Revisit of the Bates method. Many techniques, some really powerful!

The Bates method was pretty much stamped out in the
USA. Bates teachers were more than once prosecuted
for practicing medicine without a license (always unsuccessfully,
but it had a chilling effect.) The situation was better in Great
Britain and good teachers are available there. In the USA,
I know of only two good Bates teachers.

For the average person wanting to improve his vision, there
was only that 1920 book, which is just about impossible
for anyone to understand, so that what people wind up doing
is just some simple exercises. The really powerful techniques
that Dr. Bates developed are neither understood nor practiced.

The simple things like the long swing, swaying, sunning and
palming will improve your vision, but they require a lot of
time and dedication. If you are not too nearsighted, they may
bring you to 20/20. If you are deep into myopia or whatever
your trouble is, they will not. Oh, you may get very close, but
you will never be able to control your vision.

If you do manage to learn one of those powerful techniques
in the 1920 book, it will make mincemeat of your myopia.
They are extraordinarily powerful. Dr. Bates had no problem
at all in dealing with very severe cases of refractive error.

The thing to do is to study the original 1920 book and then
do exactly what Dr. Bates says to do. Try all his techniques.
You only have to master one of them, but no one can predict
which one you will succeed with. Dr. Bates introduced his
patients to all of his techniques right at the first session.
Look up "Routine Treatment" in the BEM volume.

Dr. Bates was a genius, one of the most brilliant doctors
who ever lived. He is the man to study. Accept no substitutes.
Do not give up hope. Dr. Bates would have cured you in about
a hour. OK, maybe not. Maybe it would have taken him three
weeks which is the time it took him to cure most patients.

this sounds like an excellent program to spend a $1000 on. I'm sure your
parents agree.

--
~RT

Good luck.

================

<acem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140129626.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That is ALEX EULENBERG'S GROUP.

I post there -- but it is his "group" -- not mine.

Best,

Otis

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bates.html

Enjoy!

<acem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140157988....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html

Enjoy once more!

"Beermonster" <beerm...@somewhere.on.net> wrote in message
news:11vbf2n...@corp.supernews.com...

Using certain techniques that have found their root ion the Bates
Method, I have even been able to experence moments where the whole
world is crystal clear. Whether these are scientifically disproven
methods or sorcery I don't care, as I have seen improvement and will
continue to strive for improvement. I may never get any better but
unless I make the effort I will never know.

The last thing I must say is that when it comes to the etiology &
prevention of myopia, we have a very biploar pattern here. The 2
factions are so Ying & Yang it's not funny. Neither side seems to want
to bend or even give n objective ear to the other. The result has been
a degradation into a name calling, accusatory pissing match. I think
people here need to chill out and stop with the anitgonistic remarks.
No one needs to agree but I think respect of another person's point of
view, however wrong or off-the-wall it may be, is a courtesy I think we
all need to extend to one another.

Sigh.

Pseudomyopia can be prevented and/or somewhat reversed through eye
exercises or cycloplegia.

Axial-length myopia cannot--today--be prevented or reversed.

Nothing else you say is scientific proof that either of the above is
wrong.

Learn the difference between pseudomyopia (accommodative spasm,
accommodative excess) and axial-length myopia before you preach.
You'll look less silly to those who actually /do/ know what they're
talking about.

Nobody has ever established that they, genuinely, reduced true myopia
via eye exercises (or plus lens therapy). All you get is anecdotal BS
in the form of passionate claims.

This forum is called SCIENCE.MEDICINE.VISION. Read its charter.
We're not here to debate opinions. We're here to discuss the best
that science has to offer.

I'm done beating this dead horse (for your benefit). You go ahead and
beat it for a while ... please.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Neil, where am I preaching? I only expressed my point of view and my
expereiences. If telling someone to make their own decision regarding
how much they wear their glasses, providing they are not jeopardizing
safety, is preaching then I'll go get 3 nails and 2 pieces of wood and
you can bring the hammer.

Science is an ever evolving conundrum that begins by people questioning
and then testing and researching. It is never a stagnant thing but a
constantly changing, ever-evolving entity. Debate is healthy but I
think this forum too often digresses into petty whining. And I did not
realize you were the individual that determined what was debateable on
this forum based on your interpretation of the title of the group.

So you're advocating that people be open to others' opinions, but when
somebody actually gives one, this is your response?

