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 / April 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Success Curiosity

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
apavel@gmail.com - 08 Apr 2008 22:10 GMT
Hello,
I know many people who benefited from the Bates method.
Out of curiosity, has anyone improved their eyesight to perfect?  i.e.
started with 20/50 or worse and improved it to better than 20/20?

Please briefly share your experience,
PA
Dan Abel - 09 Apr 2008 00:07 GMT
In article
<f9535085-92a3-4813-bf35-f41a57870aaf@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> Hello,
> I know many people who benefited from the Bates method.
> Out of curiosity, has anyone improved their eyesight to perfect?  i.e.
> started with 20/50 or worse and improved it to better than 20/20?

I'm not aware of any definition of "perfect".  20/20 simply means that a
person sees at 20 feet what a normal person sees at 20 feet.  20/50
means that a person sees at 20 feet what a normal person sees at 50 feet.

Signature

Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net

Jason Sperry - 09 Apr 2008 09:56 GMT
Hi PA,

I have been practicing the Bates method for a many months, but my
eyesight is still very far from perfect. However, I have received
great temporary success in improving my sight. I have had many very
sharp clear flashes, all very memorable. One clear flash I had, while
looking at my eye chart, was somewhere between 10/20 and 10/10.

As for my visual condition, it would take an insanely long time to
explain. But basically I'll just say I have about 4 diopters of myopia
in each eye, which varies all the time, and has gotten much worse
before. In fact, there were a few times when I tested myself with my
eye chart at 10 feet, but couldn't read the top letter, even though
it's posted in my bedroom and I have had it for a VERY long time. So I
stepped closer but I STILL couldn't read it. Actually I wasn't even
aware that it was an "S" until I got like a foot away!!! O_o

So considering how bad my eyes are, I'm amazed at how much the Bates
method has done for me so far. I get clear flashes all the time,
daily. I KNOW that it works (don't even ask, I have been observing
this for months...), so it's just a matter of relaxing all the time.
Then my cure will be permanent. I don't consider 20/20 vision to be
acceptable; I expect a level of telescopic and microscopic eyesight,
or at the very least 20/5 vision (eagle eyes). Then again, I wouldn't
mind going around with 20/10 vision (2x better than normal
vision)...it's definitely much better than my usual 20/400 - 20/800
eyesight, LOL!

I have also received COUNTLESS other benefits from practicing the
Bates method, most of which are not vision-related so I will not write
about them now. Also I'm an extremely busy person, so I don't have the
time now anyway.

If you're interested in reading more about my success, I posted a
bunch of stuff on the iblindness.org forum. Here's a list of all my
posts:

http://www.iblindness.org/community/search.php?author_id=954&sr=posts

(All my posts might not be what you're looking for. In that case, you
can use the search feature.)

Hope this helps,
Jason
Neil Brooks - 09 Apr 2008 15:26 GMT
People like Jason have posted a LOT of stuff.

Work with an eye doctor.  Have him/her perform a thorough cycloplegic
refraction before you start your natural vision improvement program,
and then after.

Let us know the results.

Oddly, nobody's ever been willing to do this.

So ... all we're left with is unverifiable, third-hand anecdotes that
simply may or may not be true, and -- even if they ARE true -- may or
may not have anything to do with people's attempts at the Bates
method.

I've been doing more yoga over the last few months.  Now my hair is
greying at the temples.  Should I attribute the grey to the yoga?

The Bates advocates surely would.

I'm not suggesting you don't try it.  I AM, however, suggesting that
you use science as a way of NOT fooling yourself.

Like Jason and Zetsu have, and try to get others to do.
apavel@gmail.com - 10 Apr 2008 15:00 GMT
So NOBODY has been able to improve their eyesight past 20/40 or so??
Dan Abel, my question is not a hard one.  There is no reason to define
"perfect" "normal" whatever.. My question was very clear:  "Has anyone
been able to improve their vision from worse than 20/50 (myopia) to
better than 20/20 (normal vision)".

