Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2005
Steady progress in high and super-high myopia
|
|
Thread rating:  |
g.gatti@agora.it - 05 Aug 2005 22:15 GMT Hallo to all, I see the old marpions are still here, so to speak, and are stable in their practice, so far so good for them.
Now I had the opportunity to work for several hours with two very nice young Italian ladies who are overcoming their own myopia by rest methods.
One of them, graduated in psychology few years ago, was wearing strong minus lenses of 8 dioptres untill ten weeks ago. She dropped them starting her self-treatment by rest methods according to the publications by Dr. Bates, of which I am the Italian translator and publisher, and gained a very great success: she is now able to see at two meters letters which the normal eye can see at three meters, but in flashes she can see the letters suitable for two meters, so this is like 20/20. In the meantime, her night vision has improved very much to the extent that she was able to attend to the big concert that the rock band U2 gave in Milan last week.
The other one is the lady I ave previously talked about, the woman recovering from her worst prescription of -23 D and glasses worn since age five. She is permanently without glasses now since January 1st this year and can spot 12/15 letters under electric light quite easily after a few minutes of practice with rest methods. This case is particularly interesting to the observer because her eyes, which were at the beginning bulging, only partially open and steadly fixed in a stare, now are radiant, open, moving and almost normal regarding their past bulgingness. Apart from a few weeks of disencouragement, when the lady went in search of answers for her condition to the wrong people (oculists who refracted her under mydriatics and found the same amount of myopia if not worst), and lost contact with practice, she is working now very well, using the "sun glass" by Dr. Bates and learning to look at the sun. The lady travels by bicycle and by train without any help and enjoys her life like she never did before. She also goes to the night club to dance and have fun. On the last trip home after visiting me, the people on the train pleased her with nice comments regarding her blue eyes, a fact that surprised her the most.
These things I write here are for the record.
I have also to tell about countless clients with little vision defects which are on the way to their permanent cure being very silly in dimension: 2 dioptres of myopia or something like that. The clients are well endowed in their own practice and have normal sight most of the time, all waiting for the time to come to check their driver's license test and remove the glasses prescription.
One very interesting fact is about one man who had cornea conica, judged incurable from several authorities. This man read Dr. Bates book and other of his publications, and started practicing with intense intelligence and courage. The good eye now sees 20/10 consistently. The weak eye with cornea conica had flashes of normal sight (10/10) after two months of self-treatment. This eye had worn something like -5 dioptres contact lenses, but the man dropped them seeing their uselessness about 8 months ago.
Tomorrow one lady will come to buy the books and the pinholes to try to cure her own very difficult situation, that of a lasik operation which was unsuccessful: one eye has remained myopic, the other one is hypermetropic. This condition stresses her very much and gives her all sorts of pains, and problems to the muscular-skeletric system, causing lameness and other strange illnesses. She has wasted almost 50 thousand eur in a few years to try to correct this dreadful condition, with no avail. Unfortunately, this woman has great responsibilities to abide on her job position, so will be difficult for her to find time for her cure, but we will see.
I wanted to let all the learned people here that I have published the first part of Dr. Bates "Cyclopedia" of perfect sight, those who are interested may have a look at my webpage: http://TheCentralFixation.com.
One last personal remark: I can look now at the sun continuously for 1510 seconds, at mid-morning. Also I can look at the white sparks of the soldering electrodes with absolutely no problems of after images whatever.
Since these anecdotical evidences are consistent and are becoming quite relevant in number, I have to emphasize that the truths discovered by Dr. Bates 100 years ago are still valid and merit much credit and further study.
I'm becoming convinced that the prophecy of Dr. MacCracken will be right: those who will prove the truths of Bates won't be publishers like myself or the clients or the so-called "Bates Teachers". THE DOCTORS IN DUE TIME WILL WAKE UP AND START TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH.
Perhaps it will take some other 20 years or more, but it will happen.
When I see that the manufacturers of eyeglasses are pushing the sunglasses for children under 5 years of age, I have to think that perhaps the situation has come to a maturation, so to speak: something big is going to happen, because the madness seems so high and dangerous that people will soon rebel.
But the doctors, the learned men, will have to find out, not me nor Otis.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 06 Aug 2005 01:13 GMT you wrote "the woman recovering from her worst prescription of -23 D and glasses worn since age five."
bullshit!
otisbrown@pa.net - 06 Aug 2005 04:44 GMT Dear p.clar,
Perhaps Rishi could clarify the remark.
That last "official" measurement of this woman was -23 diopters. (An incredible amount.) I am surprised her retina did not peel off the back of her eye.
Let us hope that Rishi is correct, and she can get along without those -23 diopter glasses.
As you might know, one woman taught her 2.5 year old child to read -- and "wondered" why the child was -6 diopters myopic.
Maybe this is how the -23 diopter myope started out?
