Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Steady progress in high and super-high myopia

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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)
 
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.