My eyesight is about 20/50 and I am losing hope.  I've read many many
and many stories where people have improved from -10D or so, but I've
never heard of anyone to improve to normal - 20/20 or better.
Everyone keeps saying they can do it, but nobody has ever done it.
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 15:14 GMT
Don't concern yourself with what others have managed to accomplish or
have not accomplished. Just get down to practicing the cure of
imperfect sight yourself, independently, as has been directed in the
1920 book and magazines, and you will recover perfect vision. Do not
lose hope. If you seek motivation, then read the Stories from The
Clinic. Hope this helps.
Neil Brooks - 10 Apr 2008 15:31 GMT
> Don't concern yourself with what others have managed to accomplish or
> have not accomplished.

Right ... because THAT would be too much like evidence ... and the
Bates people try to steer you away from that.

Thanks for being so clear on this, Zetsu.
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 15:39 GMT
I will not lie about the matter, Neil. There are not many who are
successful with the method. But this should be no discouragement to
those who are earnestly determined.
Neil Brooks - 10 Apr 2008 16:04 GMT
> I will not lie about the matter, Neil. There are not many who are
> successful with the method. But this should be no discouragement to
> those who are earnestly determined.

This is much like Otis's "logic," then.

We KNOW that vision often changes with time ... absent ANY
interventions.

- Some people get worse.

- Some stay the same.

- Some get better.

You could, then, ask people to start earnestly playing the fiddle,
every day.  Over time,

- the vision of some would improve

- the vision of some would worsen

- the vision of some would stay the same.

You and Otis would attribute the improvements to the earnest fiddle
playing.

Rational, critical, scientific people would not.  They would note that
no significant change from a control (did nothing) group occurred.

Again: randomized controlled study, looking for statistically
significant improvement between the two groups.  It ain't perfect, but
it's a WHOLE LOT better than your approach: faith.

And THAT's why neither you nor Otis belongs in a sci. group.
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 16:24 GMT
Neil, Dr. Bates has observed the reduction of myopia from 6% down to
1% by the use of his Snellen chart method. All other methods used
prior to this had failed. The study was conducted with thousands of
different pupils from different areas across the USA. If that's not
what you call a randomized control study, where a statistically
significant improvement has been found between the two groups (if you
have read the article I posted earlier, where Bates talks about all
this then you should understand this) then I don't know what is. This
has been published in the New York Medical Journal, and demonstrated
by Dr.Bates on many later occasions.

Now I should like you to know that when I say 'not many have been
successful' I mean that not many have reached 20/10, perfect sight,
NOT that very few have seen IMPROVEMENTS with the method. In fact,
many have seen immense improvements with the method. And in the case
of myopia, there are numerous cases of a greater than 1.5 diopter
improvement (how is it that a 10 diopter myope is able suddenly to see
20/10 for a very short moment?), which blows away the theory that
organic myopia is incurable.

So, when you say 'some people get better', are you telling me that
some people, without having discarded their glasses, without
practicing any form of Dr Bates' rest method, have acquired perfect
sight? Because I have never heard one SINGLE occurrence of this. Bring
me ONE single case and I will take back everything. One case of this
is all that's necessary.

To the original poster: All you need to do now is discard glasses,
begin reading the work of Bates, practice the methods (24/7) and it's
only a matter of time from there.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 10 Apr 2008 16:27 GMT
Dear Friend,

Subject: Vision clearing by non-Bates methods.

While indeed difficult SOME people have been able to
clear their Snellens as stated by Captain Fred Deakins.

Obviously results vary.

Enjoy,

=========

Note:  This is a personal message -- not endorsed by the United
      States Air Force.  Captain Deakins understood the explicit
      requirements -- and met and exceeded them.

            AIR FORCE PILOT USES THE PLUS LENS TO CLEAR
              HIS DISTANT VISION FROM 20/50 TO 20/20

From:  Captain Fred Deakins

To:  You who must achieve 20/20.

    Hello everyone, I'm a new member of this group of pilots and
have found your conversations quite interesting.  Like most of
you, I am a believer in alternatives to the western philosophy of
handing out visual crutches to everyone with eyesight / vision
problems.  Graduating from college, I found that my vision had
regressed to a myopic 20/50 due to near-point stress.  At the
time, I was in the running for a coveted air force pilot slot, but
absolutely had to pass the ophthalmology exam with 20/20
uncorrected (this was back in 1996).

