 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2004Verification of Bates theory
In the beginning of the last century, Dr. Bates conducted numerous experiments in order to formulate his theory about the way the eye/brain system works and the nature of vision defects. Although I can credit his method with significant improvement in my vision, some of his assumptions do not seem to be correct. I wonder if there have been any attempts to verify his experiments and his theory.  SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > In the beginning of the last century, Dr. Bates conducted numerous > experiments in order to formulate his theory about the way the > eye/brain system works and the nature of vision defects. Although > I can credit his method with significant improvement in my vision, > some of his assumptions do not seem to be correct. I wonder if > there have been any attempts to verify his experiments and his theory. Dr. Bates made several spectacular claims and in general, the more spectacular they were, the more difficult it was for anyone else to duplicate them. When a treatment works for one therapist but not others, we're forced to conclude the treatment depends on power of personality and placebo effects. Seldom did Dr. Bates compare a treated group with an untreated one, and when he did the results are so astounding that his methods and recordkeeping are called into question. Nobody has found it possible to duplicate his results using statistical blinds or groupwise comparisons. Proponents of his technique claim that the lack of published articles _disproving_ Dr. Bates constitutes either a) proof that he was right and medicine is wrong or b) proof that there is a economic conspiracy among eye doctors to keep people wearing glasses. Many of Dr. Bates' assertions about basic physiology have been proven wrong. The oblique muscles don't contribute to accommodation. State of mind and "proper use of the eyes" have little or no influence on the progress of myopia or astigmatism or presbyopia, and none whatsoever in the treatment of glaucoma or cataracts. Reading Dr. Bates is good exercise for anyone studying logic or scientific method. His 1920 "Perfect Sight Without Glasses" illustrates most of the common logical fallacies like unrepresentative samples, hasty generalizations, slothful induction, post hoc, joint effect, complex cause, illicit major, and so on. -MT > > In the beginning of the last century, Dr. Bates conducted numerous > > experiments in order to formulate his theory about the way the > > eye/brain system works and the nature of vision defects. Although > > I can credit his method with significant improvement in my vision, > > some of his assumptions do not seem to be correct. I wonder if > > there have been any attempts to verify his experiments and his theory. Dear Mike, Nice of you to post another "slam" at Dr. Bates for the "reading public". Dr. Bates had the guts to "buck the system". He knew full well that his concept about the effect the minus lens has on the refractive state of the natural eye would not be accepted. Because to accept his thesis, you would have to run this test yourself and make up your on mind about the fundamental behavior characterc of the natural eye. Bates, made some mistakes -- but of course. Medicine has never been an "exact science" but often becomes a matter of finding a "quick fix" which will please the public. Medicine is also a matter of the "second opinion", because no one has perfect knowledge of any of this -- dispite Mike's claims to the contrary. Please keep this in mind, the next time some one tells you that a minus lens has no effect on the refractive state of the natural eye. The facts are quite the contrary. Just the "second opinion". Best, Otis Engineer > Dr. Bates had the guts to "buck the system". > He knew full well that his concept about the > effect the minus lens has on the refractive > state of the natural eye would not be accepted. Are Dr. Bates' intestines really relevant? > Because to accept his thesis, you would have > to run this test yourself and make up your on > mind about the fundamental behavior characterc > of the natural eye. So you've found research that shows children wearing minus get more nearsighted than children who don't? Please share your citations. > Please keep this in mind, the next time some one > tells you that a minus lens has no effect on the > refractive state of the natural eye. > The facts are quite the contrary. Only if you blindly refuse to look at any controlled study comparing humans wearing minus with humans who don't. -MT > Many of Dr. Bates' assertions about basic physiology have been proven wrong. The > oblique muscles don't contribute to accommodation. State of mind and "proper use > of the eyes" have little or no influence on the progress of myopia or > astigmatism or presbyopia, and none whatsoever in the treatment of glaucoma or > cataracts. Could you indicate the research which proved that the above mentioned Bates' assertions were wrong? SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > Could you indicate the research which proved that the above > mentioned Bates' assertions were wrong? Atropine eliminates accommodation but leaves the external ocular muscles functioning. If the external obliques still function, where is the accommodation they produce? As for the rest, you should do you own homework. If you find research showing that "proper use" of the ears restores hearing, or proper use of the nose restores a lost sense of smell, do please post it here. -MT > Atropine eliminates accommodation but leaves the external ocular muscles > functioning. If the external obliques still function, where is the accommodation > they produce? It is possible that the extra ocular muscles take some part in accommodation. It shouldn't be that difficult to verify this, for example by doing the atropine accommodation test on on a subject who has a good vision. Has anybody investigated this? > As for the rest, you should do you own homework. I did. I read a lot about conventional and holistic methods of vision improvement. For me, the Bates method worked, while wearing glasses did not. The result is that I managed to significantly improve my vision, after 23 years of wearing spherical and cylindrical lenses. The challenge that I am still facing is to be able to change permanently my vision habits. My eyes still are not automatically as active as they are in people with inherently good vision, unless I remember to make the full use of them. Whenever I forget about focusing on the surrounding objects, I experience eye strain. After reading Dr. Bates' book, and learning from other sources about people who benefited by applying his approach, I thought that a large body of research has been done since then in order to prove or disprove his claims. I would appreciate if somebody on this newsgroup could help me find the relevant information. