 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006Revisit of the Bates method. Many techniques, some really powerful!
The message below is a copy and paste from another forum. Know what? Instead of spending the money on orthoK, I should instead attend natural vision improvement classes. I think the cost is about $60 per class season. Total cost would be about $1000 for the term which consists of about 15 seasons. I really do believe in the Bates method, but I havent mastered the more powerful techniques. So far I have reduced my myopia by a diopter! The Bates method was pretty much stamped out in the USA. Bates teachers were more than once prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license (always unsuccessfully, but it had a chilling effect.) The situation was better in Great Britain and good teachers are available there. In the USA, I know of only two good Bates teachers. For the average person wanting to improve his vision, there was only that 1920 book, which is just about impossible for anyone to understand, so that what people wind up doing is just some simple exercises. The really powerful techniques that Dr. Bates developed are neither understood nor practiced. The simple things like the long swing, swaying, sunning and palming will improve your vision, but they require a lot of time and dedication. If you are not too nearsighted, they may bring you to 20/20. If you are deep into myopia or whatever your trouble is, they will not. Oh, you may get very close, but you will never be able to control your vision. If you do manage to learn one of those powerful techniques in the 1920 book, it will make mincemeat of your myopia. They are extraordinarily powerful. Dr. Bates had no problem at all in dealing with very severe cases of refractive error. The thing to do is to study the original 1920 book and then do exactly what Dr. Bates says to do. Try all his techniques. You only have to master one of them, but no one can predict which one you will succeed with. Dr. Bates introduced his patients to all of his techniques right at the first session. Look up "Routine Treatment" in the BEM volume. Dr. Bates was a genius, one of the most brilliant doctors who ever lived. He is the man to study. Accept no substitutes. Do not give up hope. Dr. Bates would have cured you in about a hour. OK, maybe not. Maybe it would have taken him three weeks which is the time it took him to cure most patients. > they require a lot of > time and dedication. If you are not too nearsighted, they may > bring you to 20/20. If you are deep into myopia or whatever > your trouble is, they will not. Oh, you may get very close, but > you will never be able to control your vision. this sounds like an excellent program to spend a $1000 on. I'm sure your parents agree.  Signature~RT anything is better than the 20/400 I am at now. I will be tickled pink to get to 20/100 then I can seriously reduce my dependancy on glasses without needing reading glasses. I am going to try it myself but if I can not improve my vision enough, ill need to attend classes and let an expert help me the rest of the way. Why don't you trot on over to Otis' forum at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/ and leave those of us who want to discuss real problems related to the eye, that can actually be addressed with therapies that are proven to work, alone over here at sci.med.vision. Over at Otis' group there are lots of people who believe things without proof and who accept anyone's advise regardless of training, experience, etc. You will fit in nicely. Good luck. ================ > anything is better than the 20/400 I am at now. I will be tickled pink > to get to 20/100 then I can seriously reduce my dependancy on glasses > without needing reading glasses. I am going to try it myself but if I > can not improve my vision enough, ill need to attend classes and let an > expert help me the rest of the way. Dear RM, That is ALEX EULENBERG'S GROUP. I post there -- but it is his "group" -- not mine. Best, Otis One great way to improve vision is read without glasses if your myopic or use plus glasses. If you are hyperopic, read without plus lens or use minus glasses! What you want to do is if your myopic is trick the eye into optical infinity by reading just into the blur. Hyperopes want to force emmetropization and lengthen their eyeball so they are emmetropic. Watch out or you may become myopic if it goes too far! You really should check out this site http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bates.html Enjoy! > One great way to improve vision is read without glasses if your myopic > or use plus glasses. If you are hyperopic, read without plus lens or > use minus glasses! What you want to do is if your myopic is trick the > eye into optical infinity by reading just into the blur. Hyperopes want > to force emmetropization and lengthen their eyeball so they are > emmetropic. Watch out or you may become myopic if it goes too far! And here is a more up to date critique on the same site http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html Enjoy once more! > You really should check out this site > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> to force emmetropization and lengthen their eyeball so they are >> emmetropic. Watch out or you may become myopic if it goes too far! To insist that visual therapy and behavioral optometry will not