    Through good fortune, I found the concept of plus lens vision
restoration and began working feverishly to improve my eyesight.
I worked about 1 hour every day, 5 days a week and gave my eyes a
rest on Saturday and Sunday.  I found that by Friday, my vision
was terrible, but come Sunday morning, I had eagle vision without
any squinting or straining.  I kept to my schedule leading up to
my initial military flight physical (4 months later) and read the
20/15 over and over again without even knowing it.  Needless to
say, my life dream was obtained and I now live in New Jersey
flying jets out of McGuire AFB.

    It worked for me, and I know that it's worked for countless
others.  Having reset my life goals, I now want to help others who
are striving for better vision.  I have started a company called
America 20/20, and our purpose is to provide first rate
instruction and support to those willing to invest time, effort
and commitment with the goal of achieving sharp vision without
glasses or surgery.  [Note:  Fred Deakins subsequently disbanded
America 20/20 for reasons I am not allowed to talk about.  Use your
imagination.]

    I'll warn you, though...it definitely takes work and
persistence on your part.  Think about it, our vision deteriorates
from prolonged stress and strain in the eye...for most of us
taking years to develop.  Why should we expect to be able to
correct our vision naturally literally over night?  Believe me, 4
months is a blink of the eye compared to the 6 or 7 years it took
me to ruin my vision (no pun intended).  I stopped doing these
exercises after my flight physical (3 years ago) and still see
20/20 with very little effort (this was impossible for me before
doing this).

    It's true that this method (and others) have failed some
people.  Those with eye disease excluded, I would be willing to
bet that this is because it took too much effort on their part and
therefore they decided to give up -- and go with the easy
solution...corrective minus lenses or some form of eye surgery.

    Anyway, I don't usually write long messages, but this is
important.  I care about each and every one of you who are
suffering from any form of disease or accommodative errors of the
eye.

Best Regards,

Captain Fred Deakins, USAF (Ret.)

On Apr 10, 10:00 am, apa...@gmail.com wrote:
> So NOBODY has been able to improve their eyesight past 20/40 or so??
> Dan Abel, my question is not a hard one.  There is no reason to define
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> never heard of anyone to improve to normal - 20/20 or better.
> Everyone keeps saying they can do it, but nobody has ever done it.
Neil Brooks - 10 Apr 2008 16:29 GMT
On Apr 10, 8:27 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:

> While indeed difficult SOME people have been able to
> clear their Snellens as stated by Captain Fred Deakins.

Or their vision simply changed over time.

It can do that, you know.  Quite common.  Quite well documented.

Helps to have a little education in science, though.  Otherwise, you
might just take people like Zetsu and Otis at their word.

That's risky ... at best.
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 16:33 GMT
Show me ONE case Neil. One case of success without intervention. And
I'll accept defeat.
Neil Brooks - 10 Apr 2008 20:48 GMT
> Show me ONE case Neil. One case of success without intervention. And
> I'll accept defeat.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1420&page=33

It followed students over something like 2.5 yrs.  You'll see that the
results were exactly as I stated: some got worse, some got better,
some stayed the same.

Highly unlikely that those who got better were "secretly imagining
perfect black...."

Bye-bye.
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 20:51 GMT
Neil, please read my earlier post.
I said, did anyone recover perfect sight even while wearing their
glasses and without practicing rest methods? I am not asking if some
people merely got a 'little better' or a 'little worse'.

And BTW, 2.5 years is a very long time to wait and see whether you get
better or worse! Wouldn't you rather just spend far less time just
practicing the Bates System and get fully and permanently cured?
Neil Brooks - 10 Apr 2008 20:56 GMT
> Neil, please read my earlier post.
> I said, did anyone recover perfect sight even while wearing their
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> better or worse! Wouldn't you rather just spend far less time just
> practicing the Bates System and get fully and permanently cured?

I backed up what I said, and you reneged on what you said.

Thanks, again, for bolstering your "credibility."
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 20:59 GMT
> > Neil, please read my earlier post.
> > I said, did anyone recover perfect sight even while wearing their
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Thanks, again, for bolstering your "credibility."

The study you linked me to doesn't show they acquired 20/10 vision,
while wearing their glasses, which was my argument.
apavel@gmail.com - 10 Apr 2008 21:09 GMT
ok, I was under the impression this news group is centralized around
Bates.
Sorry.