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > It is possible that the extra ocular muscles take some part in > accommodation. It shouldn't be that difficult to verify this, > for example by doing the atropine accommodation test on > on a subject who has a good vision. Has anybody investigated this? Most eye doctors do it 10-15 times a day. Most young people who "get their eyes dilated" will report drastic effects on their near vision. This is your "atropine test." Tropicamide and cyclopentolate are gentler than atropine, but they act on the same muscle. They have no effect on the obliques. Accommodation goes away, motility is unchanged. Thousands of times a day. > > As for the rest, you should do you own homework. > > I did. I read a lot about conventional and holistic methods of vision > improvement. Then you started with the assumption that a large group of people who use "methods" will show statistically signficant improvement compared to a similar group who don't. If you ask for documentation of measurable, repeatable "improvement," it isn't there, only anecdotes and testimonials. As you illustrate here: > For me, the Bates method worked, while wearing > glasses did not. Many adults get less nearsighted. Why doesn't that include you? Did you expect lenses to diminish your refractive error? They don't increase it either. I've read Dr. Bates' book and I've only identified four or five clinical procedures that could be tested for efficacy. Which procedures worked for you? > The result is that I managed to significantly improve > my vision, after 23 years of wearing spherical and cylindrical lenses. Many people your age also experience "significantly improved vision" without ever hearing of Bates. > The challenge that I am still facing is to be able to change > permanently my vision habits. My eyes still are not automatically > as active as they are in people with inherently good vision, unless > I remember to make the full use of them. Whenever I forget about > focusing on the surrounding objects, I experience eye strain. Do people who have "inherently good vision" have to constantly think about it? > After reading Dr. Bates' book, and learning from other sources > about people who benefited by applying his approach, I thought > that a large body of research has been done since then in order > to prove or disprove his claims. I would appreciate if somebody > on this newsgroup could help me find the relevant information. Which techniques are you referring to? Discarding glasses, sunning, attention exercises, or imagining blackness? You won't find "Bates, WH" cited credibly in the last 50 years. When years go by and nobody is able to confirm the efficacy of a technique or build upon it with reproducible results, you're witnessing scientific extinction. It would be naive to assume nobody tried and nobody wants to see it work. -MT > Most eye doctors do it 10-15 times a day. Most young people who "get their eyes > dilated" will report drastic effects on their near vision. This is your > "atropine test." Tropicamide and cyclopentolate are gentler than atropine, but > they act on the same muscle. They have no effect on the obliques. Accommodation > goes away, motility is unchanged. Is the accommodation totally disabled or is it seriously affected by the dilation? > Many adults get less nearsighted. Why doesn't that include you? That does not explain why my astigmatism (-.75) is gone or why there is an improvement in my children. > Did you expect lenses to diminish your refractive error? They don't increase it > either. In an interim period, when I was using the glasses on and off, after every period of using them I experienced the deterioration of my distant vision when I took them off. > I've read Dr. Bates' book and I've only identified four or five clinical > procedures that could be tested for efficacy. Which procedures worked for you? It is difficult to isolate particular procedures or exercises and tell which ones were more effective than others. Whenever I tried to focus on just one procedure, my vision would improve temporarily and then get worse. An example of that was learning how to focus on very small objects. If I concentrated just on that, my peripheral vision decreased, and that started having a negative effect on focusing. I achieved the best results while applying a number of different techniques, like the ones described in the book "Improve Your Vision Without Glasses or Contact Lenses" by Dr. Steven Beresford, Dr. David Muris, Dr. Merrill Allen, Dr. Francis Young (ISBN 0-684-81438-2). > Do people who have "inherently good vision" have to constantly think about it? No, they naturally use their eyes to more extent than people who have vision problems. This is the most difficult aspect of the natural vision improvement. > Which techniques are you referring to? Discarding glasses, sunning, attention > exercises, or imagining blackness? You won't find "Bates, WH" cited credibly in > the last 50 years. I think all his techniques make sense. The problem is in being able to refine them and adapt to the needs of the general population. It seems that Bates was labeled as an outcast by his peers, and that created a credibility risk for anybody who wanted to take his research seriously. > When years go by and nobody is able to confirm the efficacy of a technique or > build upon it with reproducible results, you're witnessing scientific > extinction. It would be naive to assume nobody tried and nobody wants to see it > work. There are a number of books recommending Bates' methods, written by optometrists and ophtamologists - in some of them there is no mention of Bates though (like the one I mentioned above). It looks like the whole medical science is quite slow in accepting natural healing methods, and concentrates on the 'quick fix' approach. However, it seem to be gradually changing with time, as the case is with the increasing acceptance of acupuncture, yoga, and tai chi. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > Is the accommodation totally disabled or is it seriously affected by the dilation? As much as you want, depending on the dosage and the choice of drop. Normally we aren't trying to paralyze accommodation, we're trying to dilate the pupil. Some drugs do more of one and less of the other. But the point is, no matter how severely we paralyze the ciliary muscle, the obliques continue to work fine but the patient can't accommodate until the drug wears off. > > Many adults get less nearsighted. Why doesn't that include you? > > That does not explain why my astigmatism (-.75) is gone or why > there is an improvement in my children. Nor does Bates. My own astigmatism has varied back and forth over the years. > > Did you expect lenses to diminish your refractive error? They don't > > increase it either. > > In an interim period, when I was using the glasses on and off, > after every period of using them I experienced the deterioration > of my distant vision when I took them off. It isn't clear what you mean. I'm guessing you mean your acuity was worse immediately after removing glasses than after you'd had them off for some time. That's not unusual in young people. After 40, presbyopia eliminates much of this variability. When accommodation is eliminated by drops or by age, refractions change very little over the course of a day. > > I've read Dr. Bates' book and I've only identified four or five clinical > > procedures that could be tested for efficacy. Which procedures worked for you? > > It is difficult to isolate particular procedures or exercises and tell which > ones were more effective than others. Do tell. :) It's even tougher if you try to quantify the specific aspect of vision that improves. You could measure refractive error, acuity (angle of resolution), binocularity, visual field and color vision all independently to determine "improvement". Vague reports of "better vision" are useless if you can't identify a shift on some measurable axis. Subjective "good vision" is way too sensitive to effort, mood and placebo for us to trust anything but measurable values. Even the measurable quantities vary with mood, fatigue, and placebo effects. It's one reason many parameters are only standardized after cycloplegia. > Whenever I tried to focus on just one procedure, my vision would > improve temporarily and then get worse. An example of that was > learning how to focus on very small objects. If I concentrated just > on that, my peripheral vision decreased, and that started having a > negative effect on focusing. You're describing variations in subjective visual attention and perhaps accommodation. When you control for known variables like accommodation, "procedures" don't significantly change the objective measurements. > I achieved the best results while applying > a number of different techniques, like the ones described in the book > "Improve Your Vision Without Glasses or Contact Lenses" by Dr. > Steven Beresford, Dr. David Muris, Dr. Merrill Allen, Dr. Francis > Young (ISBN 0-684-81438-2). I'll look that up, if only for the references. Francis Young was 14 when he dramatically "cured" his myopia. I know Merrill Allen's work and many of us don't understand why he's lending his name to these projects. The See Clearly method also claims him as one of its authors. Since he's retired, some think he's just "cashing in". He isn't publishing his claims for these techniques in the refereed journals. > > Do people who have "inherently good vision" have to constantly think about it? > > No, they naturally use their eyes to more extent than people > who have vision problems. This is the most difficult aspect > of the natural vision improvement. Again this is a subjective impression, undefined with respect to any measurable behavior. What measurable aspect of vision do you mean by "vision problems?" What does it mean to "use the eyes to more extent"? Increased peripheral awareness? That's visual attention and it's independent of refractive error. Does it mean "more eye movements?" No I don't think so, at least I know reading eye movements and patterns of gaze are no different between people with different refractive errors. Does it mean "higher resolution?" I don't believe fundamental retinal resolution is much different in myopes, hyperopes, and normals, except for a magnification factor induced by anatomy. > > Which techniques are you referring to? Discarding glasses, > > sunning, attention exercises, or imagining blackness? You > > won't find "Bates, WH" cited credibly in the last 50 years. > > I think all his techniques make sense. The problem is in being able > to refine them and adapt to the needs of the general population. If I agree that there is some small subset of vision problems that would respond to Bates techniques, then the problem is identifying that small subset and knowing what improvement to expect. > It seems that Bates was labeled as an outcast by his peers, > and that created a credibility risk for anybody who wanted to > take his research seriously. Well, nobody wanted to use his name but for the past 50 years, every year there's a new crop of hungry grad students looking for new projects and chomping at the bit to turn "conventional wisdom" on its ear. There must be some reason they don't choose to re-hash the efficacy of Bates' techniques. > There are a number of books recommending Bates' methods, > written by optometrists and ophtamologists - in some of them > there is no mention of Bates though (like the one I mentioned > above). It looks like the whole medical science is quite slow > in accepting natural healing methods, and concentrates on the > 'quick fix' approach. Only if you ignore what really happened. 30 and 40 years ago "behavioral" optometrists were everywhere recommending this therapy or that. Why did we quit? The number of doctors recommending these treatments has greatly diminished. > However, it seem to be gradually changing > with time, as the case is with the increasing acceptance of > acupuncture, yoga, and tai chi. Where "good vision" means muscle coordination and reflexes, sure these areas are subject to acupuncture, yoga and tai chi, as well as placebo and mood. But with "real" refractive error and organic disease, behavioral techniques can't change the basic anatomy of the eye any more than they can change the shape of the ears, which are made of the same stuff. -MT For what it's worth... I've worn negative lenses from age 10 into my late middle age. I like to see clearly, and have always asked for full correction. I like to be able to see the stars clearly at night and for the last decade have made a point of asking optometrists to add another -0.25 diopters to my prescription so that I am really fully corrected at infinity, and not just at the nominal 20 feet. I originally required about -2 diopters in my left eye. Over time, the amount of distant vision correction I have needed has steadily declined. Currently my left eye prescription is +0.75 spherical, -1.25 cylindrical. In other words, a bit of astigmatism but almost no nearsightedness. I can, in fact, pass a Massachusetts driver's test without my eyeglasses and could have the corrective lens requirement removed from my license. If I didn't mind a little bit of blur, I could now function perfectly in everyday life with nothing but a pair of drugstore reading glasses for close work. In other words... consider me a bit of anecdotal evidence that wearing negative lenses _cures_ nearsightedness. SignatureDaniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world dot ess tee dee dot com "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/ Dear Daniel, An excellent and corrrect statement! If fact, I would provide it as a clear statement as to why and OD can not provide a solution by use of the plus lens. The great mass of us want our vision cleared instantly, and would be very suspicious of any OD who attempted to "push" a plus lens on us at