Nice.

Enjoy my killfile. I'm told it's quite cozy in there.

And how does this change anything? Does it make much dfference whether
your correction is -2.5 or -3.5?

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Pay no attention to Neil Brooks. He has
no professional traning, and has no
clue about what he is talking about.

Further, he will SUE any OD who
might wish to help you with ANY
preventive technique or method.

Best,

Otis

Preaching is defined as espousing one's beliefs to try and sway the
masses. All I have done is express my experiences and my opinions, to
be taken as part of the discussion here. I am not trying to persuade
anyone otherwise. Mostly I am just trying to get various people's
opinions about stuff. It seems you are so keyed up from other people's
perceived assaults that you dismiss another's opinion if it does not
coincide with what you believe.

It is okay to disagree on stuff but the way you disregard any opinion
or thought contradictory to your own point of view is unsettling and
your acerbic tone unprofessional.

One more point regarding pseudomyopia & axial length myopia. I am sure
most symptomatic myopes are a combination of the two. That would add
some credence to the few people that have cleared their distance vision
using therapy that were predominantly pseudo-myopes with minimal to no
axial length myopia. The more axial length myopia youe have, the less
chance of reversal. Just more thinking out loud.

You have a good grasp of the physiology.

Have at it, but don't let Bates convince you to stare at the sun.

-MT

Bates is dead so I doubt he'll be able to convince me of anything ;)

Please note the rabid posts by Neil Brooks, slandering my name,
and attempting to destroy your right to an informed,
competent scientific second opinion.

How do you expect a thoughtful, reasonable discussion
can develop under that circumstance?

Good luck -- I am please you have found some
supportive second-opinion optometrists
to help you with prevention.

Best,

Otis

Dont waste your time talking about myopia prevention and vision
improvement with an optometrist, he does not care and will just deny
it. You need to read about it on the internet and talk to people like
our friend Otis, he can help you regain sharper vision or prevent your
myopia from stair-case! Basslapper and I have improved our visions and
so have many others!
Pseudomyopia is the first to go then theres other factors that go. Its
true you cant do anything about axial myopia but you can work around it
to see better. An enlongated eye alone isnt the be all reguarding
myopia. You may not quite get 20/20 but youll attain a very large
improvement. Were talking like from -5 down to like -2!

For someone who reveres his optometrist with accolades on this NG and
invites all of us to call him for advice, to dis so many in a profession
who have medical degrees and who been in practice for years and have
seen thousands of patients, your statement is truly audacious. What
does your optometrist think of NVI?

There are people in any profession who are only in it for the money, of
course. But I'm sure your optometrist will find another patient to take
your place when you move into the "seeing" world. Because, of course,
you aren't going to get anymore eye exams now that you are in charge,
right?

--
~RT

Maybe they just don't believe it works. Not everyone does everything
for money. Where I work, we would get more money out of people if
they fail their exams first time round but we still do all we can do
get them through. We care about people, and I'm guessing that's the
same with the eye docs.

Don't follow Otis and see bad in everyone because it just isn't there.

Your guessing with those figures of course. But no matter, no doubt
when you get there you'll let us know.

Ann

Ann> Don't follow Otis and see bad in everyone because it just isn't
there.

You JUMP to a conclusion. Because I suppor the PREVENTIVE
second opinion you believe I have BAD MOTIVES???

What I do support is your right to an informed choice at
the threshold.

THAT, my friend, does not involve money -- only your right
to a choice between "opposites".

If your child is at 20/60 as age 7 -- and your are offered a choice,
but turn down the prevetive plus -- then you can
expect his vision go go down at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year.

I personally would PAY for this discussion. Perhaps you
would not. But the effect would be to transfer to
me an "empowerment" to do this preventive work
correctly.

Had AceMan received this "warning" or "choice", and chosen
to wear an over-prescribe minus -- then the consequence
would be exclusively AceMan's responsibility.

I think AceMan had that right. You do not. This
issue is not money at all -- but informed choice.

There are no "bad guys" ere -- AT ALL. In fact,
I enjoy these people. (Except for Neil Brooks who
has some kind of "problem".)