> > > Neil, please read my earlier post.
> > > I said, did anyone recover perfect sight even while wearing their
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> The study you linked me to doesn't show they acquired 20/10 vision,
> while wearing their glasses, which was my argument.
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 21:12 GMT
No, this group isn't limited to just Bates. It's about anything
related to vision. There's another one called 'PerfectSight', owned by
Rishi Gatti, on Yahoo Groups. I highly recommend that group, but you
have to pay 1 euro (he'll repay you, don't worry). There's another
one: iblindness.org/forum which is also quite good, but it's not so
'Bates Puristic', so to speak.
apavel@gmail.com - 10 Apr 2008 21:20 GMT
> No, this group isn't limited to just Bates. It's about anything
> related to vision. There's another one called 'PerfectSight', owned by
> Rishi Gatti, on Yahoo Groups. I highly recommend that group, but you
> have to pay 1 euro (he'll repay you, don't worry). There's another
> one: iblindness.org/forum which is also quite good, but it's not so
> 'Bates Puristic', so to speak.

Thanks a lot Zetsu, have you had any luck with the method yourself?
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 21:24 GMT
Yes, great success, but I am aiming for 20/10.

I am saving my story for the time when I reach that level.
No problem, if you have other questions please ask.
Jason Sperry - 11 Apr 2008 12:46 GMT
> Yes, great success, but I am aiming for 20/10.

20/10 is crap. =D

Is there any reason why you're not aiming for telescopic and/or
microscopic sight?

My guess is that 20/10 is your short-term goal, and permanent
telescopic and microscopic vision is your long-term goal.

Same here. =D
Dan Abel - 11 Apr 2008 18:09 GMT
In article
<ba80d71f-c849-4d3f-8793-384915ca8883@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,

> > Yes, great success, but I am aiming for 20/10.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Same here. =D

SMV does *not* stand for Science Fiction Vision.

Signature

Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net

otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 11 Apr 2008 18:30 GMT
Dear Dan,

Subject: What does S. M. V. stand for?

It stand for:

Screwed-up Multiple Voices.

Think abou it!

I think we can all agree on that.

Enjoy,

> In article
> <ba80d71f-c849-4d3f-8793-384915ca8...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Petaluma, California USA
> da...@sonic.net
Jason Sperry - 12 Apr 2008 17:59 GMT
> In article
> <ba80d71f-c849-4d3f-8793-384915ca8...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Petaluma, California USA
> da...@sonic.net

Huh??? All of my posts (except a few of my crazy hyper ones from
spring break lol...) are completely scientific!!!

Can you say that about _your_ posts?
apavel@gmail.com - 10 Apr 2008 20:56 GMT
No, neil brooks got TONS OF TIME would rather spend the 2.5 years to
go from one forum to another forum and bitch about the Bates method.

> Neil, please read my earlier post.
> I said, did anyone recover perfect sight even while wearing their
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> better or worse! Wouldn't you rather just spend far less time just
> practicing the Bates System and get fully and permanently cured?
Neil Brooks - 10 Apr 2008 21:11 GMT
On Apr 10, 12:56 pm, apa...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, neil brooks got TONS OF TIME would rather spend the 2.5 years to
> go from one forum to another forum and bitch about the Bates method.

Great.  Another one.....
apavel@gmail.com - 10 Apr 2008 20:49 GMT
Zetsu:  It is through epidemiological studies (success of others) that
we learn which drugs harm us and which drugs do us good.

Otis: "Subject: Vision clearing by non-Bates methods." Please tell me
how the f*** that is relevant to what we are talking about?

Neil Brooks: If you dont' belive in the Bates method, why are you
still here (as I recall, you were still here about a year ago).  Is
there some technique you endorse?  Have you been helped by some
technique that you are using?  If Bates is so bad...what's your other
natural alternative?  I am open to suggestions, perhaps with some
anecdotal evidence.

Zetsu:  I am sorry, but many people go back to perfect eyesight at
around age 40.  (I know two friends who stopped wearing glasses
because their eyesight has "magically" improved - they are both age
20, and they don't know anything about NVI).

Nonetheless, Bates method seems to work, only until about 20/40-20/60,
as far as I am concerned, Bates method does not facilitate improvement
beyond this point (based on the evidence that I observed).  I know
about 30 people who tried the Bates method starting with varying
degrees of myopia, some of them REALLY understand it well.  Most got
to about 20/60, only ONE PERSON was able to attain perfect eyesight
through a permanent clear flash.