help a myopic eye are, IMO, off base. I have been attending therapy sessions 1-2 weeks for the last few weeks now and have noticed an improvement in my myopia. The therapy sessions are to improve upon my strabismus, peripheral vision, and myopia. My journey has been long and arduous since I frst became aware of alternative methods back in 2000 but my prescription, originally -3.75 OD & -4.50 OS, is now -2.50 OD & -2.75 OS. It may be better because my reduced prescription glasses (-2.50 OD & OS) are feeling too strong. Using certain techniques that have found their root ion the Bates Method, I have even been able to experence moments where the whole world is crystal clear. Whether these are scientifically disproven methods or sorcery I don't care, as I have seen improvement and will continue to strive for improvement. I may never get any better but unless I make the effort I will never know. The last thing I must say is that when it comes to the etiology & prevention of myopia, we have a very biploar pattern here. The 2 factions are so Ying & Yang it's not funny. Neither side seems to want to bend or even give n objective ear to the other. The result has been a degradation into a name calling, accusatory pissing match. I think people here need to chill out and stop with the anitgonistic remarks. No one needs to agree but I think respect of another person's point of view, however wrong or off-the-wall it may be, is a courtesy I think we all need to extend to one another. I meant I have been attending therapy session 1-2 days per week for the last few weeks. Sorry for the error. >The last thing I must say is that when it comes to the etiology & >prevention of myopia, we have a very biploar pattern here. The 2 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >view, however wrong or off-the-wall it may be, is a courtesy I think we >all need to extend to one another. Sigh. Pseudomyopia can be prevented and/or somewhat reversed through eye exercises or cycloplegia. Axial-length myopia cannot--today--be prevented or reversed. Nothing else you say is scientific proof that either of the above is wrong. Learn the difference between pseudomyopia (accommodative spasm, accommodative excess) and axial-length myopia before you preach. You'll look less silly to those who actually /do/ know what they're talking about. Nobody has ever established that they, genuinely, reduced true myopia via eye exercises (or plus lens therapy). All you get is anecdotal BS in the form of passionate claims. This forum is called SCIENCE.MEDICINE.VISION. Read its charter. We're not here to debate opinions. We're here to discuss the best that science has to offer. I'm done beating this dead horse (for your benefit). You go ahead and beat it for a while ... please. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live I understand the difference between axial-length myopia and pseudomyopia. My feeling is there can be improvement made on myopia by imrpvong the pseudomyopia. Axial length myopia is fixed and cannot be changed. So axial-length myopia becomes the zero point you strive to reach. Neil, where am I preaching? I only expressed my point of view and my expereiences. If telling someone to make their own decision regarding how much they wear their glasses, providing they are not jeopardizing safety, is preaching then I'll go get 3 nails and 2 pieces of wood and you can bring the hammer. Science is an ever evolving conundrum that begins by people questioning and then testing and researching. It is never a stagnant thing but a constantly changing, ever-evolving entity. Debate is healthy but I think this forum too often digresses into petty whining. And I did not realize you were the individual that determined what was debateable on this forum based on your interpretation of the title of the group. >And I did not >realize you were the individual that determined what was debateable on >this forum based on your interpretation of the title of the group. So you're advocating that people be open to others' opinions, but when somebody actually gives one, this is your response? Nice. Enjoy my killfile. I'm told it's quite cozy in there. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Be open to others, just don't be such a smart-a.s about it. You yourself have had your share of not-so-nice responses to people. You go your way, I go mine and if we ever meet again, may it be on friendly ground. > So axial-length myopia becomes the zero point you strive to > reach. And how does this change anything? Does it make much dfference whether your correction is -2.5 or -3.5? SignatureScott Reverse name to reply To me there is a noticeable difference between -2.5 and -3.5 To some people there may not be. It is for each person to decide if that is acceptable or not and worth the effort to reduce their prescription to that. And, to refernce Neil, there is no known natural cure currently for axial-length mypoia but if I can get to that zero point maybe one day there will be a natural cure. A lot of ifs, I know. Dear Bass, Pay no attention to Neil Brooks. He has no professional traning, and has no clue about what he is talking about. Further, he will SUE any OD who might wish to help you with ANY preventive technique or method. Best, Otis One more thing Neil, Preaching is defined as espousing one's beliefs to try and sway the masses. All I have done is express my experiences and