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 / March 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Blindness Cured - Part I

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Zetsu - 14 Mar 2008 19:33 GMT
Stories From The Clinic

No.48: Anna Bernard, the Blind Girl - Part I

By Emily C. Lierman

DURING the month of August, 1922, while our clinic work was still
going on at the Harlem Hospital, there came one day to our office a
blind girl, aged 25, who was led there by her younger sister.

Dr. Bates and I were extremely busy and at the time, had to turn away
many patients, because we already had more than we could manage. As
she heard me approaching her she asked for Mrs. Lierman. I said I was
that person, and asked what I could for her. She mentioned the name of
a doctor's wife who had been treated successfully for cataract by Dr.
Bates. A dozen or more patients were in the waiting room at the time,
and were listening to all she had to say, for she talked loud enough
to be heard. She said: "I came with great hope that you might help me
to see." She then handed me a note, written by the doctor's wife
already mentioned. It read something like this.

"You have helped so many patients in your clinic, won't you please
help this girl if you can? I met her in Prospect Park, Brooklyn, as
she sat beside me on a bench resting."

I am sorry to say that I frowned as I finished reading that note. I
did not see how I could possibly take another case, when I already had
more than I could handle. She could not be treated at the clinic
because the Authorities would not allow us to take cases out of the
hospital district. I was just about to say that she would have to come
some other time when I was not so busy, but I caught the anxious look
in her face. A look of hope, a look of faith. I could read in that
face the answer she expected of me. No thought of being sent away that
day without treatment had entered her mind. I solved the problem
quickly and said: "I will take you this minute to our other office and
see what I can do for you." At that moment, a gentleman sitting in the
room gasped and sighed with relief. He smiled and said: "That was fine
of you, knowing how rushed you are at present".

I disturbed Dr. Bates long enough to have him examine her eyes, and to
tell me whether there was any hope of her seeing at all. Dr. Bates
said she had Microplithalmas in both eyes. She had no red reflex from
the pupils. A white membrane was visible in both pupils and the pupils
were both very small. She could distinguish light from darkness but
that was all. I asked her to tell me when her sight began to fail, or
how long she had been blind. What a shock it was to me to hear her
say: "I was born blind, so was my mother." What chance had I, if any,
to ever help that poor girl to see even just a little of this, God's
beautiful world? Was is possible that perhaps our Heavenly Father
himself had sent her to me, and that through Him I would be guided in
helping her to see? Anyhow these were my thoughts at the time, so I
started right in with the treatment, just as though she had sight, and
then to help her improve her sight. She had so much trouble with her
poor eyes that I did not know just where to begin first. Her eyes
moved rapidly from side to side, a condition called Nystagmus. She
also had a contraction of the throat muscles which caused a great deal
of fatigue generally. Here was a big job ahead of me. I told her I
would do my very best to help her if she would do exactly as I said.

Her sister whose age was twelve, had normal vision, and was called
upon to assist me in the treatment. She proved later on to be a very
good assistant. I asked the patient if her sense of touch was all
right and she answered yes. Then I gave her an ordinary pin and told
her to feel the size of it, then to feel the point and the head of it.
She was told then to palm and remember the touch of the pin.

She could remember the touch of the pin very well she said, even
though it was no longer in her hand. I was very much encouraged when,
after a few minutes of palming she removed her hands from her eyes and
I noticed that the rapid movement of her eyes had stopped.

But when I asked her a personal question the movement or Nystagmus
returned. I then told her to forget the question I had asked her, and
to cover her eyes again with her hands to rest them. While she was
doing this I told her what had been accomplished for an old blind man,
who was at the present time under treatment. I related how he once had
good sight and now after several years of blindness and great
suffering from eye operations, he was beginning to see. I watched my
patient very closely and I could see that she was interested in what I
was saying, and a smile came, which was good to see. Again I told her
to remove her hands from her eyes and I noticed the second time that
her eyes were perfectly still. Her sister sat close by holding her
breath in amazement and in an excited voice said to me: "This is
wonderful. Anna has never been able to control that terrible movement
of her eyes for some years. I feel sure she is going to receive
benefit from your treatment and care. I want very much to help you if
you will tell me how."

