 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2008Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years
Hi everybody. I started practicing Bates Method 2 years ago, with a myopic defect of -3.00 and -3.25. I actually can have voluntary flashes of clear vision (blinking). During these flashes I can read very well: 10/10 if light is good (outdoor sunlight). The problems are: P1. the flashes last only a few seconds, and usually disappears if I blink P2. in low light it's practically impossible to have flashes P3. even if during the flash I can see well, the image is still often doubled (or multiple). Basically during flashes I can see multiple focused images. I have been thinking for months that these were only temporary effects, but after so many months I'm quite tired. That's why I started to make some research (I don't understand why I had't started before...) in order to clear some points. Here my questions: Q1. There is anyone who could succeed in resolving problems P1,P2,P3? In other words to cure completely his/her sight. Q2. I went yesterday to the optician and had an objective measurement of my eyesight: -2.50 and -2.50. How can I see 10/10 during a flash if my error of refraction is so big? I started reading articles, and I found a study of 1952 by Elwin Marg "flashes of clear vision and negative accomodation with reference to the bates method of visual training" stating that even if the refraction error is not changed by training, the VA improves of many lines. This is exactly what I experienced. So I am now trying to figure out what a flash is, and in particular if it can be hold for a long period (that's why I ascked Q1). These are my three hypothesis: H1: "Bates theory of accommodation was right, the method works: and it is just a matter of practice. With practice I'll be able to hold flashes." What makes me uncertain about this hyp. is that I started to read literature about Bates. I found out that Bates theory is stated as the truth by the authority. Every time there was an inconsistence between Bates theory and facts observed by other scientists, Bates or Bates followers cited Bates book. Which basically means that he was the only person who observed his reality... On the other hand, after two years of practice, I improved my acuity, so Bates had to know something. See next hypothesis. H2: "Bates theory of accommodation was wrong, but the method works". As in the literature I found that the ciliary muscle is the "thing" that generates accommodation, and also Bates said that what was important are the facts, not the theory, I think that it is possible that it is really this the truth. Still, exercises of relaxation proposed by Bates can relax the autonomous part of the nerve system and let the muscle being controlled properly and accommodate in the right way. In this scenario I still consider myopia as a functional problem. The only difference between H2 and H1 is what is the real factor in accommodation. H3: "Myopia is not functional: depends on the shape of eye/lens and can't be improved with training". This is the classical orthodox theory. Many studies make me feel that this theory is right: in particular the one by Elwin Marg 1952 and also many studies on biofeedback (Gallaway) explains my flashes of clear view in terms of improved VA due to the training. Refractive error according to these studies is not changed. It all seem consistent: my VA was improved by the training and made me able to "interpret better" the blur and read more lines. Regarding flashes, they could just be due to tear film that acts as lens. These flashes are also stronger during the day because of size of the pupil and Depth of Field in different light conditions. The feeling of rest and relaxation can be explained as result of auto suggestion: basically one can convince himself that will see well when will be relaxed, and what really happen is that, due to improved ability to interpret blur, tear film lens, big depth of field because of strong light condition, that person sees better and "triggers" the "feeling of being relaxed" as previously auto programmed (see also NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming). This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my improvement from -3.25 to -2.50. I'd like that everybody that has any suggestion for me, material, or personal experience help me to understand which one of the hypothesis is closer to the truth. I think I improved a lot, but if I don't discover what a flash is, I really can't find the strength to go on with the treatment, and neither to stop without feeling guilty. The truth will free me, I don't really care if it will be that Visual Training can heal your sight or not. I am right now in New York until 30th June. Then I'll be in Italy. I am available also to travel to meet people who obtained a good improvement (permanent 10/10 even in low light condition) or to see people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work. Thank you to everybody. Sebastiano I just want to make a couple of quick points... >[...]On the other hand, after >two years of practice, I improved my acuity, so Bates had to know >something. Not necessarily. Acuity does not always stay constant for everyone. As has been said here many times by doctors who know, some people find that their acuity improves with time, and others get worse. Your change probably would have happened anyway whether you practiced Bates or not. >[...]or to see >people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Suppose every swan that you ever see is white. Does this prove that there is no such thing as a black swan? No, you can never say that. All you can say is that every swan you have seen is white. When an idea is put forward, the proponents of the idea must prove that it is valid. It is not our responsibility to prove that the idea is invalid. > It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Suppose every > swan that you ever see is white. Does this prove that there is > no such thing as a black swan? No, you can never say that. All > you can say is that every swan you have seen is white. I agree with the philosopher about the swan, but still I think thateven if we cannot DEDUCE that the method doesn't work with some syllogism, still the fact that after 100 ears no one can provide documentation/studies that someone can retain a flash for more than seconds and see 10/10 is a proof -if not that the method doesn't work- that it is not as easy as stated in Bates book. We can empirically INDUCE that there are not big results. This INDUCTION can be source for a theory if NO COUNTEREXAMPLE is found. So... I am looking for the counterexample. I wanted to be the one, the person who could see 10/10 in every light condition, as long as I wished, thanks to Bates method. After 2 years I have to admit I am not. I feel I made some mistake (this is a common result of positive thinking) and I'd like to find that person that can confirm me