my opinions, to be taken as part of the discussion here. I am not trying to persuade anyone otherwise. Mostly I am just trying to get various people's opinions about stuff. It seems you are so keyed up from other people's perceived assaults that you dismiss another's opinion if it does not coincide with what you believe. It is okay to disagree on stuff but the way you disregard any opinion or thought contradictory to your own point of view is unsettling and your acerbic tone unprofessional. One more point regarding pseudomyopia & axial length myopia. I am sure most symptomatic myopes are a combination of the two. That would add some credence to the few people that have cleared their distance vision using therapy that were predominantly pseudo-myopes with minimal to no axial length myopia. The more axial length myopia youe have, the less chance of reversal. Just more thinking out loud. > One more point regarding pseudomyopia & axial length myopia. I am sure > most symptomatic myopes are a combination of the two. That would add > some credence to the few people that have cleared their distance vision > using therapy that were predominantly pseudo-myopes with minimal to no > axial length myopia. The more axial length myopia youe have, the less > chance of reversal. Just more thinking out loud. My impression after nearly 23 years of clinical practice is that identical findings for the manifest and the cycloplegic refraction for myopes is more the rule than the exception. In those cases where there is a difference, that difference is rarely more than one diopter. My impression is that very few individuals have the time or the interest to pursue the elusive goal of pseudomyopia reduction, and then maintain it once they have achieved their goal. In fact, rarely are such people even symptomatic. If they don't have symptoms and cannot readily accept the cycloplegic refraction, but readily accept the manifest refraction, then what is the basis for me to recommend vision therapy? Often, I will prescribe the cycloplegic refraction, especially in high myopes who are prone to wanting extra minus in their manifest. Unfortunately, I wind up remaking the lenses in a significant percentage of cases. DrG I concur wholeheartedly with you on this Greg. Rarely is the accommodative component over -1.00, even with the most stressed system. I ret every patient (most of my colleagues here don't ret much at all) and find this to be the case. Consequently, all the exercises are going to do is reduce the script a bit. grant I had a cycloplegic refraction a few months ago but since it was incomplete, I know I have significentally more pseudomyopia than the cycloplegic shows(half diopter) I could still accomodate but it's amplitude was reduced by half. My pseudomyopia is symptometic in that I dont see well from near if I fully correct myself with glasses and especially not with contacts. This leads me to think that some of my accomodation is "tied up" in pseudomyopia. I would venture to believe I have 2 to 3 diopters of pseudomyopia. How long would it take to clear all that pseudomyopia? It would make a very big difference because then I would be just about free from dependancy on glasses! >I understand the difference between axial-length myopia and > pseudomyopia. My feeling is there can be improvement made on myopia by > imrpvong the pseudomyopia. Axial length myopia is fixed and cannot be > changed. So axial-length myopia becomes the zero point you strive to > reach. You have a good grasp of the physiology. Have at it, but don't let Bates convince you to stare at the sun. -MT Mike, Bates is dead so I doubt he'll be able to convince me of anything ;) > >I understand the difference between axial-length myopia and > > pseudomyopia. My feeling is there can be improvement made on myopia by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -MT Bates never meant staring at the sun, he meant looking at the sun with CLOSED EYES! > Bates never meant staring at the sun, he meant looking at the sun with > CLOSED EYES! Not so. In his original book, he did indeed suggest for "sunning" exercise: "gazing back and forth in an arch-like motion while blinking the eyes." or something quite similar to that. More recent versions of the book, published after he died changed it to: "with the eyes closed." People doing the Bates Method were indeed loosing their central vision from looking at the sun. The publisher thought the change might prevent lawsuits. Need more proof the guy was a quack? LB, O.D. >> Bates never meant staring at the sun, he meant looking at the sun with >> CLOSED EYES! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >vision from looking at the sun. The publisher thought the change might >prevent lawsuits. The term "sunning" and the quote you made up above didn't come from Bates's book, so I don't know where you came up with it, but yes, Bates did write about people having looked directly at the sun. But on a far more fascinating note, I see that you are privy to not only the publisher's intentions from several decades ago, but also a large number of case histories, and information connecting them to the reading of Bates's book. That is some fabulous research, I have to admit, and it's a wonder that it hasn't come to light until now. I assume, of course, that it's a large number, because I know how much you dislike "anecdotal" evidence, as it's called here. And these new facts make me more confused than ever. Bear with me as I picture this. 10 years pass after the original publication of Bates's book until Bates's death without the news of thousands of people burning their eyes out being made public. And then another 10 years after Bates's death, still nothing. Then his sadistic, foolish widow, despite all the victims crawling blind through the streets of New York, has the gall to republish it again, complete with the sungazing section. Yet, still (perhaps to her well-known practice of witchery and voodoo), there was no outcry about the masses of her victims piling in the alleys. And only then, for some strange reason, as the newly reprinted book came off the presses and only began to be distributed, did a separate publisher suddenly decide to buy the rights to it, with certain liberties taken with the content. I am more confused than ever, because I have no doubt that what you say is true. Because you, for one, don't just make things up. For those interested, there is a forum composed of quite a large number of sungazers. About 1,600 members now, but surely 99% of them are fabricated usernames created by the moderator to help pad things out. Anyway, some of them claim to have been sungazing for many months, and others for years predating the creation of the forum, along with wild stories. I have heard from one person who hurt himself sungazing, about two years ago. I also have heard of people hurting themselves walking down stairs - I've fallen down them more than once myself, and before I focus my attention on abolishing the practice of sungazing, I am going to make it my crusade to rid the world of stairs. http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/sungazing/ Dave PS - i also attempted running a marathon after sitting on my couch eating twinkies for six weeks. I have concluded that marathons are dangerous and must be stopped. That will be my next enemy. --- http://store.iblindness.org http://www.iblindness.org Dear Dave, Subject: Red herrings -- produced by "majority-opinion" ODs I have read most of the original Bates book. I see no "recommendation" to look directly at the sun. It is possible that it was "mentioned" at some pont. But the original book does not make that suggestion. What Bates did say, that is very accurate is that if a person's eye chart was at 20/70, and he begins wearing a full-strength minus, his vision will rapidly go down to 20/200. That fact has been proven with the primate studies -- and that issue is of critical importance to understand. The "sun" business is a total distraction to the issue of clearing your vision from 20/70 to 20/40 using Bates -- or any other method. Just one man's opinion. Otis >Dear Dave, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >possible that it was "mentioned" at some pont. >But the original book does not make that suggestion. Yes he does, Otis. He clearly says that sungazing is beneficial and if you find it uncomfortable to gaze at the sun it is because of defective sight. The problem is that if he is wrong on one point it rather throws the rest of what he says in doubt. Ann >What Bates did say, that is very accurate is >that if a person's eye chart was at 20/70, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Otis >>> Bates never meant staring at the sun, he meant looking at the sun with >>> CLOSED EYES! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Bates's book, so I don't know where you came up with it, but yes, >Bates did write about people having looked directly at the sun. Yes he did didn't he?. He wrote about sun gazing and he shows photographs of people that he says are gazing at the sun without discomfort.. adults and children. he claims that any effects they may suffer are only temporary. Interestingly he also says that it is not normal for the pupil of the eye to change size in the light, and it is the abnormal eye where the pupil changes size when moving from light to dark and back again. Of course we know that to be wrong. It's an intersting book from a historical perception but it's full of errors. It's a bit like reading of the humours or of melancholic bile.. we've grown out of it. Ann >But on a far more fascinating note, I see that you are privy to not >only the publisher's intentions from several decades ago, but also a [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >http://store.iblindness.org >http://www.iblindness.org > Bates never meant staring at the sun, he meant looking at the sun with > CLOSED EYES! In order to absorb the correct amount of phlogiston? -MT Dear Bass, Please note the rabid posts by Neil Brooks, slandering my name, and attempting to destroy your right to an informed, competent scientific second opinion. How do you expect a thoughtful, reasonable discussion can develop under that circumstance? Good luck -- I am please you have found some supportive second-opinion optometrists to help you with prevention. Best, Otis Some optometrists are against vision improvement because it will get them out of a job when they cant get their salaries pescribing glasses and administering eye exams. They usually dont mind too much if you get lasik because they get referral fees and many lasik patients are back in glasses or eye exams for their new problems induced by lasik. With natural vision improvement, they lose you as a customer. I have to think like an