Best,
Otis
g.gatti@agora.it - 08 Aug 2005 10:58 GMT Hello Otis, the lady went to another doctor a couple of months ago and the autorefractometer measured -27D.
Under mydriatics the doctor examined her eyes and said it was quite good in relation her ultra-high myopic condition.
In a near future, as soon as her cure will be more perfect, I hope she will have the courage to publish all her prescriptions.
Another interesting fact is that a month before she went to another optometrist, a young lady much more "soft" on her, and measured -18,50 D for the worst eye and -16 for her better eye.
What happened was that the measurement was done promptly, while in the other case she had to wait more than an hour in a darkened room, with tension growing in her mind.
This p.clar who comments "bullshit" is just an idiot who creates sh.t in his own mind and then spits it out on innocent people he meets.
Speak to you later rgg
otisbrown@pa.net - 09 Aug 2005 14:22 GMT Dear Rishi,
Subject: My post on "Attitude" and work.
I had intended to "apend" that statement to reflect on the -18 diopter and -23 diopter values you posted. These are incredible values, since the eye has an approximate value of 60 diopters.
I study the behavior of the natural eye (primates). There are no primates living in the "wild" who have refractive states of that value.
The only explanation is that suggested by Bates, i.e., the compounding effect of an over-prescribed minus.
To insist that there is "no relationship" between the visual enviromnt and the natural eye's refractive status, is simply wrong.
To ignore it, or concern for that issue is tragic.
To refuse to entertain the possiblity that the refractive state of the natural eye "follows" its visual environment (for the "convenience" of practice) is simply tragic.
I do not know what the future will bring, but at the current rate, about 85 percent of high school students (in Singapore) are myopic, and about 93 percent of medical students (on Taiwan) are myopic.
Does this sound like wonderful "progress"?
Best,
Otis
RM - 09 Aug 2005 16:01 GMT
> I study the behavior of the natural eye > (primates). Really. Tell me about your "studies". Do you study all the information that is published? Why do you ignor the human data but embrace the chicken and monkey data? Isn't human data more relevant since you try to extrapolate your theory to influence humans to do what you think is best-- that is use plus lens prevention? Aren't you actually on rather shaky ground with your theories since they don't seem to relate to humans? Aren't you actually doing something akin to practicing medicine without a license? Why not post your address and telephone number so that I can have the medical licensing authorities in your state take a look at what you are doing?
>There are no primates > living in the "wild" who have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > by Bates, i.e., the compounding effect > of an over-prescribed minus. Poor logic again chemosabe. The best explanation for Rishi's outrageously high myopia values is that they are incorrect! I have $100 that says Rishi doesn't understand refraction (like you), can't perform a refraction (like you), and doesn't know what he is talking about (again, like you).
Mike Tyner - 09 Aug 2005 16:06 GMT > The only explanation is that suggested > by Bates, i.e., the compounding effect > of an over-prescribed minus. So find us a citation where it's been measured and documented.
Do kids wearing minus get more nearsighted?
Everything I can find says no.
Maybe you'll tell us where you find it happened.
Or maybe you'll pretend it happened somewhere and that's evidence enough for you. It worked for Bates, it should work for you.
> To insist that there is "no relationship" > between the visual enviromnt and > the natural eye's refractive status, is > simply wrong. So who does? Find us a doctor who "insists that there is no relationship."
Who are you talking about?
Are you even reading this?
Are you there?
Helloooo...
(Empty silence.)
> To refuse to entertain the possiblity > that the refractive state of the > natural eye "follows" its visual environment > (for the "convenience" of practice) is > simply tragic. What's tragic is you can't read human research.
> I do not know what the future will bring, > but at the current rate, about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > students (on Taiwan) are > myopic. So of course, it's because they all wear glasses.
-MT
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 09 Aug 2005 14:31 GMT your myopia measurements of -27D, -18.5D, etc. and obviously crap! if you are using an autorefractor then we know your measurements are crap! "sh.t in, sh.t out"-- so they say. if you are ignorant enough to believe these numbers, then you probably are ignorant enough to actually believe you are curing peoples myopia. do you play sitar music and burn incense while you cure their myopia?
otisbrown@pa.net - 09 Aug 2005 14:38 GMT Dear p.clar,
Sujbect: Auto-refractors and optometric measurements.
Rishi does not have access, nor is he permitted to use an "Auto-refractor". Thus the "failure", or lack of accuracy must be placed on the person who made the measurement in Italy.
I have exchanged some emails with Rishi, and seen some of these records, and over-time they show steady movement towards the -23 diopters.
One measurement might be in "error", but a series of measurement made by a "professional" could hardly be in that much "error".
The issue of "what to do about it" is completely separate from the -18 and -23 diopter measurements. You can dispute them by calling them "bulls___", but that is more likely to discredit you -- or the person who made the measurements in the first place.
Best,
Otis (Error)
|
|
|