that. > When an idea is put forward, the proponents of the idea must prove > that it is valid. It is not our responsibility to prove that the idea > is invalid. That's true, but you also have to consider expectations and hope. If there is still a little possibility that something great is true, it is difficult to abandon the idea saying "okay, you invented this thing, I think it is wrong until you show me it is right". If you were sick and going to die, wouldn't you try every chance to be healed? You would, I guess, until you can say "okay, this doesn't work for me" or "I am not willing to pay the price that this cure has". I am not saying that it is my responsibility to prove the world that the idea is invalid, but yes it is our responsibility to understand if we are refusing a chance or if we are trying 100% to improve our condition. Dear Sebastiano, Subject: EXCESSIVE CLAIMS of "easy" or "quick" -- by anyone. There are a lot of "caims" out there. I certainly don't make them. Further, admitedly, the minus is very easy and quick. Further, Bates is NOT THE ONLY ONE ADVOCATING PREVENTION -- but he is certainly the most vocal about these issues. But let me add this commentary: documentation/studies that someone can retain a flash for more than seconds and see 10/10 is a proof -if not that the method doesn't work- that it is not as easy as stated in Bates book. Otis> While I respect Bates -- you must remember that in his first 10 years, he only published the fact that SOME kids cleared their Snellen from 20/70 to normal. I wish he had NEVER made any claims beyond that point. Otis> Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained it by their own verification. We can empirically INDUCE that there are not big results. Otis> You are correct. But they are results, and you can function with no minus lens on your face. In fact, you might consider getting some weaker minus lens and checking yourself. This INDUCTION can be source for a theory if NO COUNTEREXAMPLE is found. So... I am looking for the counterexample. I wanted to be the one, the person who could see 10/10 in every light condition, as long as I wished, thanks to Bates method. Otis> And we all wish you the best with your efforts. Enjoy, > > It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Suppose every > > swan that you ever see is white. Does this prove that there is [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > are refusing a chance or if we are trying 100% to improve our > condition. On 24 Giu, 16:09, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: >Otis> Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have >cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained >it by their own verification. okay, this can be the example I was looking for. Where can I find documentation about them? >On 24 Giu, 16:09, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >okay, this can be the example I was looking for. Where can I find >documentation about them? Just remember one thing: anecdotes (which are all you are likely to get from Otis, Zetsu and Rishi) do not constitute science. You can find lots of people who are absolutely sure that they were abducted by space aliens in a UFO. Despite the fact that not one shred of physical evidence has ever been found that supports their stories. lol actually anecdotes counts as evidence... seba ur title of this thread says 'IM TIRED' well if thats the case then ur doing bates wrong duhh... u have to feel NOT TIRED by resting lol lol. > lol actually anecdotes counts as evidence... > seba ur title of this thread says 'IM TIRED' well if thats the case > then ur doing bates wrong duhh... u have to feel NOT TIRED by resting > lol Mike Tyner <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in part: > "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> lol actually anecdotes counts as evidence... seba ur title >> of this thread says 'IM TIRED' well if thats the case then ur >> doing bates wrong duhh... u have to feel NOT TIRED by resting lol > lol. Maybe walking around undercorrected (overpositive) makes you cranky _AND_ tired? I confess this is anecdotal evidence (from this ng!) but I have little doubt it could be easily reproduced. -- Robert > lol actually anecdotes counts as evidence.. really? well maybe on your planet but not on planet earth. > lol actually anecdotes counts as evidence... > seba ur title of this thread says 'IM TIRED' well if thats the case > then ur doing bates wrong duhh... u have to feel NOT TIRED by resting > lol you know... you lost completely any kind of trust. I am here to find the truth, not to play with words. There are many ways of feeling tired. In my case, practicing, I get a lot of relax (which is the opposite of being tired) and some sight improvement. But still I feel tired of not getting what is my final goal. If you can't understand this -maybe too little for you- difference, well... I am very sorry. But anyway, I give you a chance to re-connect. You say that anecdotes counts as evidence. I agree, especially if they are proofs. I would believe ufo exists if you tell me that you saw one AND you provide me evidences. So, please give me the evidences. Also what I'd like to point out is that if in our model of the world we assume that Bates was right, then it's obvious to state that anyone is against him, or doesn't agree with him, is wrong. The point is... how can we be sure that he was right? We need proofs. I know that it's cool to think to know better than any one else what is right, what is the TRUTH, what is the path to illumination, what... ever. But I don't see any logic in making a war of words. What if your proof of the theory of Bates are just the result of mind control? If you feel cool because you are an "elected" person that has the "truth" and feel that any one who doesn't agree is a fool. I suggest you to make research on mind control. If you are sure that you don't just "believe" in Bates as result of suggestion, I am sure that you have some proof or evidence. Please... help me to be sure like you. Thanks Sebastiano Dear Sebastiano, You can find some of this information (that objects to the minus) at: www.chinamyopia.org www.myopiafree.com http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/ You can find out more information by reading these sites. Enjoy, > On 24 Giu, 16:09, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > okay, this can be the example I was looking for. Where can I find > documentation about them? On Jun 24, 7:43 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Sebastiano, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/ Dean Koontz is a good fiction writer and I would suggest that you might also spend some time reading his books. They are just as valuable in preventing myopia as these websites. On 24 Giu, 19:43, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Sebastiano, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You can find out more information by reading