Best,

Otis

I read on the internet that 95% of optometrists will either deny NVI or
just refuse to believe in it. You will need to seek the "second
opinion" reguarding this. Our friend Otis can help us out

But I've been there and it didn't happen, either to me or my children.
Had their vision gone down by -1/2 each year you'd expect at age 20
for their sight to be -7 and it isn't. Mine never got to -7 either.
Most people's doesn't get to -7 so what you say is untrue. And while
one thing you say is so obviously untrue it rather stops me from
putting any store in what else you say. Maybe it's all untrue. I can
only judge by what you tell us.

I think you have a problem, because you repeat your mantra over and
over and the same arguments come again daily. You aren't sharing
your knowledge, you're on a mission to bore.

Ann

Subect: Dealing with most people.

Ann is correct. She only wants her vision "made sharp"
in a short period of time. There is no point
in attempting to "involve" he with the preventive
method.

Remember, the ODs must deal with the great
mass or people who walk in off the street -- and
the ONLY thing that works in THAT context
is the minus lens -- and the tendancy
to over-prescribe it.

Ace, I must wonder how you would have reacted
if you had received this "preventive" advocay
when you were at 20/60 (-1.5 diopters).

What do you think. Could you have
used the plus "correctly" at that point?

Care to make a statement or estimate
about that issue?

Best,

Otis

i am not sure you know about otis because i don't recognize your name
from previous times. so let me clue you in-- otis is a resident loon
in this newsgroup.

you are right-- he repeats himself over and over again. he has had his
intellectual head handed to him so many times with proof and citations
by others in this newsgroup showing his "prevention" scheme doesn't
work but he is unphased by facts and science. he returns to this forum
over and over again blurting out the same old nonsense. he's truly on
a mission. he's frankly irrational. i suspect he has some deeper
psychological issues.

just thought you should know (in case you didn't already realize it).

Bates never meant staring at the sun, he meant looking at the sun with
CLOSED EYES!

I have improved my sight with Bates method from 20\20 in my left eye to
14\20 and from 30\20 to 20\20 in my right one (I had there +0.5 and
+0.5cyl.). This took me 4 months.

I am practicing these methods with my friends and there are
improvements.

I don't really see wrong in Bates' metods and what I think that proves
they're working is that people do improve their eyesight. I also thing
that people who wouldn't even try them and wouldn't accept comments
about their misstakes if they have them, they are those who believe
what they've been told.

Best regards,
Eli.

Eye exercises can be beneficial in helping to relax and train the
accommodative mechanism, in some cases helping to prevent, or relieve,
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia).

Learning to apply only the minimum appropriate accommodation necessary
to accommodate for a particular distance likely has no down side.

Not so. In his original book, he did indeed suggest for "sunning"
exercise: "gazing back and forth in an arch-like motion while blinking
the eyes." or something quite similar to that. More recent versions of
the book, published after he died changed it to: "with the eyes
closed." People doing the Bates Method were indeed loosing their central
vision from looking at the sun. The publisher thought the change might
prevent lawsuits.

Need more proof the guy was a quack?

LB, O.D.

Typo? 20\20 to 14\20 doesn't sound like an improvement.
I read X\Y as "what I can see at X others can see at Y".

-Quick

In order to absorb the correct amount of phlogiston?

-MT

Yes. but worth pointing out since you used the other
convention for your other eye.

-Quick

The term "sunning" and the quote you made up above didn't come from
Bates's book, so I don't know where you came up with it, but yes,
Bates did write about people having looked directly at the sun.

But on a far more fascinating note, I see that you are privy to not
only the publisher's intentions from several decades ago, but also a
large number of case histories, and information connecting them to the
reading of Bates's book. That is some fabulous research, I have to
admit, and it's a wonder that it hasn't come to light until now. I
assume, of course, that it's a large number, because I know how much
you dislike "anecdotal" evidence, as it's called here.

And these new facts make me more confused than ever. Bear with me as I
picture this. 10 years pass after the original publication of Bates's
book until Bates's death without the news of thousands of people
burning their eyes out being made public. And then another 10 years
after Bates's death, still nothing. Then his sadistic, foolish widow,
despite all the victims crawling blind through the streets of New
York, has the gall to republish it again, complete with the sungazing
section. Yet, still (perhaps to her well-known practice of witchery
and voodoo), there was no outcry about the masses of her victims
piling in the alleys. And only then, for some strange reason, as the
newly reprinted book came off the presses and only began to be
distributed, did a separate publisher suddenly decide to buy the
rights to it, with certain liberties taken with the content. I am more
confused than ever, because I have no doubt that what you say is true.
Because you, for one, don't just make things up.