optometrist to understand their motives for dismissing natural vision improvement. Sad but money talks and they need the money. My own optometrists said vision can never get better, only worse, worse and WORSE!!!! Well I went from a -5 to a -4 and my vision is still improving! Dont waste your time talking about myopia prevention and vision improvement with an optometrist, he does not care and will just deny it. You need to read about it on the internet and talk to people like our friend Otis, he can help you regain sharper vision or prevent your myopia from stair-case! Basslapper and I have improved our visions and so have many others! Pseudomyopia is the first to go then theres other factors that go. Its true you cant do anything about axial myopia but you can work around it to see better. An enlongated eye alone isnt the be all reguarding myopia. You may not quite get 20/20 but youll attain a very large improvement. Were talking like from -5 down to like -2! > Some optometrists are against vision improvement because it will get > them out of a job when they cant get their salaries pescribing glasses > and administering eye exams. For someone who reveres his optometrist with accolades on this NG and invites all of us to call him for advice, to dis so many in a profession who have medical degrees and who been in practice for years and have seen thousands of patients, your statement is truly audacious. What does your optometrist think of NVI? There are people in any profession who are only in it for the money, of course. But I'm sure your optometrist will find another patient to take your place when you move into the "seeing" world. Because, of course, you aren't going to get anymore eye exams now that you are in charge, right? Signature~RT My optometrist wasnt out on a roll to stop NVI advoators. He just shrugged and said he doesnt believe in its effectness. He said im free to try it, its my eyes and time, hes not going to get involved in it. To give him credit, I didnt believe in NVI either till I experienced going from -5 to -4. I improved several lines of vision with my older pescription glasses. I read on the internet that 95% of optometrists will either deny NVI or just refuse to believe in it. You will need to seek the "second opinion" reguarding this. Our friend Otis can help us out >Some optometrists are against vision improvement because it will get >them out of a job when they cant get their salaries pescribing glasses [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >think like an optometrist to understand their motives for dismissing >natural vision improvement. Maybe they just don't believe it works. Not everyone does everything for money. Where I work, we would get more money out of people if they fail their exams first time round but we still do all we can do get them through. We care about people, and I'm guessing that's the same with the eye docs. Don't follow Otis and see bad in everyone because it just isn't there. >Sad but money talks and they need the >money. My own optometrists said vision can never get better, only [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >myopia. You may not quite get 20/20 but youll attain a very large >improvement. Were talking like from -5 down to like -2! Your guessing with those figures of course. But no matter, no doubt when you get there you'll let us know. Ann Dear Ann, Ann> Don't follow Otis and see bad in everyone because it just isn't there. You JUMP to a conclusion. Because I suppor the PREVENTIVE second opinion you believe I have BAD MOTIVES??? What I do support is your right to an informed choice at the threshold. THAT, my friend, does not involve money -- only your right to a choice between "opposites". If your child is at 20/60 as age 7 -- and your are offered a choice, but turn down the prevetive plus -- then you can expect his vision go go down at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year. I personally would PAY for this discussion. Perhaps you would not. But the effect would be to transfer to me an "empowerment" to do this preventive work correctly. Had AceMan received this "warning" or "choice", and chosen to wear an over-prescribe minus -- then the consequence would be exclusively AceMan's responsibility. I think AceMan had that right. You do not. This issue is not money at all -- but informed choice. There are no "bad guys" ere -- AT ALL. In fact, I enjoy these people. (Except for Neil Brooks who has some kind of "problem".) Best, Otis >Dear Ann, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >but turn down the prevetive plus -- then you can >expect his vision go go down at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year. But I've been there and it didn't happen, either to me or my children. Had their vision gone down by -1/2 each year you'd expect at age 20 for their sight to be -7 and it isn't. Mine never got to -7 either. Most people's doesn't get to -7 so what you say is untrue. And while one thing you say is so obviously untrue it rather stops me from putting any store in what else you say. Maybe it's all untrue. I can only judge by what you tell us. >I personally would PAY for this discussion. Perhaps you >would not. But the effect would be to transfer to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I enjoy these people. (Except for Neil Brooks who >has some kind of "problem".) I think you have a problem, because