these sites. > > >Otis> Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have > > >cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained > > >it by their own verification. > > > okay, this can be the example I was looking for. Where can I find > > documentation about them? I just want a proof, a study of some real case that was healed completely. And I want it from a source that is NOT SELLING ANYTHING. Anyway, how well can you see? Do you have a personal success story? > On 24 Giu, 19:43, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Anyway, how well can you see? Do you have a personal success story? Otis is a high myope. his prevention doesn't work for him. and his neice is named Joy. she tried his prevention method for years and she is now a slight myope. > I just want a proof, a study of some real case that was healed > completely. And I want it from a source that is NOT SELLING ANYTHING. I can pull out lots of my own records that show myopia diminishing. Any doctor can, if he hangs around more than a couple of years. It is COMMON for adults to become less myopic. MANY of those adults would have started with myopia <= -1.00D. That group would include many who got 0.75 "better" and are now 0.00 or 0.25. A few would show 3 or 4 diopters of "improvement" because their myopia was measured in accommodative spasm of one sort or another. You can say, with confidence, all those people were "healed completely." You can produce records that show how they were "healed completely." You can elicit testimony and anecdotes about how they were "healed." What you can NOT do is validate Bates or any "improvement" program without comparing it to this "improvement" that happens spontaneously. If you really have studied Bates objectively, you know that the effects of his ministrations can NOT be guaranteed. They are NOT dramatically reliable and it is NOT easy to show big changes in objective diopters. When the results are so subtle, you can't measure the reliability of ANY "cure" or treatment or diet or lens, without comparing it to spontaneous results we know to happen WITHOUT treatment. THOSE "CURES" ARE COMMON among low myopes. There are LOTS of low myopes. SO many that I MUST assume the null hypothesis concerning Bates or ANY "improvement" techniques. It don't work. Show me it does and I'll shut up. Meantime it don't work. Anecdotes don't prove anything because Joe and Jenny and Heather and Bob all got less nearsighted before they turned 50. Bates didn't bother to consider refractive state, just "perfect sight" no matter whether you're astigmatic, presbyopic, or other difficulties that are MORE COMMON than myopia. If it works for myopia, it must work for astigmatism for yea brother they are ALL considered IMPERFECT SIGHT and it's YOUR FAULT for tolerating it say Amen! Now you and several other seemingly competent people have described "flashes" and I've heard it enough to believe it has some basis in physics. Physics tells me there's maybe a couple of ways it can happen, so I think your report should be taken seriously. But bottom line, "clear flashes" can't be sustained and they AREN'T reliable enough for say, driving, so clear flashes are a parlor trick until somebody comes up with a way to make it predictable and sustainable. Sure, then have at it. We'll all do it. It'll work for presbyopia and astigmatism and ALL imperfect sight. HalleLUjah say Amen. > Anyway, how well can you see? Do you have a personal success story? I've worn glasses for 25 years. Wearing glasses never made me myopic nor altered the typical course Nature seems to follow with others like me. Mother Nature is an obstinate old bat. Somewhat predictable, but she bites. -MT Dear guys (in particular Otis, P.Clar, Mike) I'd like to state a couple of things: 1. the analogy of the teeth is stupid. Analogy means SIMILAR, not identical. This means there are differences. I don't care about anything different from sight. This way of proceeding by examples, analogies, anecdotes is PRECISELY what made me believe that there are proofs that the training works. But THEY ARE NOT REAL SCIENCE. Information is contained in NUMBERS, STATISTICS, not in opinions, analogies, fairy tales. Otherwise you would also believe that if you steal from the rich people and give it to the pour you will be happy and a hero. Which is not the case. So, please, let's discuss it scientifically. 2. the concept of the 3rd party and the 2nd opinion is interesting, but it is more important in the beginning. It's useful to find some energy to start the cure, even if it seems crazy. That's just a way to empower one own freedom (see NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming) and be ready to face other people judgment. But after that, it doesn't make any sense to go on contradicting the 3rd party, just to state that we are free from "the majority" opinion. After that, we need to come back to planet hearth and face reality, which is facts, which is NUMBERS. Stop just opposing the majority opinion and just make synthesis creating a better theory, a theory that can explain more things. I think the orthodox eye medicine is pretty good for explaining many things. Not all of them, but still many. So something must be truth. I think that something must be true also in Bates, if not the training at least the fact that you can improve VA by relaxing (expecially if you are under strain/spasm), as I could personally experience. So, please let's stop with this obsession with freedom and let's start cooperating. (By the way, if the way one have to bee free from the authority is just opposing it just to be different, one is not free: he is just doing the opposit, so his behavior is still driven by the authority, which was the thing that one wanted to be free of. It is the case of teenagers and conflict with parents. After that one should grow up and stop saying that it's cool to disobey to parents, but just do what he wants, no matter if it's aligned with parents model or not.) 3. please no more stupid answers like "there are only 2 things real: taxes and death". 4. I don't care if the bates in you believe in doesn't talk about complete cure. The Bates I am talking about, my Bates, does. To me he talks about real cure, complete cure. And that's precisely what I am trying to study. If it will turn out that Bates was right only on the theory of "partial cure"... well, it means that he was wrong on the theory of "complete cure" which is what I am interested in. So, please, no more things about what Bates really meant. Question for Otis: so are you saying that bates couldn't provide complete cure to people? Please answer only "yes I am saying it" or "not I am not saying it". 5. It wouldn't make sense to spend hours in front of a snellen table just to read one or two more lines, pass the driving license test, and living my life in the fog of 6/10. Maybe it would make sense to feel special and enlighten. Anyway, I don't want to talk any more about setting goals. I think I have been pretty clear: COMPLETE CURE OF SIGHT DEFECT with reference to MYOPIA. This by the way was already stated in point number 4. 