 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2006Bates Method???
Everyone here seem so knowledgeable - do these eye exercises work. Has anyone ever recovered sight from one of these programs. Alana Dear Alana, Subject: Sci.med.vision is a majority-opinon news group. The majority-opinion maintains that W. H. Bates was a well intended Quack. However the second-opinion recognizes the truth in Bates staement about the proven effect of the minus lens on the fundamental eye's refractive state. There has been NO AGREEMENT on anything beyond that point. I would suggest checking: www.isee.org for a more "balanced" treatment of preventive methods, deveveloped by all other SECOND-OPINION advocates. The ODs on this site think Bates, and the second-opinion are a joke, and treat them that way. Keep an open mind. Otis Alana, I would suggest joining: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/ for a more complete answer of the results people have had in clearing their vision from 20/50 to pass all legal visual-acuity standards required of them. Best, Otis > Dear Alana, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The majority-opinion maintains that > W. H. Bates was a well intended Quack. The majority-opinion also maintains that Otis is a Quack. Of course the vast majority could be wrong but I wouldn't want to risk my health on it. -Quick Alana, Bates was wrong 85 years ago and remains so. His initial premise was incorect and has been proved so on numerous occasions since. There is no evidence of axial elongation caused by EOM's, Bates conveniently forgot that there was a muscle inside the eye which causes change in accommodation. dr grant > ... There is no evidence of axial elongation caused by EOM's ... What are EOM's? What causes axial elongation (assuming axial elongation is caused)? (Could acronyms be expanded, maybe every now and then?) EOM <End of Message> -- Dicky EOM = Enormous Old Member = Erroneous Olfactory Module = Extremely Organic Mushroom Then again it could also mean Extra Ocular Muscle. Sorry, it is optometrist speak for the 12 muscles that work on the outside of the eyeball. There are many current theories on axial elongation from peripheral retinal blur to accommodation to stress to histamine (H5 receptors specifically) receptors to genetics to environment. There is no specific cause known and it is at least a bit of most things. The problem is actual proof that anything is the cause. Just as we think we know the cause, somethimg comes along to refute it. I was pretty sure optical aberration was a major factor. Janet Stone found a 90% reduction in myopic increase with hard CL's, however new research says there is no statistical benefit. So what causes axial elongation? Who the F*@k knows? Just about every theory haqs been shot down recently. We need new studies to find more evidennce. Does axial elongation exist? Yes, that is about the only constant we have. This has been shown to be absolute in myopiagenesis. Maybe you could come up with some ideas? Everyone else here has a crackpot theory. dr grant The localized retinal defocus theory sounds pretty good to me. It takes into account a number of things including accommodative lag, prolate/oblate corneas, eyeball shape, and optical aberrations, all of which can lead to a degraded, insufficient, inefficient retinal image. DrG > [ ... ] > Does axial elongation exist? Yes, that is about the only constant we > have. This has been shown to be absolute in myopiagenesis. > > Maybe you could come up with some ideas? Everyone else here has a > crackpot theory. I did come up with a kind of a theory, but it is mostly questions: http://home.att.net/~muffkat/accommodation/ I could not guess what the "springs" correspond to. There is also the matter of the points of attachment, which are indicated by huge black dots lateral to the "springs" in the diagram. (It has been recently remarked that the choroid may provide the elastic force which flattens the lens against its internal rounding forces.) The "points of attachment" are needed to make the diagram sensible. If they are located somewhere around the equator of the eyeball, the theory suggested by the diagram might make some sense regards to myopiagenesis. (Squeezing a ball around its equator should elongate it.) Then one needs to assume that myopia-prone eyeballs are not so bucky as normal (emmetropia-bound) and potentially hyperopic ones. Which is to imagine that myopic eyeballs have the property of not bouncing back so well from deformation as the other kinds do. One might look to the genetically-determined properties of collagen. Could be also be diet? Other causes ??? So it is a bunch of speculations, certainly not a theory just yet. Not giving much hope to myopics. But it sure beats the theory that says my eyeballs are myopic because they are too long, and too long because they are myopic (and needing eyeglasses/whatever in any case). -- Dicky > Dear Alana, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The