not difficult, you just need to understand a few main points, that can easily be learned by visiting a few websites. One you have the incentive, the execution will be justified. That sounds simple enough. I believe that Bates was only successful in treating pseuodo myopia, not severe myopes like myself. Lastly Otis, can you relay your optometric history. Like how did you get myopia, how did you figure out about alternative methods of curing myopia. And finally, I'm going to be a senior next year, do you think I could create a "nearsightedness prevention" club at my San Francisco High School? No, right? Otis, you are promoting your own book. You fraud! Dear Friend, Subject: I don't bother selling my book The book is one the "web" for free. Like most I "distrust" people who have a "money" connection -- one way or the other. That is why my site is called "myopiafree". The information is there -- it is up to you to figure it out. We all call each other "names", and I suppose we distrust each other -- and our motives. That is just normal. I also NEVER use the work "cure", nor "therapy", because I believe the if we talk about the natural eye controling its refractive state (plus or minus) we should not bias our language by describing what is normal as "defective". That would be the first step in a "paradigm shift" -- if you get the Kuhn's meaing. Best, Otis Dear Friend, Subject: My total respect for Raphelson. I always admire a man who stands and fights against "impossible" odds -- and that was Raphaelson. But it is "difficult", because bascially the person must understand that these Niel "blasts" are not againt me, but against your right to an informed, competent, second-opinion -- at the threshold. You and your parents would then review the various "sites" that argue FOR prevention, and would decide on and either-or basis whether you are going to make very heavy use of the plus for all close work. You suggest this idea to most -- and the choke and fade. One ROTC man, "Ben" had this suggested to him -- and he had the highest possible motivation to do this prevetive work. What happened? He disappeared! So, no, even people you would think would have the motivation -- have a hard time accepting the dicipline of doing the work with great personal force. This statement truly takes the issue out of the realm of "medicine" an places it in the judgment of the person actually doing the work -- and monitoring his own eye chart. In the case of Keith, my nephew, who was prescribed a minus at age 13 -- well I got a hell of a "anti" opposition from my sister. Finally a behaviorial OD prescribed a bi-focal, which convinced my sister that there was a "second-opinion". But lastly, I talked to the "kids" and explained "stair-case" myopia to them, and "neglect" was not the right way to protect their vision. So they knew this was a hell of a fight -- and only their personal long-term visual welfare was at stake. If they did not care about it -- no own else would. In that sens you are transferring total control to the person himself. He he has the wit and wisdom to do it -- then great. If he does not, well he can always wear a minus lens. All this depends completely on the individual himself -- and NEVER on an OD -- right? That is what make true-prevention so difficult. Best, Otis Dear Friend, Another "tool" for understanding this difficult situation is to put YOUSELF in the position of an optometrist -- and ask YOUSELF how YOU would deal with the public -- when the public expects their vision to be made very sharp -- in 30 minutes? If you think this is easy -- then write a short essay explaining how Raphaelson's should have "handled" the "Printer's Son". I suggest you could have done nothing about it. In that sense, I am NOT critical of these ODs on a "medical" level -- because there is nothing they can do about it. But on an scientific level -- when YOU make the prevetive decision -- the "case" is different indeed. Food for thought. Best, Otis Otis: please define "over-prescribed minus lens" in one sentence. Dear William, The original standard was set up by Snellen ca 1864. This was for the average best-vision of the natural eye and retina. This was 5 minute-of-angle characters at 20 feet. Later, the U.S. Army, reviewing a massive number or soldiers, decided that his "level" was excessive for the average natural eye. They did not want to have a massive number of soldiers wearing glasses to meet the 20/20 standard. They therefore determined that reading 20/40 1.8 cm at 6 meters was acceptable -- to avoid prescribing and excessive number of minus lenses. Also, the glass could reflect sunlight -- and give away the person to a sniper. Definately a "safety" consideration. In any event 20/40 became the standard for the DMV, ergo, DMV-Snellen. If a person reads 20/40 for the DMV, then there is no requirement that he wear a minus lens for driving a car. You might not "like" this DMV standard but that is the way it is. If a person goes for an OD test, and is placed in a darkened