the -1/2 diopter level. [And honestly, I would have been also -- in my younger days.] So, for my part, I only want to talk to pilots who have an absolute requirement to retain 20/20 for four years in college. That is the reason I really have no argument with the ODs and MDs on this site. True prevention is beyond the purview of medicine -- for that reason. Best, Otis Engineer ****** > For what it's worth... I've worn negative lenses from age 10 into my > late middle age. I like to see clearly, and have always asked for full [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > In other words... consider me a bit of anecdotal evidence that wearing > negative lenses _cures_ nearsightedness. > In other words... consider me a bit of anecdotal evidence that wearing > negative lenses _cures_ nearsightedness. Many people experience a a decrease of myopia at the onset of presbyopia. In other words, there is a shift in their vision so that they can focus better at far distance, and less at close. I wonder if the is a scientific explanation for this far vision improvement. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > Many people experience a a decrease of myopia at the onset of presbyopia. In other words, there is a shift in their vision so that they can focus better at far distance, and less at close. > I wonder if the is a scientific explanation for this far vision improvement. Look up "tonic accommodation," "pseudomyopia", and "latent hyperopia". They're all the same thing. Ciliary muscle tone varies with fatigue, anxiety, placebo, and effort. -MT Mike, Why do you post remarks from John Shindler when he does not post on sci.med.vision? Or, conversely, why not ask him to post on sci.med.vision? Best, Otis > > Many people experience a a decrease of myopia at the onset of presbyopia. In > other words, there is a shift in their vision so that they can focus better at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -MT > Why do you post remarks from John Shindler when > he does not post on sci.med.vision? Not sure what you mean. If I've crossposted private mail to the newsgroup, I didn't mean to. Here's a header extract from his messages in sci.med.vision. I don't find his messages in my email. X-Trace: news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com 1079375523 24.103.31.52 NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:32:03 EST > Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Otis Seems to me like John's been cancelling his posts, but that doesn't prevent replies from going out if somebody replied before the OP was pulled Scott > > Mike, > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Scott Dear Scott, I contacted John privately. He now has his own children wearing a plus lens for most of their close work. He is too busy to respond to any of this discussion -- but sends his reagards. Best, Otis otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in news:6dbddb9.0403191957.4998fd28 @posting.google.com: > He is too busy to respond to any of > this discussion -- but sends > his reagards. Probably too busy keeping his children from walking into walls Scott > otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in news:6dbddb9.0403191957.4998fd28 > @posting.google.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scott That is rather insulting to John! I am certain he knows what the required visual standards are -- and will take steps to insure that his own children alway meet and exceed the reasonable standards for vision. I am certain that, as a father, he will talk to his children and help them maintain clear distant vision for life -- while their classmates get into "staircase myopia" produced by the usual methods. Best, Otis Engineer cc: John >> otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in >> news:6dbddb9.0403191957.4998fd28 @posting.google.com: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > cc: John Actually, I thought it was pretty funny. FWIW, my original post on this thread had nothing to do with an inquiry into John's choices or behavior. It was just a simple explanation of my best guess as to why Mike's posts didn't seem to be tracable to one of John's threads. More to the point, if John had been retracting his posts, it might have been because he chose not to discuss his family's health care on the usenet. You chose to use my post as an advertisement that someone has taken your advice on prevention. Scott Dear Scott, The specific remark about John Shindler was: > >> Probably too busy keeping his children from walking into walls > >> Scott My remark is that John is an intelligent person, and understands the visual requirements imposed on his children. Since he can help his children retain their distant vision by intelligent use of the plus lens (for prevention) if follows that his children will not "be walking into walls", since he will also check to make certain they always pass the Snellen-DMV test. A wise parent should pay attention to alternative (even difficult ones) to protect the visual welfare of his children. A professor of optometry (Houston) in fact RECOMMENDED this approach to all young children. The approach has not yet been implemented, but it is time we begin to take the recommendation seriously in my opinion. Best, Otis Engineer > >> otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in > >> news:6dbddb9.0403191957.4998fd28 @posting.google.com: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Scott Hi All, Since I am recently expanding my business, I had to (hopefully temporarily) withdraw from active participation on this newsgroup. I thank everybody who responded to my posts - regardless on the voiced opinions, most of them were informative and helped me gain better understanding of the nature of human vision. I am somewhat disappointed with the prevalent mood of resignation with respect to identifying the causes and cures for the proliferation of myopia. I also don't see much interest in prevention. It seems ironic that, while most of physicians acknowledge the impact of exercising on the state of the human body, it is not generally accepted that a similar approach may be beneficial for the eyes. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > state of the human body, it is not generally accepted that a similar > approach may be beneficial for the eyes. I think you need to recheck your premises. When you look at the number of research articles regarding myopia, possible causes and prevention over the years, how can you come to such a conclusion that the prevalent mood is resignation? Perhaps you aren't aware that at least one company holds a patent on a pharmaceutical designed to - you guessed it - prevent myopia. Regarding exercise: Use it or lose it seems to apply in the case of amblyopia, but myopia has to do with the shape of the eye. Exercise seems to cause hypertrophy. In the case of the heart, exercise can both increase the ventricular volume as well as the wall thickness. The wall of the eye is not made of muscle, but of neurological, vascular, and connective tissue. The ciliary muscle controlling accommodation is more of a smooth muscle. Exercising it would be like exercising your intestines. I thought that the purpose of our collective discussion was to focus the discussion on fruitful avenues of pursuit, not in chasing our tails on some disreputable theories. DrG > I think you need to recheck your premises. When you look at the number of > research articles regarding myopia, possible causes and prevention over the > years, how can you come to such a conclusion that the prevalent mood is > resignation? Perhaps you aren't aware that at least one company holds a > patent on a pharmaceutical designed to - you guessed it - prevent myopia. There is a body of research associating myopia with environmental factors, like prevalent close work or living in constricted spaces. If this is the case, then it is possible that the brain is getting used not to stimulate the ocular muscles to focus on distant objects. I wonder why it is so hard to accept this possibility. > Regarding exercise: Use it or lose it seems to apply in the case of > amblyopia, but myopia has to do with the shape of the eye. Exercise seems [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tissue. The ciliary muscle controlling accommodation is more of a smooth > muscle. Exercising it would be like exercising your intestines. The objective of eye exercises is not to grow the ocular muscles, but to teach the brain how to stimulate them properly. I was very skeptical of Bates' assertions until I had flashes of 20/20 vision while my prescription was still -2.5 Sph, -0.75 Cyl. That occurrence of temporary perfect vision indicated that my eyes were not permanently deformed, or, if they were, that deformation could be corrected with the proper action of ocular muscles. > I thought that the purpose of our collective discussion was to focus the > discussion on fruitful avenues of pursuit, not in chasing our tails on some > disreputable theories. I believe it is the other way around. In my case the disreputable theories have worked, while the reputable ones have not. This reminds me that before Copernicus many astronomers had fruitful discussions on astronomy based on the Earth being the centre of the universe - anybody who would think otherwise was obviously chasing their tails. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > There is a body of research associating myopia with environmental factors, like prevalent close work or living in constricted spaces. If this is the case, then it is possible that the brain is getting used not to stimulate the ocular muscles to focus on distant objects. I wonder why it is so hard to accept this possibility. For one, the brain does not "stimulate the ocular muscles to focus on distant objects". > The objective of eye exercises is not to grow the ocular muscles, but to teach the brain how to stimulate them properly. I was very skeptical of Bates' assertions until I had flashes of 20/20 vision while my prescription was till -2.5 Sph, -0.75 Cyl. That occurrence of temporary perfect vision indicated that my eyes were not permanently deformed, or, if they were, that deformation could be corrected with the proper action of ocular muscles. Or that your myopia was functional, not anatomical in the first place. > I believe it is the other way around. In my case the disreputable theories have worked, while the reputable ones have not. There is a reputable theory for eliminating myopia? -MT > > The objective of eye exercises is not to grow the ocular muscles, but to teach > the brain how to stimulate them properly. I was very skeptical of Bates' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Or that your myopia was functional, not anatomical in the first place. > There is a reputable theory for eliminating myopia? I won't insult you by mentioning glasses, contacts and refractive surgery again. My wife can easily cure her presbyopia. She just takes her reading material outside where the sun can shine on it. She claims that she doesn't need her reading glasses outside. John above is assuming something about muscles. Maybe he is just outside, like my wife. Perhaps that is what you meant when you said "functional" above? SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > For one, the brain does not "stimulate the ocular muscles to focus on distant > objects". The fact that the cilliary muscles are relaxed (in normals) doesn't mean that the brain gives up muscle control when looking far. Between other things, the eyes have to be properly positioned and that requires some muscle action. In mopes, the cilliary muscles may be still contracted when looking far, so the brain stimulation may be present, but in a wrong way. > > The objective of eye exercises is not to grow the ocular muscles, but to teach > the brain how to stimulate them properly. I was very skeptical of Bates' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Or that your myopia was functional, not anatomical in the first place. I believe that with time the functional myopia becomes anatomical, since the lack of proper muscle stimulation induces biological changes. I had been wearing glasses for 23 years, enough time to allow for the permanent distortion of my eyes. > > I believe it is the other way around. In my case the disreputable theories > have worked, while the reputable ones have not. > > There is a reputable theory for eliminating myopia? There is Bates' theory which has helped a lot of people, including myself, my children, and my friends. It has been declared 'disreputable' by most of vision professionals, most likely because of its radical nature. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > In mopes, the cilliary muscles may be still contracted when looking far, so the brain stimulation may be present, but in a wrong way. We call this "functional" myopia. Often the excess accommodation is balancing a tendency for the eyes to diverge. Every farsighted person experiences the same excess accommodation but it doesn't make them nearsighted. > I believe that with time the functional myopia becomes anatomical, since the lack of proper muscle stimulation induces biological changes. I had been wearing glasses for 23 years, enough time to allow for the permanent distortion of my eyes. Doctors thought so too, at one time. The evidence from the last 30 years shows that it doesn't, which is why doctors no longer recommend bifocals or reduced-minus glasses for controlling myopia. > There is Bates' theory which has helped a lot of people, including myself, my children, and my friends. It has been declared 'disreputable' by most of vision professionals, most likely because of its radical nature. Palming, sunning, discarding glasses, and imagining black aren't "radical". Bates' techniques work only for myopia that is not anatomical. -MT >> I think you need to recheck your premises. When you look at the >> number of research articles regarding myopia, possible causes and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not to stimulate the ocular muscles to focus on distant objects. I > wonder why it is so hard to accept this possibility. It's not hard to 'consider' the possibility, until one goes about measuring axial length in those eyes, and one finds that they are indeed longer. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > permanently deformed, or, if they were, that deformation could be > corrected with the proper action of ocular muscles. Correct. This is indeed the objective of vision therapy when dealing with accommodative infacility, accommodative spasm, versions and saccades, and convergence. Of these, only accommodative spasm is remotely related to myopia, and temporary myopia at that. >> I thought that the purpose of our collective discussion was to focus >> the discussion on fruitful avenues of pursuit, not in chasing our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > astronomy based on the Earth being the centre of the universe - > anybody who would think otherwise was obviously chasing their tails. I think that you are misconstruing the meaning of 'disreputable.' In the days of Copernicus, an idea was 'disreputable' if it went against the teachings of the Church(or Bates). My definition of 'disreputable' has to do with having been refuted by science(flat earth). There is a difference. DrG > > There is a body of research associating myopia with environmental > > factors, like prevalent close work or living in constricted spaces. If [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's not hard to 'consider' the possibility, until one goes about measuring > axial length in those eyes, and one finds that they are indeed longer. This is exactly what Bates claimed. This fact indicates that the accommodation system involves something else than just cilliary muscles. Here is how I would formulate the theory on the reasons for myopia - I am interested in learning what is wrong with it. 1. Due to the prevalent use of the eyes at close distance, the brain contracts the cilliary muscles, and elongates the eyeball (with extra ocular muscles) to facilitate better accommodation. 2. This prolonged state causes the brain to assume that this is the correct stimulation for all conditions. As the result, the brain gradually starts ignoring stimuli prompting it to focus on distant objects. 3. With time, due to maintaining the elongated shape of the eye, biological changes occur and the eye assumes this new, myopic shape. It is also possible that the cilliary muscle becomes permanently contracted. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca >> > There is a body of research associating myopia with environmental >> > factors, like prevalent close work or living in constricted spaces. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > It is also possible that the cilliary muscle becomes permanently > contracted. That all sounds very good, except that it ignores recent findings, which is that elongation of the eyeball is not under the control of the central nervous sytem, but is a localized process occurring at the level of the retina in response to defocus. Contraction or co-contraction of EOM's does not appear to play a role in the development of axial myopia. You would have been more correct had you said something along the lines that the lag of accommodation or some other optical aberration(s) might play a role in creating near defocus which results in axial elongation in some individuals. DrG > 1. Due to the prevalent use of the eyes at close distance, the brain contracts the cilliary muscles, and elongates the eyeball (with extra ocular muscles) to facilitate better accommodation. Hmm I think you'd want the eye to "shorten" if you want better accommodation. Nonetheless, it doesn't work. Accommodation doesn't increase or decrease the axial length significanly by ultrasound. > 2. This prolonged state causes the brain to assume that this is the correct stimulation for all conditions. As the result, the brain gradually starts ignoring stimuli prompting it to focus on distant objects. How does this affect axial length? > 3. With time, due to maintaining the elongated shape of the eye, biological changes occur and the eye assumes this new, myopic shape. It is also possible that the cilliary muscle becomes permanently contracted. Stop with the assumption that accommodation changes the axial. It doesn't, as evidenced by every 55-year-old presbyope who can no longer accommodate. The ciliary muscle _does_ develop a constant tonus. Lots of it, in hyperopes. But they don't get myopia. Tonic ciliary contraction is not a statistical risk factor in myopia. -MT "John Schindler" <johnREMOVE@schindler.ca.> wrote > 1. Due to the prevalent use of the eyes at close distance, the brain contracts the cilliary muscles, and elongates the eyeball (with extra ocular muscles) to facilitate better accommodation. (first message cancelled because I was wrong about this:) (strike) Hmm I think you'd want the eye to "shorten" if you want better accommodation. Nonetheless, it doesn't work. Accommodation doesn't increase or decrease the axial length significanly by ultrasound. > 2. This prolonged state causes the brain to assume that this is the correct stimulation for all conditions. As the result, the brain gradually starts ignoring stimuli prompting it to focus on distant objects. How does this affect axial length? > 3. With time, due to maintaining the elongated shape of the eye, biological changes occur and the eye assumes this new, myopic shape. It is also possible that the cilliary muscle becomes permanently contracted. Stop with the assumption that accommodation changes the axial. It doesn't, as evidenced by every 55-year-old presbyope who can no longer accommodate. The ciliary muscle _does_ develop a constant tonus. Lots of it, in hyperopes. But they don't get myopia. Tonic ciliary contraction is not a statistical risk factor in myopia. -MT seems ironic that, while most of physicians acknowledge the impact of exercising on the state of the human body, it is not generally accepted that a similar approach may be beneficial for the eyes. Maybe there's a reason. -MT > > Is the accommodation totally disabled or is it seriously affected by the > dilation? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > severely we paralyze the ciliary muscle, the obliques continue to work fine but > the patient can't accommodate until the drug wears off. If you define accommodation as the contraction of the cilliary muscles, then obviously it will be gone when you paralyze them. However, using this term for accommodation is limiting, since it assumes a specific way that the vision system works. It does not take into account changes in eye length or a possible influence of other factors. The problem with the conventional assumptions on how the visual system works is that it did not reduce the proliferation of myopia - more and more people are becoming dependent on mechanical means to maintain their vision. This prompts me to the conclusion that, in the absence of knowledge about the causes of myopia, the medical science is limited to treating the symptoms only. If the present state of knowledge does not help to eliminate or reduce myopia, it makes sense to look 'outside of the box' and consider other hypotheses. > It isn't clear what you mean. I'm guessing you mean your acuity was worse > immediately after removing glasses than after you'd had them off for some time. > That's not unusual in young people. After 40, presbyopia eliminates much of this > variability. When accommodation is eliminated by drops or by age, refractions > change very little over the course of a day. There is a large variability in my acuity. Immediately after doing some of vision exercises my vision is 20/10, while, whenever I am very tired, it may be as bad as 20/80. Concerning presbyopia, it also varies - after a long period of not exercising, the minimum distance to read a fine print (2.5 type size) is 10", while after exercising it drops to 4". > > I achieved the best results while applying > > a number of different techniques, like the ones described in the book [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't understand why he's lending his name to these projects. The See Clearly > method also claims him as one of its authors. Isn't is possible that Allen finally found the explanation for some phenomena that conventional theories do not explain? > What measurable aspect of vision do you mean by "vision problems?" > What does it mean to "use the eyes to more extent"? Increased peripheral [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fundamental retinal resolution is much different in myopes, hyperopes, and > normals, except for a magnification factor induced by anatomy. I believe a prevalent approach of eye professionals, which assumes that an eye is a rigid object, isolated from the rest of the body, is completely wrong. The major organ controlling the vision is the brain and that's where refractive errors originate. It is very unlikely that an eye, composed from soft tissue, would maintain its very accurate shape over many years, without a feedback from the brain. > Where "good vision" means muscle coordination and reflexes, sure these areas are > subject to acupuncture, yoga and tai chi, as well as placebo and mood. But with > "real" refractive error and organic disease, behavioral techniques can't change > the basic anatomy of the eye any more than they can change the shape of the > ears, which are made of the same stuff. Five years ago I thought exactly the same. Now I believe that you can change the optical system of an eye by the consistent application of muscle stimuli. Let's assume we are following the lives of two identical twins. When we look at them in their teens, they will look very similar. From then on, one of them becomes physically active and fit, while another leads a sedentary lifestyle. If you look at their skeletons in their 50s, the first one will be erect and symmetrical, with high bone density, while the second one will be slouched, asymmetrical, and will exhibit negative organic changes to his skeleton. Now, assume that the second one starts taking his health seriously and becomes a dedicated yoga practitioner. Cannot he overcome some organic changes in his skeleton if he keeps practicing yoga for several years? It has been proven that he can. Obviously, he would have been much better off is he had started exercising sooner, since due to the consistent muscle stimuli his skeleton would be kept in a proper shape, and that is something that could be applied to the vision system. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca > If you define accommodation as the contraction of the cilliary muscles, then obviously it will be gone when you paralyze them. However, using this term for accommodation is limiting, since it assumes a specific way that the vision system works. It does not take into account changes in eye length or a possible influence of other factors. The actual definition, of course, is change in focus due to deformation of the crystalline lens. We equate it with ciliary muscle effort because we can't find any other muscles that deform the crystalline lens significantly. Technically, accommodation is distinguished from depth-of-field. Exerting effort at the ciliary muscles normally constricts the pupil simultaneously, improving focus by depth-of-field. But that isn't accommodation because it doesn't deform the lens. > The problem with the conventional assumptions on how the visual system works is that it did not reduce the proliferation of myopia - more and more people are becoming dependent on mechanical means to maintain their vision. That doesn't mean there's a plague of eye problems. We do see upward trends in myopia, but that can be explained as a population adapting to its lifestyle. Otherwise, it's the availability and social acceptance that make people "dependent". > This prompts me to the conclusion that, in the absence of knowledge about the causes of myopia, the medical science is limited to treating the symptoms only. But medical science is limited to procedures that are shown safe and effective. Licensing boards, case law and third-party standards all preclude anything adventurous. > If the present state of knowledge does not help to eliminate or reduce myopia, it makes sense to look 'outside of the box' and consider other hypotheses. You really must look up "pirenzepine". > There is a large variability in my acuity. Immediately after doing some of vision exercises my vision is 20/10, while, whenever I am very tired, it may be as bad as 20/80. Concerning presbyopia, it also varies - after a long period of not exercising, the minimum distance to read a fine print (2.5 type size) is 10", while after exercising it drops to 4". You're depending on relatively subjective numbers (acuity, nearpoint) to make objective conclusions. More objective data would enable more meaningful conclusions. How old are you and what is your spectacle refraction? > Steven Beresford, Dr. David Muris, Dr. Merrill Allen, Dr. Francis > Young (ISBN 0-684-81438-2). > Isn't is possible that Allen finally found the explanation for some phenomena that conventional theories do not explain? No. I don't think they claim to cure developmental myopia outright. If they do, they couch it in such a way as to defer controversy. They wouldn't keep revolutionary secrets from the academic world. > I believe a prevalent approach of eye professionals, which assumes that an eye is a rigid object, isolated from the rest of the body, is completely wrong. Whoa, wait, who, where? Eye professionals aren't taught that way. The eye is a living organ, part of a complete organism, two square inches where you can look directly at