For those interested, there is a forum composed of quite a large
number of sungazers. About 1,600 members now, but surely 99% of them
are fabricated usernames created by the moderator to help pad things
out. Anyway, some of them claim to have been sungazing for many
months, and others for years predating the creation of the forum,
along with wild stories. I have heard from one person who hurt himself
sungazing, about two years ago. I also have heard of people hurting
themselves walking down stairs - I've fallen down them more than once
myself, and before I focus my attention on abolishing the practice of
sungazing, I am going to make it my crusade to rid the world of
stairs.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/sungazing/

Dave

PS - i also attempted running a marathon after sitting on my couch
eating twinkies for six weeks. I have concluded that marathons are
dangerous and must be stopped. That will be my next enemy.

---
http://store.iblindness.org
http://www.iblindness.org

Subject: Red herrings -- produced by "majority-opinion" ODs

I have read most of the original Bates book. I see no
"recommendation" to look directly at the sun. It is
possible that it was "mentioned" at some pont.
But the original book does not make that suggestion.

What Bates did say, that is very accurate is
that if a person's eye chart was at 20/70, and
he begins wearing a full-strength minus, his
vision will rapidly go down to 20/200.

That fact has been proven with the primate studies -- and
that issue is of critical importance to understand.

The "sun" business is a total distraction to the
issue of clearing your vision from 20/70 to
20/40 using Bates -- or any other method.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis

You don't know at all that your eyes would have gone to -7. It isn't
usual for people to take their glasses off or take their lenses out
when reading. People just don't do it. I read on the bus, I'm
certainly not going to take my glasses off and put them back on every
time I glance out of the window to see where we are.

You've got yourself obsessed about it and that's fine. I suspect you
obsess over other things too. What have you done in the past, stamp
collecting or coins or what? There's someone very like you who hangs
around the bus station here marking off in his book the time that
every bus comes in. Nobody minds because he doesn't try to persuade
others to do the same. But it's not right that you try to persuade
others to become obsessive. It's not the right thing to do.

Ann

The time for prevention has gone Otis. And the prediction didn't
happen. I didn't get worse by half a dioptre a year and yet I was the
biggest swot in the school. I was the one with my head in a book the
whole time. I hated sport and spent my whole time reading and still I
didn't get to a -7.

This is active brainwashing. Ask subtle questions to make sure he
stays with you. If the best you can get to follow you is a young man
who sounds functionally autistic then you are a pathetic, nasty, nasty
man. Are you autistic yourself, Otis? Asperger's syndrome is it? Is
that why you're obsessed with spreading the word too?

Ann

I know, I've been here years.

Ann

Yes he did didn't he?. He wrote about sun gazing and he shows
photographs of people that he says are gazing at the sun without
discomfort.. adults and children. he claims that any effects they may
suffer are only temporary. Interestingly he also says that it is not
normal for the pupil of the eye to change size in the light, and it is
the abnormal eye where the pupil changes size when moving from light
to dark and back again. Of course we know that to be wrong.

It's an intersting book from a historical perception but it's full of
errors. It's a bit like reading of the humours or of melancholic
bile.. we've grown out of it.

Ann

Yes he does, Otis. He clearly says that sungazing is beneficial and
if you find it uncomfortable to gaze at the sun it is because of
defective sight.

The problem is that if he is wrong on one point it rather throws the
rest of what he says in doubt.

Ann

Subject: Dealing with the general public.

Re: People's mind's are all over the map
on this subject.

Indeed, most people are like Ann -- and
no offense intended.

It is incredibly easy to sit a person in
a chair, and put a minus lens on them,
and say "...is this better" and so forth.

In fact ... you can say ... why bother
with these people. And indeed
ALL these ODs can and should
say exactly that.

But they can say that the "public"
has no interest and is hostile to
any "preventive" act. And againg
they would be absoluty right.

But that simply means that
the two groups "go together".

(Again, no offense.)

In fact, if you read RTs story -- I indeed
see myself doing what RTs son is
doing. I think a strong effort should
have been made to "stop" me,
and recommendations like that.

But it is indeed difficult to take
that type of action.

Both you and I believe that there
is a better solution -- even though
it is difficul -- because it means
doing it youself at the threshold.
(Or not at all.)