6. Please, Otis stop giving information about wearing + lenses. I am only interested in Bates method to cure completely sight. Which is what I have been practicing for 2 years. I haven't tried + lenses, so I am not interested for now. 7. I am happy to hear that many people experiment the improvement of their refractive error at my age, as stated by p.clar and Mike. This could explain my objective improvement from -3.25 (at 24 y old) and -2.50 (at 26). Can you please provide some references? Maybe some publication in order to consolidate it. 8. After having done all these considerations, and also if I consider that I have an assessed error of -2.50 and an average vision which is blurry, I still can't explain the flashes that I experiment. During them I really see well, and they can last seconds. I usually have them more easily if there is a strong light (like today at the beach) and have a feeling of wet eyes (even if not always). In strong light I reach peaks of 10/10 VA. An other thing is that is sometimes see multiple images on focus. These are facts. These are what I want to talk about. I am trying to understand what they are. 9. NEGATIVE ACCOMMODATION THEORY Can I explain my flashes as negative accommodation? I found no big scientific study about skilled Bates practitioners (as I consider my self). The only one is: Le Grand, 1952: The presence of negative accommodation in certain subjects. According to it someone very skilled can reach 20/25 of VA generating a negative accommodation of 2.75 D during flashes that last minutes. I think that this study is not enough. More study on skilled Bates people are really required, if they exist. Please give me references if you have some. Also give refrerences about Le Grand, if you have. I have the idea that if Bates works, there should be someone who can have afforded a study, showing everybody that he was cured. So I propose who is a strong supporter to provide me this evidence. I think that Bates skilled practitioners who obtained results, must be very skilled persons. Very intelligent, Very aware. So I can't imagine that these people didn't share their knowledge creating some scientific evidence. If they succeeded and didn't create any proof for the future generations... well they are stupid. But as I stated before they can't be stupid, so they maybe just don't exist. Which would mean that Bates method is something just to relax a little bit the eyes and get 2/3 lines more of VA, which doesn't really make the difference. There is also an article that supports this idea: Marg, 1952: "Flashes" of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates method of visual training. According to it the improvement of VA can be of just some lines but no negative accommodation occurs. This means that the improvement is only a better learning ability to interpret blurry images AND CAN JUST LAST SECONDS. This is also confirmed by many articles of experiments of biofeedback visual training. 10. THE ORTHODOX THEORY If the theory of negative accommodation is wrong (as it seems: please provide me counter examples.), the only solution for my flashes might be... what? A tear thin film that acts as a lens? I would like to believe so, but I really can't. During flashes I see too well to believe so. Today I had long flashes, I could see and distinguish people t-shirts even at 200 meters on the beach (good light conditions). I felt the eyes wet and I hoped that closing and re opening them I would have cleaned my tear film and interrupted the flash. But it was still there. I could still see well. I'd like to stop having flashes and putting on a new -2.50 pair of glasses, but I morally can't do that, because of my flashes. I still think that eye tear is not an explanation. It doesn't explain my experience. I really want to discover the truth. Do you have any reference about tear film hypothesis? Please, help me in this research. I hope everybody is going to respect my requests as I started the post and I AM THE ONE ASKING FOR HELP AND INFORMATIONS. In particular please respect points 1 to 6. Read this message a couple of times and try to figure out if you are going to tell me something I requested. If still you have something to say, please make a clear reference at which point you are referring to. Thank you very much to every body for your time. Sebastiano "seba" > 8. After having done all these considerations, and also if I consider > that I have an assessed error of -2.50 and an average vision which is > blurry, I still can't explain the flashes that I experiment. During > them I really see well, and they can last seconds. I usually have them > more easily if there is a strong light (like today at the beach) Yesterday I wrote: "You should also observe your acuity (and flashes) after bath in ocean (or Mediterraneal) water. In such waters no potassium but very much sodium and magnesium. Sodium causes relax, potassium strain." Could you give us more on your observations from the beach? S* On "negative accommodation": You can dissect the iris and find radial muscle fibers capable of dilating the pupil. Sympathetic nerve endings can be found, and those junctions can be stimulated pharmacologically and cause the pupil to dilate. OTOH when you dissect the ciliary body, no significant radial muscle fibers can be found. The muscle cells are all circumferential. No sympathetic nerve endings are found. Phenylephrine dilates the pupil vigorously, but has no measurable effect on the ciliary body or on accommodation. It isn't proof, but a bird without wings is not likely to fly. Clear flashes must be explained by tear meniscus, squinting, and the relaxation of conventional tonic accommodation. "Negative accommodation" is an unsupported fabrication. -MT > 9. NEGATIVE ACCOMMODATION THEORY > Can I explain my flashes as negative accommodation? I found no big [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Sebastiano > You can dissect the iris and find radial muscle fibers capable of dilating > the pupil. Sympathetic nerve endings can be found, and those junctions can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It isn't proof, but a bird without wings is not likely to fly. Wait a minute! This is not real "engineering-science". This is more like medical science. These observations cannot be considered because they are tainted. Francis Young never performed these experiments. Instead, hearsay and success stories are the proof we want! Ms. Cleo is a supporter of the "second opinion"! So is George Bush. Dear Sebastiano, Subject: Working with Bates people on a Bates site. What ever you do -- you will have do it on your own. But here is a person working to clear her vision. You might enjoy reading her site: http://sassisailor.wordpress.com/ You are right, Bates said, cure, perfect, easy. You by your efforts are