you repeat your mantra over and over and the same arguments come again daily. You aren't sharing your knowledge, you're on a mission to bore. Ann Most people dont go to -7, thats absolutely correct. However its entirely possible to go down to -7. It depends on the person, how much near work they do, whether they remember to take their glasses off when doing near work, how much they strain their eyes. Mine certinaly could have gone to -7 if I didnt start doing vision improvement last year. I was already like -6 and getting worse when I learned about the Bates method. I am now like -4.75 instead of -6 in that eye and the better eye is only -4 now! My mom is -7. My sister is about a -3.5 and still getting worse. I am a -4 in the better eye and getting better! Dear AceMan, Subect: Dealing with most people. Ann is correct. She only wants her vision "made sharp" in a short period of time. There is no point in attempting to "involve" he with the preventive method. Remember, the ODs must deal with the great mass or people who walk in off the street -- and the ONLY thing that works in THAT context is the minus lens -- and the tendancy to over-prescribe it. Ace, I must wonder how you would have reacted if you had received this "preventive" advocay when you were at 20/60 (-1.5 diopters). What do you think. Could you have used the plus "correctly" at that point? Care to make a statement or estimate about that issue? Best, Otis >Ann is correct. She only wants her vision "made sharp" >in a short period of time. There is no point >in attempting to "involve" he with the preventive >method. The time for prevention has gone Otis. And the prediction didn't happen. I didn't get worse by half a dioptre a year and yet I was the biggest swot in the school. I was the one with my head in a book the whole time. I hated sport and spent my whole time reading and still I didn't get to a -7. >Remember, the ODs must deal with the great >mass or people who walk in off the street -- and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >What do you think. Could you have >used the plus "correctly" at that point? This is active brainwashing. Ask subtle questions to make sure he stays with you. If the best you can get to follow you is a young man who sounds functionally autistic then you are a pathetic, nasty, nasty man. Are you autistic yourself, Otis? Asperger's syndrome is it? Is that why you're obsessed with spreading the word too? Ann >Care to make a statement or estimate >about that issue? > >Best, > >Otis >Most people dont go to -7, thats absolutely correct. However its >entirely possible to go down to -7. It depends on the person, how much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >eye is only -4 now! My mom is -7. My sister is about a -3.5 and still >getting worse. I am a -4 in the better eye and getting better! You don't know at all that your eyes would have gone to -7. It isn't usual for people to take their glasses off or take their lenses out when reading. People just don't do it. I read on the bus, I'm certainly not going to take my glasses off and put them back on every time I glance out of the window to see where we are. You've got yourself obsessed about it and that's fine. I suspect you obsess over other things too. What have you done in the past, stamp collecting or coins or what? There's someone very like you who hangs around the bus station here marking off in his book the time that every bus comes in. Nobody minds because he doesn't try to persuade others to do the same. But it's not right that you try to persuade others to become obsessive. It's not the right thing to do. Ann >But it's not right that you try to persuade >others to become obsessive. It's not the right thing to do. Ann, No one can do this unless he has some hypnotic abilities. Look, I think all Ace is trying to do is to show another option to people, explain it to them and let them choose whatever they want to. ann, i am not sure you know about otis because i don't recognize your name from previous times. so let me clue you in-- otis is a resident loon in this newsgroup. you are right-- he repeats himself over and over again. he has had his intellectual head handed to him so many times with proof and citations by others in this newsgroup showing his "prevention" scheme doesn't work but he is unphased by facts and science. he returns to this forum over and over again blurting out the same old nonsense. he's truly on a mission. he's frankly irrational. i suspect he has some deeper psychological issues. just thought you should know (in case you didn't already realize it). PS-- otis was recently reported to the State of Pennsylvania licensing authorities for practicing medicine without a license. Yes, Pclar, ANYONE, can bring up a page and post any slaner he wishes. Otis Full recovery is easiest when one's vision doesnt fall below the treshold as Otis has said. The treshold is 20/50 to 20/70 and usually up to -2 diopters. Then you can get at least 20/40 and sometimes 20/20. You can improve vision at any diopters, but you probably wont clear the 20/40 DMV if your "too far gone" There are some very rare exceptions of up to -5 clearing 20/40 and ive seen someone get from -7 to -3! Otis emphases the value of preventing myopia before it ever gets out of control. An ounce of prevention(as Otis agrees on) is worth a pound of "cure" Its too late for me to get to 20/40 