It has always been my greatest desire to carry on Dr. Bates' ideas and
methods and to follow very closely his directions in all cases. I
remembered something he said to me at one time. "If you have a pain,
find out what causes it and cure the cause." So I felt with this case,
that perhaps if I can cure the Nystagmus and the nervous contraction
of her throat, I might be better able to do more for her vision. Her
sense of touch was good and her memory of the prick of the pin had
helped while she rested her eyes: Now I would try the swing and see if
that would help her throat. I told her to put up her forefinger and to
hold it about six inches from eyes. Then to turn her head slowly from
side to side toward the right shoulder and then toward the left. I
explained to her, that even though she could not see her finger, she
could imagine she saw it. She answered me just as I wanted her to. She
said: "Oh, I can imagine the size of my finger, and when I turn my
head to the right my finger seems to move to the left and vice versa."

I encouraged her to keep on moving her head from side to side and to
blink her eyes to prevent staring, which had been a habit since birth.
I noticed after a few minutes or so that she settled herself in a more
relaxed position as she sat in her chair. Then I called her sister's
attention to the fact that the contraction of her throat muscles
quieted down until they stopped.

(To be continued)
Neil Brooks - 14 Mar 2008 20:29 GMT
Instead of all of this ....

Work with Otis ... and three randomly selected ophthalmologists.

Establish a cycloplegic baseline for Otis's vision.

Spend a year.  Use Bates.  Use faith healing.  Use voodoo.  Use
whatever you want.  Let's see what you can do .... with independent
and objective verification of vision, etc.

It's n=1, but ... that's better than anything you've put forward so
far.

How 'bout it?

You realize, don't you, that you're the exact same as the religious
missionaries who show up at your door ... and ... will ... not ...
go ... away?
Szczepan Bialek - 14 Mar 2008 20:54 GMT
"Neil Brooks" .

> Spend a year.  Use Bates.

And what is your opinion about The Bershak Method.
S*
Neil Brooks - 14 Mar 2008 21:28 GMT
> "Neil Brooks" .
>
> > Spend a year.  Use Bates.

Your excerpt might leave the opinion that I believe in/support the
Bates Method.  I don't.  I've seen no evidence it helps anybody with
anything.

> And what is your opinion about The Bershak Method.
> S*

Get a big group of randomized people.  Split them into two groups.
Try his method on one group.  Do nothing with the other group.

Analyze the results to see if there are any statistically significant
differences.

People will write books, take over newsgroups, create web pages, and
sell products ... but won't conduct testing.

Tells me something.
spammer - 15 Mar 2008 00:37 GMT
> People will write books, take over newsgroups, create web pages, and
> sell products ... but won't conduct testing.
>
> Tells me something.

  Why should they? With all the "P.T. Barnum" people on the web,
there's easy sucker money to be made. Testing takes time and effort,
creating a web page is easy.
Neil Brooks - 15 Mar 2008 04:16 GMT
> > People will write books, take over newsgroups, create web pages, and
> > sell products ... but won't conduct testing.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> there's easy sucker money to be made. Testing takes time and effort,
> creating a web page is easy.

There is that.
Szczepan Bialek - 15 Mar 2008 11:22 GMT
"Neil Brooks"
, "Szczepan Bialek" <

>> And what is your opinion about The Bershak Method.
>> S*
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Tells me something.

And what is your opinion on that: " The
retinoscope showed that when I tried to see anything at the near-point
without glasses my eyes were focussed for the distance, and when I
tried to see anything at the distance they were focussed for the near-
point. My problem, then, was to find some way of reversing this
condition and inducing my eyes to focus for the point I wished to see
at the moment that I wished to see it."

I have the questions to the all ODs. Is this Dr Bates case a common case?
Are similar cases at myopia?
If they are when it would be sensible to find "some way of reversing this
condition and inducing my eyes to focus for the point I wished to see
at the moment that I wished to see it."

To do this Dr Bates recommend the relaxation and Bershak the divergence.
Maybe that they are the same. Now it is very important to agree if now are
people who have reversed (incorrect) pointing/focussing operation.
S*
Zetsu - 15 Mar 2008 12:40 GMT
WTF IS BERSHAK?

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURE OF IMPERFECT SIGHT!
Szczepan Bialek - 15 Mar 2008 18:55 GMT
"Zetsu"
> WTF IS BERSHAK?

It is here: http://www.i-see.org/bershak.html

> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURE OF IMPERFECT SIGHT!