either going to prove him right or wrong. I wish you great success by your method. Otis > Dear guys (in particular Otis, P.Clar, Mike) > [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > > Sebastiano Otis, Thanks for the link to the blog with yet more unverifiable, third-hand anecdotes. Now ... aren't YOU the one that tries to explain to others what "science" is? Wow, you're an idiot. Seriously. <otisbrown@embarqmail.com> wrote in > Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have >cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained >it by their own verification. >We can empirically INDUCE that there are not big results. You can also a.s.U.ME that their efforts were more effective than placebo. In my sample it's common for adults to get a little less nearsighted. In your sample they happened to be trying. In my sample they weren't. Your "prevention" and Bates' "cures" are no better than placebo. They *are* the placebo. -MT Dear Mike, As always (you will agree) this is a matter of your majority-opinion. I certainly agree that AFTER a child induces a negative refractive STATE in his natural eye -- well a strong minus is VERY CONVINCING. But that does not make it science. It just makes is easy. Prevention is indeed difficult, no doubt. But both Fred and Stirling had the intense motivation and persistence to: 1. Start before any "minus" was "prescribed" (i.e., they verified their Snellen at 20/50 to 20/70. 2. Then, avoiding the minus, they went all-out with a plus the neutralized their near enviroment. 3. Kept at it, until their refractive STATE moved postive and their Snellen cleared. 4. In the case of Stirling Colgates, he realized that if his refractive STATE began moving negative (after a long period of time on a radar screen) he would have to re-start this preventive process. 5. Since they were BOTH successful, there was no need for a minus at all -- and no need for your involvement. 6. But they had the motivation and ability to trust their own results with no "third party" involvement. Second-opinion best, Enjoy, > <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -MT On Jun 24, 7:39 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > 6. But they had the motivation and ability to > trust their own results with no "third party" involvement. what does this prove? maybe if you could go back in time and take these individuals and correct their vision with minus lenses (aka "wretched minus") and then follow them over time, in the end they would still be at the same refractive state as they are after having suffered for years re- reading Snellen charts and using "the plus". you have no proof that they wouldn't. as you know, it is commonplace for myopes to become less myopic over time so why do you think that all the prevention crap that you advocate is really the cause of them losing myopia? i have MANY patients who are myopes that get less myopic over time. perhaps I should claim I am a miracle worker. perhaps I should sucker people into buying my book, or trying some eye exercises or vitamins I concoct. and isn't it interesting that the majority opinion includes almost all eye doctors and almost all vision researchers? the prevention zealots tend to be the untrained inexperienced people who want to think that any phenomenon they observe is something special. losing some myopia is not special-- its commonplace. Dear p.clar, > i have MANY patients who are myopes that get less myopic over time. > perhaps I should claim I am a miracle worker. perhaps I should sucker > people into buying my book, or trying some eye exercises or vitamins I > concoct. do you often find an improvement from -3.25 at 24 years old to -2.50 at 26? It is my case. > and isn't it interesting that the majority opinion includes almost all > eye doctors and almost all vision researchers? the prevention zealots > tend to be the untrained inexperienced people who want to think that > any phenomenon they observe is something special. losing some myopia > is not special-- its commonplace. I agree with you that many Bates practitioners (me included) wanted to find something special practicing Bates. > Dear p.clar, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I agree with you that many Bates practitioners (me included) wanted to > find something special practicing Bates. yes. yesterday I had a contact lens patient who wore -3.25 in the right eye and -3.00 in left eye and now his Rx is -2.75 and -2.25. his age is 26. > do you often find an improvement from -3.25 at 24 years old to -2.50 > at 26? It is my case. No doubt he does. Because it's a BIG percentage - 33 to 50% - of myopes that spontaneously improve a little. Usually it signals the end of their progression. -MT <p.clarkii@gmail.com> > i have MANY patients who are myopes that get less myopic over time. > perhaps I should claim I am a miracle worker. perhaps I should sucker > people into buying my book, or trying some eye exercises or vitamins I > concoct. But you can ask such people about their eat habits. Maybe that Dr Josephson is right: http://www.i-see.org/josephson.html http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/natural-health-articles/eyesight/myopia-high-c arbohydrate-diet-increase-risk-00750.html S* > <p.clar...@gmail.com> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is right:http://www.i-see.org/josephson.htmlhttp://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/natural-hea lth-articles/eyesight/my... > S* this is another example of someone trying to bilk others on an unfounded prevention program. eating has an influence on vision if a person is diabetic, or if a person has a vitamin deficiency. nothing else is medically proven. Dear Otis, can you provide me more information about Fred and Stirling? I don't know anything about them. Thanks Another thing: > 6. But they had the motivation and ability to > trust their own results with no "third party" involvement. I can't understand this obsession with the 3rd party: if some one is sure of his results, he wouldn't be afraid of 3rd parties. This is precisely something I started to think about just one month ago. Before I taught that the world wouldn't have understood how genius Bates (and so me and all the other guys curing them selves) was. Then, even after many good results in terms of flashes, I started to think that I shouldn't be afraid of a comparison. After 2 years of "isolation" I came back ready to face the orthodox truth with a pure scientific attitude, without any pre-ideas. What I discovered is that my AVERAGE results are not so good. I then realized that we - the Bates practitioners - tend to believe only at half the truth. We try to remember only flashes and think as if we are so close to be able to maintain them for hours. We think that even if we can't see well in low light, we will soon be able. We are so afraid of making a comparison with the orthodox world... WHY? Why, if we are so sure this thing work? The point is that we are afraid