majority-opinion maintains that > W. H. Bates was a well intended Quack. No, Bates did the best he could with the information available. However, at this point, 100 years later, most don't agree with some of his theories. > Keep an open mind. But not so open that your brain falls out. :-)  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Dear Dan, It depends on whether you are taling about the majority-opinion "brain" or the second-opinion "brain". The issue of the natural eye's dynamic behavior has not yet been resolved. Scientifically yours, Otis > The issue of the natural eye's dynamic behavior has > not yet been resolved. I can't bear the thought of doing a search through Otis posts but I could swear you've always used "The well known behavoir of the natural eye"... -Quick > Everyone here seem so knowledgeable - do these eye exercises work. Has > anyone ever recovered sight from one of these programs. > > Alana Wasted 27 bucks on one of his followers book. > Everyone here seem so knowledgeable - do these eye exercises work. Has > anyone ever recovered sight from one of these programs. > > Alana I did. >From 6\9 to 6\6, from 6\6 to 6\4... I had +0.5 and +0.5 cylinder in my right and 6\6 vision in my left. and I know some people who recovered even more. Bates is controversal and some of his methods arent fully accurate but he was right on the key points. My vision has improved some and hopefully it will keep improving. I believe I can get down to around a -3 > Bates is controversal Only until you read his book. > and some of his methods arent fully accurate Which "method" would you call "accurate?" Resting? Central fixation? Palming? Imagining? Shifting and swinging? > but he was right on the key points. Which points would that be? Was it "Only a small part of the phenomena of refractive errors is accounted for by the inaccuracy of focus" Or, "the lens is not a factor in accommodation" Or, "Yet it is to-day a perfectly well-known and undisputed fact that many persons, after the removal of the lens for cataract, are able to see perfectly at different distances without any change in their glasses." Or, "all persons with errors of refraction [have], at frequent intervals, moments of normal vision when their myopia, hypermetropia, or astigmatism wholly disappears." Or, "A sudden exposure to strong light, or rapid or sudden changes of light, are likely to produce imperfect sight in the normal eye, continuing in some cases for weeks and months. Or "Noise is also a frequent cause of defective vision in the normal eye. All persons see imperfectly when they hear an unexpected loud noise. Familiar sounds do not lower the vision, but unfamiliar ones always do." Or, "Women who wear glasses for minor defects of vision often observe that they are made more or less color-blind by them. Oh... here's one: "Some patients are so responsive to mental suggestion that you can relieve their discomfort, or improve their sight, with almost any glasses you like to put on them." > My vision has improved some and hopefully it will keep > improving. I believe I can get down to around a -3 Good for you. Which of Bates' techniques do you find most productive? -MT Hey Mike, I loved that listing. Did those ALL come from Bates? If so, maybe you should format it like a FAQ and post it from time to time... w.stacy, o.d. >>Bates is controversal > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > -MT > Hey Mike, I loved that listing. Did those ALL come from Bates? From my genu-wine leather-bound 1920 edition published by the Central Fixation Publishing Co. > If so, maybe you should format it like a FAQ and post it from time to > time... Good idea. This morning I only browsed the first hundred pages or so. The list should be several times longer. -MT > > Bates is controversal > Or, "Yet it is to-day a perfectly well-known and undisputed fact that many > persons, after the removal of the lens for cataract, are able to see > perfectly at different distances without any change in their glasses." Having had cataract surgery in both eyes, this one is a little hard to believe, especially since IOLs hadn't been invented back then. > Or, "all persons with errors of refraction [have], at frequent intervals, > moments of normal vision when their myopia, hypermetropia, or astigmatism > wholly disappears." Just go outside in bright sunlight. That will cure all minor cases of vision problems. Or use pinhole glasses. They work for me. > Oh... here's one: "Some patients are so responsive to mental suggestion that > you can relieve their discomfort, or improve their sight, with almost any > glasses you like to put on them." I believe it. > > My vision has improved some and hopefully it will keep > > improving. I believe I can get down to around a -3 > > Good for you. Which of Bates' techniques do you find most productive? The infamous minus lens should work well here. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA |
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.