All comments welcome.

> Show me ONE case Neil. One case of success without intervention. And
> I'll accept defeat.
Neil Brooks - 10 Apr 2008 20:55 GMT
On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, apa...@gmail.com wrote:

> Neil Brooks: If you dont' belive in the Bates method, why are you
> still here (as I recall, you were still here about a year ago).  Is
> there some technique you endorse?  Have you been helped by some
> technique that you are using?  If Bates is so bad...what's your other
> natural alternative?  I am open to suggestions, perhaps with some
> anecdotal evidence.

This is a science newsgroup.

The fact that people wish to "take it over" with their unsupported
alternative theories doesn't change that.

There should be science/evidence behind what's discussed here, or --
at the very least -- a rational basis that extends beyond "true
belief."

There are LOADS of alternative sites that you can use for "natural
vision improvement" suggestions.

I've never seen ANY evidence that anything works better than:

- meticulous visual hygiene (google it), with frequent breaks
- lots of fresh air, sunshine, and exercise
- good diet (everybody knows what that is)
- ocular motility exercises (eg, yoga for the eyes.  google it)
- periocular warming (search this site for its explanation).
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 20:57 GMT
> Zetsu:  It is through epidemiological studies (success of others) that
> we learn which drugs harm us and which drugs do us good.

Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that, by looking at other
people's failures, you will be contaminating yourself with the memory
of failure (see Bates' article, 'Think Right') and you will become
discouraged. If you are contemplating beginning the treatment of cure
by the rest treatment, then all you should concern yourself with is
your own, individual journey and not anyone else's.

>Zetsu:  I am sorry, but many people go back to perfect eyesight at
>around age 40.

Really? Perfect sight at ALL distances? I think that is very rare. A
lot of people shift into hypermetropia, or presbyopia, or astigmatism,
or numerous other conditions. We must consider those also.
RT - 11 Apr 2008 01:43 GMT
In article
<ce956cb0-d847-42ed-9586-8d4bc3b29123@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> Show me ONE case Neil. One case of success without intervention. And
> I'll accept defeat.

My Aunt was myopic since she was a young child and as she reached her
60s her myopia gradually went away until now she has gotten rid of her
glasses entirely.

My mother's eyes have gradually improved around 2 diopters in the past
couple of decades. She only needs them for driving. She does not wear
reading glasses. She's almost 70 and started wearing glasses when she
was 9.

Neither had any kind of medical or surgical intervention and neither has
ever done exercises to improve her sight. The improvement occurred
completely on its own.

I'm related to these two people, they are not stories from some
self-published book written 100 years ago. I can vouch for their
veracity.

Signature

~RT

John Sheridan - 12 Apr 2008 13:56 GMT
>In article
><ce956cb0-d847-42ed-9586-8d4bc3b29123@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>My Aunt was myopic since she was a young child and as she reached her
>60s her myopia gradually went away...

>My mother's eyes have gradually improved around 2 diopters in the past
>couple of decades. She only needs them for driving...
>
>Neither had any kind of medical or surgical intervention...

So Zetsu, why haven't you kept your promise?

Why are you still here?
Mike Tyner - 13 Apr 2008 01:48 GMT
> Show me ONE case Neil. One case of success without intervention. And
> I'll accept defeat.

No you won't.

Calling it "defeat" means you think this is all a game to you. You aren't
interested in what actually happens. There are no consequences. Nobody can
get hurt because there are no real people and no real problems involved -
it's all just a game.

I will give you MORE THAN ONE case "without intervention." You will NOT
believe me, you will NOT accept defeat and you will NOT dry up and go away.

Between ages 10 and 25, the average Caucasian refraction becomes more and
more nearsighted. This isn't negotiable. It happens and all the
epidemiologists agree it happens.

(If you don't know what an "epidemiologist" is, then it would be stupid to
argue they are wrong!)

Between ages 30 and 50, those same epidemiologists say the AVERAGE caucasian
refraction becomes more FARsighted. It is obvious and incontrovertible that
some of these shifts are in farsighted people getting more farsighted. It is
also obvious, to the eye doctors who measure it, that some of these shifts
occur in NEARSIGHTED people. We see it happen several times a week, and if
you say it DOESN'T happen then you're just burying your head in the sand and
choosing to remain ignorant rather than actually looking to see what
happens.