that a rational simple explanation of flashes can exist. An explanation that will kill all the magic of doing this, and will make evident that it is not possible to improve more than something. I think that a real Bates practitioner should do as Bates did: face the orthodox medicine. Because what we all want is to be cured, which means to see clearly as when we did before being myopic, when the eye doctor used to say "you see well". Would you have started to practice the Bates method if they told you that the best result you can get is 3 lines of VA, let's say 5 in good light condition? Bates says that you can cure completely your sight. Which means that you can face any orthodox check if you are cured. I am still looking for someone to find the energy to go on. Maybe you are one of them. On 24 Giu, 19:39, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > > -MT Dear Sebastiano, Dear Otis, Seb> can you provide me more information about Fred and Stirling? I don't know anything about them. Otis> Yes, click here: www.myopiafree.com and read the commentary by Dr. Stirling Colgate on the right side. The issues is this: 1. They "woke up" to the need for prevention BEFORE ANY MINUS WAS USED. 2. Obviously a pilot (who MUST keep his Snellen clear) will wear a "plus" with great intensity. Further, 3. He will keep on doing it until his Snellen. a. Passes the DMV Requirement (20/40 or better), and then, continued b. Pass the 20/20 line (with a refractive STATE of zero or better). But this is like losing weight. You don't need a "3rd party" to do it. You just need the scales and resolve to DO IT. Seb: Another thing: > 6. But they had the motivation and ability to > trust their own results with no "third party" involvement. I can't understand this obsession with the 3rd party: Otis> Have you read the remarks of P.Clarkii? Otis> Just call that the "majority-opinion", and look for the second-opinion that says that ENTRY into nearsightedness could be prevented by the person himself. if some one is sure of his results, he wouldn't be afraid of 3rd parties. Otis> If you clear your Snellen yourself -- why bother (or pay) for 3rd parties? They don't care about you keeping your distant vision clear. All they care about is attacking people who advocate prevention AT THE THRESHOLD using second-opinion methods. (Let me add that OBJECTION to the minus lens is the second-opinion.) This is precisely something I started to think about just one month ago. Before I taught that the world wouldn't have understood how genius Bates (and so me and all the other guys curing them selves) was. Otis> I truly object to the word "cure". I think it is a mistake to use it. I think that Bates (followers) make sweeping claims -- that are impossible to verify. The majority-opinion ODs then used these excessive claims to discredit Bates. Otis> Other researchers like Dr. Prentice made very limited "claims" about prevention -- and I think they were on to something. Then, even after many good results in terms of flashes, I started to think that I shouldn't be afraid of a comparison. After 2 years of "isolation" I came back ready to face the orthodox truth with a pure scientific attitude, without any pre-ideas. Otis> This whole field is staturated with misconceptions, starting with the word "cure". What I discovered is that my AVERAGE results are not so good. I then realized that we - the Bates practitioners - tend to believe only at half the truth. Otis> Just remember, the majority-opinion only has 1/2 the truth. We try to remember only flashes and think as if we are so close to be able to maintain them for hours. We think that even if we can't see well in low light, we will soon be able. Otis> But you at least checked -- and see 20/20 under specific conditions under YOUR CONTROL. That is a major first step in my opinion. There is a great deal of SCIENCE behind plus-prevention (read Francis Young's work on my site for an understanding of these issues). We are so afraid of making a comparison with the orthodox world... Otis> The "orthodox" world has a minus lens that works impressively in 5 minutes. If you are a "service" person, that is the only thing that works in that context. WHY? Why, if we are so sure this thing work? Otis> There are only two sure things in this world, death and taxes. All the rest is a matter of YOUR judgment. The point is that we are afraid that a rational simple explanation of flashes can exist. Otis> I would say a rational reason why, when you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye -- it changes its refractive STATE by -2 diopters in less than six months. An explanation that will kill all the magic of doing this, and will make evident that it is not possible to improve more than something. I think that a real Bates practitioner should do as Bates did: face the orthodox medicine. Otis> As you please. I think that prevention (on the threshod) is a matter of science, not medicine. Because what we all want is to be cured, which means to see clearly as when we did before being myopic, Otis> I don't use the word "cured". Only wise preventive method on the threshold. (See the Eskimo study.) when the eye doctor used to say "you see well". Would you have started to practice the Bates method if they told you that the best result you can get is 3 lines of VA, let's say 5 in good light condition? Otis> If they showed me the scientific fact about the proven effect of a -3 diopter lens on the natural eye -- I would have been more inclined to take true-prevention seriously -- and avoid any use of the minus. Bates says that you can cure completely your sight. Otis> I don't agree with "cure completely". Reasonable compromise is wise. (As I discussed above.) Which means that you can face any orthodox check if you are cured. Otis> The problem is the OPINION of the orthodox -- which is not justified by pure science. I am still looking for someone to find the energy to go on. Otis> I would sit down and ask yourself what your true goal actually is. Otis> Substantially passing the DMV test, with 20/30 to 20/25 vision under "room" illumination conditions? Would that be "acceptable" to you (self confirmed?) I don't know -- only you can set that goal. Maybe you are one of them. Otis> No, I don't think so. It is you alone who must be the leader in your effort. Just my second-opinion, Otis > Dear Otis, > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > and read the commentary by Dr. Stirling Colgate on the right side. Stirling Colgate was probably a good physicist. however he doesn't know beans about vision. Should I pretend that I have the answer to unlimited energy via particle physics? Is an expert violinist also an expert engineer? > a. Passes the DMV Requirement (20/40 or better), and then, continued 20/40 is blurry Otis. noone like to go around seeing 20/40. seeing like that is unsafe and uncomfortable. who cares about some arbitrary BMV criterion-- people want to see clearly at the level that their