But he cities Dr Bates like you do.
S*
Zetsu - 15 Mar 2008 19:06 GMT
WHO CARES! NOW GO DOWN THAT PAGE A LITTLE BIT. NOW LOOK AT HOW THIS
IDIOT HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD BATES AT ALL! IT ADVOCATES 'HARK WORK' AND
STUPID THINGS OF THE LIKE, SUCH AS STRING BEADS, ROTATIONAL EXERCISES,
STRENGTHENING, RESHAPING, REACTIVATION (WTF?). ALL COMPLETELY AGAINST
THE VERY BASIC TENET OF PERFECT SIGHT!

THIS IS GOOD IN A WAY I SUPPOSE: (IN THAT IT TEACHES EXACTLY WHAT YOU
SHOULD NOT DO!)

NOW LOOK HOW THIS IDIOT ENCOURAGES THE READER THAT AN EFFORT WILL
CORRECT HIS SIGHT! SO VERY, TRULY, MISGUIDED.

"This methodology requires that you work for every bit of improvement.
It takes effort to move from 6 feet to 8 feet on Snellen work. It
takes just as much effort to increase the distance from 17 feet to 19
feet. If your peripheral vision is fuzzy you need to adapt the
exercises to work on that. There are no miracles and there are no
shortcuts."

THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE EPITOME OF WHAT ONE CALLS 'IDIOT'.
Mike Tyner - 15 Mar 2008 19:43 GMT
> THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE EPITOME OF WHAT ONE CALLS 'IDIOT'.

And you would know.

-MT
Szczepan Bialek - 16 Mar 2008 13:27 GMT
> WHO CARES! NOW GO DOWN THAT PAGE A LITTLE BIT. NOW LOOK AT HOW THIS
> IDIOT HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD BATES AT ALL!

I came across the Bershak Method in the end of January. Is it a old method
or quite new?
S*
Salmon Egg - 16 Mar 2008 20:24 GMT
I guess I can start masturbating again.
Mike Tyner - 15 Mar 2008 13:59 GMT
> And what is your opinion on that: " The
> retinoscope showed that when I tried to see anything at the near-point
> without glasses my eyes were focussed for the distance, and when I
> tried to see anything at the distance they were focussed for the near-
> point.

> I have the questions to the all ODs. Is this Dr Bates case a common case?

No. There is a normal parsimony called "lag of accommodation" but those
results suggest a malingering patient.

-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 15 Mar 2008 18:46 GMT
"Mike Tyner"
> "Szczepan Bialek"
>> And what is your opinion on that: " The
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> No. There is a normal parsimony called "lag of accommodation" but those
> results suggest a malingering patient.

But there was the other question: "Are similar cases at myopia?".
Could you check it with normal patients?
S*
Mike Tyner - 15 Mar 2008 19:53 GMT
> But there was the other question: "Are similar cases at myopia?".
> Could you check it with normal patients?

I have, thousands of times. I don't think I've ever found a single case that
matches Dr. Bates' report.

But that isn't surprising. Many of Dr. Bates' observations are difficult to
duplicate.

-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 16 Mar 2008 13:15 GMT
>> But there was the other question: "Are similar cases at myopia?".
>> Could you check it with normal patients?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> But that isn't surprising. Many of Dr. Bates' observations are difficult
> to duplicate.

So a cause of myopia is still a mystery. But it must exsist and must be way
to repaire myopia (different than lasik). We must wait.
S*
Mike Tyner - 16 Mar 2008 16:57 GMT
> So a cause of myopia is still a mystery. But it must exsist and must be
> way to repaire myopia (different than lasik). We must wait.

This post wasn't about repairing myopia, but if you're going there..

"Repairing" myopia isn't likely in our lifetime, other than surgery.

Surgery is necessary to shorten a leg bone, remove excess skin, or shorten
an eyeball. Techniques may improve but some tissue removal will likely be
necessary because humans have "growth" hormones but not so many "shrink"
hormones.

Prevention is likely, in fact we already _can_ prevent myopia from
progressing, by chemically interrupting a growth signal. But it requires a
noxious eye drop with inconvenient side effects, and it would have to be
used from childhood through the early 20's.

And there is a better drug, not as effective but not as annoying. It just
isn't likely that any pharmaceutical company will see profit in satisfying
the US FDA to get it approved for use in children.

-MT, OD
Szczepan Bia³ek - 16 Mar 2008 17:57 GMT
> This post wasn't about repairing myopia, but if you're going there..
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> necessary because humans have "growth" hormones but not so many "shrink"
> hormones.

I was told that with years the human body "shrinks" and  the eye also. I am
an exeption or it is not true.
S*

Rate this thread:






 
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.