room, using a projected Snellen, then his "dark focus" vision is being "tested". Under that specific circumstance, our friend "Mike" was measured at -2.0 diopters. I consider this to be an "over-prescription" of -2.0 diopters -- for wearing the lens in day-light all the time. [When in deep dusk -- he could wear it -- if he wished -- but there is no DMV requirement that he do so.] Mike's judgment is involved. There is NO INTENT that Miks STAY a 20/40. The intent is that he not wear a -2.0 diopter lens when it is not necessary. Further it is Mike's intent to do further work and clear to 20/20. I wish him all success in this endeavor. The judgment must rest with Mike as to his continued work to achieve 20/20. Best, Otis > They therefore determined that reading 20/40 > 1.8 cm at 6 meters was acceptable -- to > avoid prescribing and excessive number of > minus lenses. Leave 'em at 20/40 and put a gun in their hands. This is "military intelligence." -MT > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >This is "military intelligence." > This is NOT CORRECT AT ALL. Today in any BASIC TRAINING or ADVANCED TRAINING ON RANGER, SPECIAL FORCES or simple INFANTRY Training, soldier's medical record SHOULD indicate the visual acuity, if soldier did not pass his eye exam (non-cyclo) 20/20 during initial medical processing at Military Entrance Processing Station, his acuity should be noted down and this results in another eye examination before the start of training to prescribe glasses. Infantry, ranger, SF soldiers has special plastic frames for lenses which can be worn comfortably, without possibility of falling off soldier's face. They can NOT shoot at targets without having standard eyesight. I am in this business and soldiers shooting with 20/40 is not permitted, sometime they try not to use their glasses since the peephole using in aiming has this "pinhole effect" thing, prevention advocates talk about and they say peeopholes make the sight in that eye sharper, but up to a point, if you are shooting at multiple popping targets, you have to open both eyes to see the distant targets popping, how is this going to be achieved at 20/40? it is against the regs not to use proper correction.  SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA Camp Humphreys, South Korea John, If you think that you are speaking to a "time traveler" from the distant past, you may be right. Somehow, a wormhole has opened up, and someone has crawled through to speak to us about a mythical kingdom called "plus land," where there are no vision standards, and no minus lenses. This reminds me of an engineer from the old Soviet Union who was visiting her cousin here in the U.S. With her minus lenses she easily read the 20/200 letters on my Snellen chart. That was considered medically acceptable in her country because most people could not afford eyeglasses, and the republic couldn't provide them. However, she harbored a secret desire to see 20/20, and I helped her do it. I was quite the subversive, wasn't I? I hope she wasn't arrested when she returned home. DrG > soldier's face. They can NOT shoot at targets > without having standard eyesight. I am in this > business and soldiers shooting with 20/40 is > not permitted, Otis clearly believes otherwise and you will not likely convince him. He read it somewhere. Rotating though the VA hospital clinic 20 years ago, I saw a US Army document, a protocol for refraction that said "visual acuity should be corrected to no more than 20/20. No overcorrection." This was evidence that the myth persisted at least until 1980 or so, the myth that providing maximum visual resolution is "overcorrecting." Otis thinks myopes get better if they wear "undercorrection," or at least they don't get worse. Intuitively, we'd think so too, except studies contradict intuition.Paradoxically, undercorrecting as Otis recommends (and as the military used to) paradoxically seems to make myopia worse. The effect isn't large, but it is exactly opposite what we intuit. "Overcorrection" has to be measured in diopters, not Snellen fractions. Proper correction is defined as the point where Snellen acuity no longer improves if you add more diopters. Any more than that is "overcorrecting." Providing less than maximum visual acuity can only decrease targeting ability and increase the incidence of friendly fire. -MT > "Overcorrection" has to be measured in diopters, not Snellen fractions. > Proper correction is defined as the point where Snellen acuity no longer > improves if you add more diopters. Any more than that is "overcorrecting." Exactly so, and the term should not be confused with "over prescribing", which carries a negative connotation. I occasionally use a mild overcorrection of myopia (or undercorrection of hyperopia) to stimulate convergence when necessary. > Providing less than maximum visual acuity can only decrease targeting > ability and increase the incidence of friendly fire. Amen to that. w.stacy, o.d. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.