visual system is capable of. glasses or contacts or LASIK can offer that but dumb prevention schemes have been repeatedly debunked. quit pretending that you can offer people help Otis. you are nothing more than an eccentric old man who posts (and reposts, and reposts) on internet newsgroups. > You just need the scales and resolve to DO IT. resolving to do it won't make it happen. if I resolve to move Mt. Rushmore using a wheelbarrow, do you think I could do it? > Otis> Have you read the remarks of P.Clarkii? whats the point? so people who don't see clearly should avoid 3rd parties like eye doctors-- is that what you mean? good luck trying to solve it on your own because you can't. you can't fix your own vision Otis so why do you try to tell people how to fix their's? > Otis> Just call that the "majority-opinion", and look > for the second-opinion that says that ENTRY into > nearsightedness could be prevented by the person himself. why do studies show that the refractive state of near-sighted people who don't wear their glasses actually progresses at the same rate as those who do? apparently the "wretched minus" doesn't do any harm and simply helps the person see better who is wearing them. you just cited another study yourself yesterday that shows that but you don't apparently comprehend its true meaning. a senior moment perhaps? why is there no proof that re-reading Snellen charts and using "the plus" actually works? there IS proof that it doesn't, and you know it! > Otis> I would say a rational reason why, when you place a -3 diopter > lens on the eye -- it changes its refractive STATE by -2 diopters > in less than six months. please provide the proof that this is true for humans Otis. It isn't and you know it. you are trying to apply decades-old studies where lenses were sutured onto monkey's eyes as being identical to the human situation wearing glasses. Studies clearly show that humans who don't wear glasses, or wear their glasses religiously, progress at the same rate! quit lying Otis! > Otis> As you please. I think that prevention (on the threshod) > is a matter of science, not medicine. medicine IS the practice of science as it relates to the health of the human body. you are such a cliche-ridden old fool Otis Brown > Otis> The problem is the OPINION of the orthodox -- which > is not justified by pure science. there is no science that proves your views Otis. the real science that uses statistical analysis and controlled studies all shows that spectacle correction has NO INFLUENCE on further development of the refractive state of the human eye. > I am still looking > for someone to find the energy to go on. well look no more. Otis Brown has the energy (although he doesn't have the plan.) he has been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong by so many people over the years who have followed this newsgroup that he actually wears them down until they go off and live a real life. Otis, on the other hand, has no real life and lingers here where he continues to foist his invalid opinions and twisted "facts" upon others as if he actually knows something. he is a dangerous man who is actually practicing medicine without a license by suggesting people follow his recommendations, and he HAS been reported to the authorities in the state where he lives. BEWARE OF LISTENING TO IDIOTS ON THE INTERNET! If Otis Brown is so smart, why does he wear big thick glasses? Dear Friend, You are tired? Perhaps. But let me suggest this analogy. I am tired of bushing my teeth -- for two years. Do you think I should stop? The choice of NOT using preventive measures is the same in each case. Enjoy, > I just want to make a couple of quick points... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that it is valid. It is not our responsibility to prove that the idea > is invalid. On Jun 25, 12:24 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Friend, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > that it is valid. It is not our responsibility to prove that the idea > > is invalid. stupid analogy. if you stop brushing your teeth, they will decay and fall-out. if you stop your dumbo prevention scheme, your spectacle prescription will likely not be adversely affected and it will probably stay virtually unchanged two years later. stopping the prevention scheme will simply make your life a little easier by doing something productive instead of reading Snellen letters all day and not going around in a fog wearing vision-blurring plus lenses. and if your prevention scheme includes looking at the sun, like some foolish Bates advocates suggest, then you will gain a health benefit by avoiding something that is proven to be detrimental. Otis -- why don't you follow a prevention scheme? For those folks who don't know, Otis is significantly nearsighted and none of what he suggests works for him. why do you try to tell others it works? you are "proof" that it doesn't! > if you stop brushing your teeth, they will decay and > fall-out. I haven't brushed my teeth for many years, and not only have they not decayed or fallen out, but a cavity disappeared and another one diminished (all on their own). > This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my > improvement from -3.25 to -2.50. Why does it needs explanation? Many adults experience the same change without any effort or even knowledge of Bates. It happens to farsighted people too, but it makes them _worse._ -MT Sear Sebastiano, Congratulations on obtaining 10/10 (20/20) vision (even if short duration). This is not the group to support further clearing work by you. Why not join this group for further discussion of your success (with some problems)? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/ Enjoy, > Hi everybody. > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > Sebastiano Dear Sebastiano, It will not be a "3rd party" that convinces you that you are seeing 10/10. It will be you who does that. As you might know, the DMV Standard for driving a car is 20/40 (10/20) -- and in some states 20/50 and even 20/60. Yes, we all want 10/10 vision all the time. But I am curious -- what is your AVERAGE visual acuity? Is it 20/40 or 20/50? In daylight? In room illumination? Do you wear your -2.5 diopters all the time? Or only when you drive a car? There are many people, who if they read 10/10 in spurts, and passed the DMV 20/40 line -- would be very pleased with their results. But that also must be a matter of your judgment. No 3rd party can resolve these issues for you. Congratulations on your (temporary) success. Enjoy, > Hi everybody. > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > Sebastiano If you are going to Italy, FIND A MAN CALLED RISHI GIOVANNI GATTI lol > If you are going to Italy, FIND A MAN CALLED RISHI GIOVANNI GATTI lol I personally know him. What I am looking for are proof of bates method curing eyesight or proof that the method doesn't work (or can't improve more than a little bit the VA). > I personally