the brain and blood vessels without cutting something open. Where did you hear otherwise? >The major organ controlling the vision is the brain and that's where refractive errors originate. Beg to differ. Two common refractive errors, hyperopia and astigmatism, are often present at birth. Sure, myopia can be influenced by environment only laymen believe "all refractive errors originate in the brain". > It is very unlikely that an eye, composed from soft tissue, would maintain its very accurate shape over many years, without a feedback from the brain. Retinal disease in the young sometimes results in blindness, and their refractions don't suddenly go awry when they lose vision. > Five years ago I thought exactly the same. Now I believe that you can change the optical system of an eye by the consistent application of muscle stimuli. Give it a few more years... > Let's assume we are following the lives of two identical twins. When we look at them in their teens, they will look very similar. From then on, one of them becomes physically active and fit, while another leads a sedentary lifestyle. If you look at their skeletons in their 50s, the first one will be erect and symmetrical, with high bone density, while the second one will be slouched, asymmetrical, and will exhibit negative organic changes to his skeleton. > Now, assume that the second one starts taking his health seriously and becomes a dedicated yoga practitioner. Cannot he overcome some organic changes in his skeleton if he keeps practicing yoga for several years? It has been proven that he can. > Obviously, he would have been much better off is he had started exercising sooner, since due to the consistent muscle stimuli his skeleton would be kept in a proper shape, and that is something that could be applied to the vision system. None of that matters if you don't actually measure refraction in twins. I'm out of time, but I encourage you to look up some studies of refractive error in twins, or the Myopia chapter in Duane's Ophthalmology where various twin studies are described and compared. -MT > > Atropine eliminates accommodation but leaves the external ocular muscles > > functioning. If the external obliques still function, where is the accommodation > > they produce? > > It is possible that the extra ocular muscles take some part in accommodation. It shouldn't be that difficult to verify this, for example by doing the atropine accommodation test on on a subject who has a good vision. Has anybody investigated this? > > As for the rest, you should do you own homework. > > I did. I read a lot about conventional and holistic methods of vision improvement. For me, the Bates method worked, while wearing glasses did not. The result is that I managed to significantly improve my vision, after 23 years of wearing spherical and cylindrical lenses. > The challenge that I am still facing is to be able to change permanently my vision habits. My eyes still are not automatically as active as they are in people with inherently good vision, unless I remember to make the full use of them. Whenever I forget about focusing on the surrounding objects, I experience eye strain. > After reading Dr. Bates' book, and learning from other sources about people who benefited by applying his approach, I thought that a large body of research has been done since then in order to prove or disprove his claims. I would appreciate if somebody on this newsgroup could help me find the relevant information. If you want to search the literature, try PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed Use Myopia Control or Bates' name for the search. You will find very little direct testing of the Bates methods. You would think that the people making money by selling methods based on Bates' work would have done this research, but they haven't. Whenever I visit a vision improvement website and click on their "evidence" or "research" buttons, I find testimonials, not research. On the other hand, virtually everything else in vision research does not support the assumptions that Bates made about how the visual system works. Dr Judy >> Many of Dr. Bates' assertions about basic physiology have been proven >> wrong. The oblique muscles don't contribute to accommodation. State [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Could you indicate the research which proved that the above mentioned > Bates' assertions were wrong? Neither can I prove that martians do not exist. DrG > > Could you indicate the research which proved that the above mentioned > > Bates' assertions were wrong? > > Neither can I prove that martians do not exist. For that, I would ask a question on one on astronomy newsgroups - NASA is getting pretty close to proving that Martians do not exist. Proving (or disproving) Bates' theory should not be that difficult with today's technology and available instrumentation. SignatureJohn Schindler, M.Sc., P.Eng. SCHINDLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION - Consulting Engineers - FEA - Rhino Distribution & Training Centre Tel. 905-927-1166; 1-888-688-6835 www.schindler.ca Email: info@schindler.ca >> > Could you indicate the research which proved that the above >> > mentioned Bates' assertions were wrong? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Proving (or disproving) Bates' theory should not be that difficult > with today's technology and available instrumentation. This topic runs in cycles in this NG. Having participated in previous "Bates Wars," I don't see any value in revisiting this topic. DrG > This topic runs in cycles in this NG. The time constant has decreased in the past few cycles. -MT > > > Could you indicate the research which proved that the above mentioned > > > Bates' assertions were wrong? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Proving (or disproving) Bates' theory should not be that difficult with today's technology and available instrumentation. So why haven't the Bates' promoters done the work? Dr Judy > > Many of Dr. Bates' assertions about basic physiology have been proven wrong. The > > oblique muscles don't contribute to accommodation. State of mind and "proper use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Could you indicate the research which proved that the above mentioned Bates' assertions were wrong? The better question is "is there any research that supports Bate's assertions?" No single bit of research will "prove" or "disprove" any idea, but the body of research on a topic will support an idea or will lend almost no support to an idea. Bate's assertions were contrary to what was known about the eye at the time he made them and contrary to the major theory about how accommodation works. No work since then has found that the extra ocular muscles have anything to do with it. The onus is on Bate's promoters to provide evidence that his ideas have any basis, not on vision researchers to prove him wrong. Dr Judy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.