naturally, barring a near miracle or maybe some exceptional luck and presisance. I however not only stopped the stair-case myopia, but I improved a diopter so far. One could say I prevented my myopia from ever progressing(it does slow down in your 20s) I was a -5 and -6 respectivately now im about a diopter less in each eye. I strongly believe I can further improve another diopter, possibly two. This would make me end up as -2 to -2.5 as the final result. A HUGE world of a difference from the -5 I started out! The problem is most people just give up past the -2 treshold and accept a lifetime of glasses or they get lasik to hopefully eliminate their dependancy on glasses till they need reading glasses or till their eyes get worse again. They want 20/40(and usually) better or they just arent interested. Glasses and if they get lasik gives them that. Natural vision improvement rarely does once you go past the -2 treshold. I know I will still need glasses after natural vision improvement, but they will be paper thin and I will be able to see and do most things without glasses. The alternative is stair-case myopia. Then my vision will be so bad Ill need glasses for EVERYTHING, even reading(or read with my nose almost touching the book!) I will be in big trouble if I lose or break my glasses. My glasses will be quite thick and heavier too. I will get lots of minification and this may reduce my BSCVA another line. Ill be looking forward to retina problems, including detchment and other problems associated with high myopia(starts at -6) so you can see why I am so excited about natural vision improvement! Its not an "all or nothing" its more like an "all for something or all for alot" I look forward to oneday seeing well enough to read the very text im typing with my bare eyes! >ann, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >just thought you should know (in case you didn't already realize it). I know, I've been here years. Ann Some situations require leaving glasses on even for near work. Like you have to stop and check in the distance every minute. However most of the time when I read, I can just sit back and relax(with glasses off!) and read to my hearts content and at the same time, slowly improve my vision. If im shopping and I wait in line, I leave my(undercorrected) glasses on and hold the magazine arm length away and glance at the line every minute to see if my turn has come up yet. I could easily have gone down to -7 or even more if I didnt take action and improve my vision. Near work makes my vision blurry, even with underpowered glasses. I think this speaks alot. You do what you want with your eyes. I want better vision Dear AceMan, Subject: Dealing with the general public. Re: People's mind's are all over the map on this subject. Indeed, most people are like Ann -- and no offense intended. It is incredibly easy to sit a person in a chair, and put a minus lens on them, and say "...is this better" and so forth. In fact ... you can say ... why bother with these people. And indeed ALL these ODs can and should say exactly that. But they can say that the "public" has no interest and is hostile to any "preventive" act. And againg they would be absoluty right. But that simply means that the two groups "go together". (Again, no offense.) In fact, if you read RTs story -- I indeed see myself doing what RTs son is doing. I think a strong effort should have been made to "stop" me, and recommendations like that. But it is indeed difficult to take that type of action. Both you and I believe that there is a better solution -- even though it is difficul -- because it means doing it youself at the threshold. (Or not at all.) And given the quality of the Oakley-Young study, this is clearly and either-or choice only YOU could have made. But "prevention" is truly an intrusion into your life. Either you begin to understand the necessity of it -- or you do not. The person who "wakes up" can clear his vison from about 20/70 -- back to 20/40 or better. But it does take a personal judgment to do it -- and persistance. I rate this as a "human-nature" problem more than anything else. But that is one man's opinion. Best, Otis > The person who "wakes up" can > clear his vison from about 20/70 -- back > to 20/40 or better. But it does > take a personal judgment to do it -- and > persistance. Aceman wants to know if you have done this, and if you have, how much have you "cleared" your vision. Signature~RT Dear RT, Subject: As you know -- I identify with your son. You and I do not agree on this -- and that is just normal. As a young child, I think I would have "fought" efforts to get me to: 1. Get my nose off the book, and 2. Wear that plus properly. But now -- after it is too late -- I take complete resonsibility for my actions. In reading "Bates" I saw all the excessive claims -- which I totally oppose. But I do say this -- that on the threhold, where the person is at about -1.5 diopters, (about 20/70 -- the Florida DMV) he can do most things with out that minus. >From that point some people are able to "push" with the plus, monitor their eye chart, and slowly clear to 20/40 or better. But this is done under the COMPLETE control of the person who is doing the work "correctly". I think AceMan understand that issue with good clarity. I understand this -- and I think Aceman understand my position on the need to START that process before your "chart" goes below 20/70. The real question is whether the person has the good fortitude and judgment to do this preventive work under his control. Best, Otis > Dear RT, > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Otis In other words, you don't practice natural vision improvement because you had your nose in a book as a child and you believe that you caused your own myopia that is now incurable. That must be hard to live with. You also believe that the most natural vision improvement can "fix" is about 20/70 to about 20/40. I don't think Aceman understands you at all. He appears to believe that anyone can improve their vision up to 5 diopters by not wearing their glasses with the evil minus lens. I wonder why that is. Signature~RT Dear RT, Subject: Remeber, the "minus" is very easy -- and very few wish to get "beyond" that point of a crude quick-fix. RT> In other words, you don't practice natural vision improvement because you had your nose in a book as a child and you believe that you caused your own myopia that is now incurable. Otis> As an engineer, I say that it is very difficult to think about draining the swamp when you are up to your a.s in allegators. But at least you can START THINKING about how you are going to drain the swamp. Or maybe you don't understand that concept. RT> That must be hard to live with. Otis> No, RT -- as an engineer I learn from my mistakes -- and make EVERY EFFORT to not repeat them. But how this works out, it that I supplie my nephew with this type of information, and he used it effectively. (Clearing his "chart" when ever necessary. And YES this was a major "intrusion" in his life -- but he accepted it, kept his vision clear and avoided stair-case myopia.) Otis> Now, he has children of his own. I honestly do not know what actions he will take -- but at least he has full knowledge of the nature of true-prevention and how to apply that knowledge. That is the furst step in draining the swamp. You also believe that the most natural vision improvement can "fix" is about 20/70 to about 20/40. Otis> I believe that our refractive status is positive (at birth) from zero to +9 diopters. At age 5 (provided we did no "reading") our NATURAL refractive state runs between zero to +2 diopters. Otis> Once we start with long-term reading, our natural eyes, controling their refractive state to that "nearer" environemt will move into a negative value. Otis> At this point, your "chart" will be from 20/30 to 20/60. For a child -- this does not require a minus lens. At that point, if you completely END that near environment with a plus -- then I have reason to believe that a person can SLOWLY clear from 20/60 to 20/40 or better -- IF HE HAS THE MOTIVATION TO DO SO. TIn other words, you don't practice natural vision improvement because you had your nose in a book as a child and you believe that you caused your own myopia that is now incurable. That must be hard to live with. You also believe that the most natural vision improvement can "fix" is about 20/70 to about 20/40. RT> I don't think Aceman understands you at all. Otis> Well he is a clever guy. He can read this and understand it. RT> He appears to believe that anyone can improve their vision up to 5 diopters by not wearing their glasses with the evil minus lens. Otis> I DO NOT USE THE TERM "EVIL". Otis> The intent is that the person will always maintain 20/40, and NEVER require the use of a minus. RT> I wonder why that is. Otis> These are issues that Aceman must resolve for himself. We are having these enjoyable conversations for that reason. Enjoy, Otis Signature~RT -- Dear RM, I have improved my sight with Bates method from 20\20 in my left eye to 14\20 and from 30\20 to 20\20 in my right one (I had there +0.5 and +0.5cyl.). This took me 4 months. I am practicing these methods with my friends and there are improvements. I don't really see wrong in Bates' metods and what I think that proves they're working is that people do improve their eyesight. I also thing that people who wouldn't even try them and wouldn't accept comments about their misstakes if they have them, they are those who believe what they've been told. Best regards, Eli. >Dear RM, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Best regards, >Eli. Eye exercises can be beneficial in helping to relax and train the accommodative mechanism, in some cases helping to prevent, or relieve, accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia). Learning to apply only the minimum appropriate accommodation necessary to accommodate for a particular distance likely has no down side. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live > Dear RM, > > I have improved my sight with Bates method from 20\20 in > my left eye to 14\20 and Typo? 20\20 to 14\20 doesn't sound like an improvement. I read X\Y as "what I can see at X others can see at Y". -Quick Quick wrote:> > Typo? 20\20 to 14\20 doesn't sound like an improvement. > I read X\Y as "what I can see at X others can see at Y". So, I meant 20\14. In Israel it counts the from the oposite side. > Quick wrote:> >> Typo? 20\20 to 14\20 doesn't sound like an improvement. >> I read X\Y as "what I can see at X others can see at Y". >> > So, I meant 20\14. In Israel it counts the from the > oposite side. Yes. but worth pointing out since you used the other convention for your other eye. -Quick |
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.