Now, if I examine 50 people in one week who are between age 25 and 50, and
40% of them were nearsighted at their last visit, that means at least 3-4
times EVERY WEEK I have to tell a patient "Yes, I know you were nearsighted
two years ago. But you aren't now."

So, how do you deal with the fact that EVERY eye doctor sees myopic patients
EVERY week who IMPROVE SPONTANEOUSLY WITH NO INTERVENTION.

So now you will "accept defeat" and quietly go away, right?

No, I didn't think so.

I must be wrong.

I must be lying.

It CAN'T be that way!

It's just a game, you get to change the rules, and you're NOT going to shut
up and go away.

-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 13 Apr 2008 10:14 GMT
> Now, if I examine 50 people in one week who are between age 25 and 50, and
> 40% of them were nearsighted at their last visit, that means at least 3-4
> times EVERY WEEK I have to tell a patient "Yes, I know you were
> nearsighted two years ago. But you aren't now."

Ask then in the new week such patients what they have changed in their diet
and habits.
S*
Zetsu - 13 Apr 2008 12:05 GMT
Mike,

Of course I believe you (and RT) about people getting better (why
should I not) but when I asked about the occurence of success without
intervention what I meant was on the condition that the patient was
still wearing the glasses at that time they got cured (and when I say
cured I mean 20/10, not just "better") so, how do you know they were
or weren't still wearing glasses?

Did you put cameras in their house (Big Brother style)?
Did you spy on them 24/7?

So, it is not a question of 'getting better, getting worse, or staying
the same' it is a question of whether they continued to wear the
glasses. And you do not have the statistics to answer this question,
therefore you fail.
Mike Tyner - 13 Apr 2008 19:12 GMT
> glasses. And you do not have the statistics to answer this question,
> therefore you fail.

Of COURSE I fail. You write the rules. After all, it's YOUR newsgroup!

You said "show me one".

I said "every eye doctor will say it happens several times a week."

Of COURSE you win. The whole world is lying, just to make you look bad.

Aren't you important?!

-MT
Zetsu - 13 Apr 2008 19:35 GMT
I said one case where the person continued to wear glasses and still
got cured. "Every eye doctor" doesn't know their patients lifestyle,
all they know is what they can gather from tests and a bit of what the
patient decides to confer. This newsgroup isn't mine, actually it
doesn't belong to anyone.
Zetsu - 13 Apr 2008 12:09 GMT
> (If you don't know what an "epidemiologist" is, then it would be stupid to
> argue they are wrong!)

Yeah I do it's someone who studies the presence of diseases a large
population.
Dan Abel - 10 Apr 2008 20:38 GMT
In article
<ec83b299-b689-4b43-aaa4-0e9cf7195dca@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

> So NOBODY has been able to improve their eyesight past 20/40 or so??

Don't know about Bates, but my eye doctors have usually been able to get
my vision to 20/20 using glasses, contacts or surgery, at a reasonable
cost and effort.

> Dan Abel, my question is not a hard one.  There is no reason to define
> "perfect" "normal" whatever..

It's a hard question, and the final results need to be defined in order
for them to mean anything, especially in a science newsgroup.

> My question was very clear:  "Has anyone
> been able to improve their vision from worse than 20/50 (myopia) to
> better than 20/20 (normal vision)".

Here is your original question, which I didn't find very clear:

"I know many people who benefited from the Bates method.
Out of curiosity, has anyone improved their eyesight to perfect?  i.e.
started with 20/50 or worse and improved it to better than 20/20?"

It sounds like you want to drop the word "perfect", which sounds good to
me, but now you need to define "better than 20/20".

> My eyesight is about 20/50 and I am losing hope.

Are you unwilling to try glasses or contacts, or would just rather find
a way to eliminate those?  They are certainly a pain in the butt, but I
find to be much better than not seeing well.

Signature

Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net

Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 20:44 GMT
> Are you unwilling to try glasses or contacts, or would just rather find
> a way to eliminate those?  They are certainly a pain in the butt, but I
> find to be much better than not seeing well.

Of course he doesn't want glasses or contacts, DUH! Otherwise he
wouldn't have asked about an alternative route in the first place.
 
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.