know him. What I am looking for are proof of bates method > curing eyesight or proof that the method doesn't work (or can't > improve more than a little bit the VA). You have your proof. Look in the mirror. You can do the bates method for life and you'll never see 20/20, especially from your script. Glasses, contacts or surgery ARE the only options. Everything else is snake oil. > As you might know, the DMV Standard for driving a car is > 20/40 (10/20) -- and in some states 20/50 and even 20/60. This is not the point: I don't want to pass the driving test: I want to see clearly. With clearly I don't mean "being able to recognise letters" but literally see in focus. My experience showed me in fact that I can read 10/10 even with little blur or multiple image. This is not what I want to reach. This is not NORMAL VISION, or PERFECT VISION. I am here looking for people that can show me their improvement. Are you one of them? > But I am curious -- what is your AVERAGE visual acuity? Doing nothing in light condition it's 4/10. Blinking it gets 7/10 easily. Sometimes 10/10. In low light doing nothing it's 3/10 and blinking can improve to 5/10. > Do you wear your -2.5 diopters all the time? I have been living wothout wearing glasses for 16 months. > But that also must be a matter of your judgment. No 3rd party > can resolve these issues for you. Sorry but I strongly disagree. There is something called science, based on repetition and logic. It provides models that are correct until a better model is found. What I am researching for is Bates NEW model of eye: a theory that should explain more than orthodox theories, as stated by Bates. Bates science can be an improvement of science. Well, how can you confirm a theory or destroy it? Researching, finding examples of success or counterexamples. Sharing information: real information of real facts really observed. Even if they are so subjective as flashes. I wouldn't research if I hadn't my flashes. So... a newsgroup is a place where one can share information. I am looking for someone in my condition, someone who had improvements, but wants objectively try to understand what they are, thinking that this is still science. I did the mistake of thinking that Bates is right and that science is wrong. But even Bates is a scientist, so if what he says is true, he wouldn't be afraid of applying scientific method to his discoveries and statements. In article <80fbe7f6-7d6d-43e5-8b1c-59ec402b9662@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > Hi everybody. > > I started practicing Bates Method 2 years ago, with a myopic defect of > -3.00 and -3.25. I actually can have voluntary flashes of clear vision > (blinking). During these flashes I can read very well: 10/10 if light > is good (outdoor sunlight). > P2. in low light it's practically impossible to have flashes > Q2. I went yesterday to the optician and had an objective measurement > of my eyesight: -2.50 and -2.50. How can I see 10/10 during a flash if > my error of refraction is so big? > due to improved ability to interpret blur, tear film lens, big depth > of field because of strong light condition, that person sees better > and "triggers" the "feeling of being relaxed" as previously auto > programmed (see also NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming). > This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my > improvement from -3.25 to -2.50. I'm fond of attributing everything to depth of field, which is a little extreme, but I'm seeing strong indications of this in the parts I've left in above. Testing of refractive error is done in "normal" light conditions, because that is often the light level when we need to see. It doesn't do any good to have the eye doctor find that you don't need glasses to see in bright sunlight, when you actually need glasses to see the television, or road signs at night when you are driving. Finally, as others have posted, it isn't unusual for somebody to have an improvement in myopia of 0.75D in one eye, over two years. Let me guess, you're middle aged?  SignatureDan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net > Finally, as others have posted, it isn't unusual for somebody to have an > improvement in myopia of 0.75D in one eye, over two years. Let me [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Petaluma, California USA > da...@sonic.net My myopia started when I was 12 and increased up to the maximum (-3.25) when I was 24. Now I am 26. I have been practising between 24 and 26. Can this explain the improvement of my refractive error to -2.50? >Finally, as others have posted, it isn't unusual for somebody to have an >improvement in myopia of 0.75D in one eye, over two years. Sometimes you may have such fluctuations within the same day, depending how tired you or your eyes are. SignatureMsBrainy > >Finally, as others have posted, it isn't unusual for somebody to have an > >improvement in myopia of 0.75D in one eye, over two years. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200806/1 so basically you are saying that if such a method to relax eyes can exist, and I am under "tired eye condition", I could use it to generate a "fluctuation" of an amount that is at maximum of 0.75D, no more. Is it correct? If it is, it would perfectly explain my improvement of the objective D and also the fact that I have problems in improving more. "seba" > I'd like that everybody that has any suggestion for me, material, or > personal experience help me to understand which one of the hypothesis > is closer to the truth. > I think I improved a lot, but if I don't discover what a flash is, I > really can't find the strength to go on with the treatment, and > neither to stop without feeling guilty. > > The truth will free me, I don't really care if it will be that Visual > Training can heal your sight or not. Visual training can heal if will be combined with nutrition. See: http://www.i-see.org/josephson.html > I am right now in New York until 30th June. Then I'll be in Italy. I > am available also to travel to meet people who obtained a good > improvement (permanent 10/10 even in low light condition) or to see > people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work. You have enough time to make his own observations. You probably have known that your acuity is not the same all time. It is nutrition dependent. If you are a "salt loser" you should cut down cooked plant products. The same is if you are inclined to diabetic. It should be changed for animal fats. P.clark wrote today: eating has an influence on vision if a person is diabetic, or if a person has a vitamin deficiency. nothing else is medically proven". You should also observe your acuity (and flashes) after bath in ocean (or Mediterraneal) water. In such waters no potassium but very much sodium and magnesium. Sodium causes relax, potassium strain. S* |
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
|
©2009 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.