And given the quality of the
Oakley-Young study, this is clearly
and either-or choice only YOU could
have made.

But "prevention" is truly an
intrusion into your life. Either
you begin to understand the
necessity of it -- or you do not.

The person who "wakes up" can
clear his vison from about 20/70 -- back
to 20/40 or better. But it does
take a personal judgment to do it -- and
persistance.

I rate this as a "human-nature" problem
more than anything else.

But that is one man's opinion.

Best,

Otis

Aceman wants to know if you have done this, and if you have, how much
have you "cleared" your vision.

--
~RT

Subject: As you know -- I identify with your son.

You and I do not agree on this -- and that is just normal.

As a young child, I think I would have "fought" efforts
to get me to:

1. Get my nose off the book, and

2. Wear that plus properly.

But now -- after it is too late -- I take complete resonsibility
for my actions.

In reading "Bates" I saw all the excessive claims -- which
I totally oppose. But I do say this -- that
on the threhold, where the person is at about
-1.5 diopters, (about 20/70 -- the Florida DMV) he
can do most things with out that minus.

>From that point some people are able to
"push" with the plus, monitor their eye chart,
and slowly clear to 20/40 or better.

But this is done under the COMPLETE control
of the person who is doing the work "correctly".

I think AceMan understand that issue with
good clarity. I understand this -- and
I think Aceman understand my position
on the need to START that process before
your "chart" goes below 20/70.

The real question is whether the person
has the good fortitude and judgment to
do this preventive work under his control.

Best,

Otis

In other words, you don't practice natural vision improvement because
you had your nose in a book as a child and you believe that you caused
your own myopia that is now incurable. That must be hard to live with.

You also believe that the most natural vision improvement can "fix" is
about 20/70 to about 20/40.

I don't think Aceman understands you at all. He appears to believe that
anyone can improve their vision up to 5 diopters by not wearing their
glasses with the evil minus lens. I wonder why that is.

--
~RT

Ann,

No one can do this unless he has some hypnotic abilities. Look, I think
all Ace is trying to do is to show another option to people, explain it
to them and let them choose whatever they want to.

Subject: Remeber, the "minus" is very easy -- and very
few wish to get "beyond" that point of a crude quick-fix.

RT> In other words, you don't practice natural vision improvement

Otis> As an engineer, I say that it is very difficult to
think about draining the swamp when you are
up to your ass in allegators. But at least
you can START THINKING about how you
are going to drain the swamp. Or maybe you
don't understand that concept.

RT> That must be hard to live with.

Otis> No, RT -- as an engineer I learn from my mistakes -- and
make EVERY EFFORT to not repeat them. But how this
works out, it that I supplie my nephew with this type of
information, and he used it effectively. (Clearing
his "chart" when ever necessary. And YES this
was a major "intrusion" in his life -- but he accepted
it, kept his vision clear and avoided stair-case myopia.)

Otis> Now, he has children of his own. I honestly do not
know what actions he will take -- but at least he
has full knowledge of the nature of true-prevention
and how to apply that knowledge. That is
the furst step in draining the swamp.

Otis> I believe that our refractive status is positive (at birth)
from zero to +9 diopters. At age 5 (provided we did no
"reading") our NATURAL refractive state runs between
zero to +2 diopters.

Otis> Once we start with long-term reading, our natural
eyes, controling their refractive state to that "nearer" environemt
will move into a negative value.

Otis> At this point, your "chart" will be from 20/30 to 20/60.
For a child -- this does not require a minus lens.
At that point, if you completely END that near environment
with a plus -- then I have reason to believe that a
person can SLOWLY clear from 20/60 to 20/40 or
better -- IF HE HAS THE MOTIVATION TO DO SO.

TIn other words, you don't practice natural vision improvement because

RT> I don't think Aceman understands you at all.

Otis> Well he is a clever guy. He can read this and understand it.

RT> He appears to believe that

Otis> I DO NOT USE THE TERM "EVIL".

Otis> The intent is that the person will always maintain
20/40, and NEVER require the use of a minus.

RT> I wonder why that is.

Otis> These are issues that Aceman must resolve for himself.
We are having these enjoyable conversations for that reason.

Enjoy,

Otis

--
~RT
--

Otis

The problem is most people just give up past the -2 treshold and accept
a lifetime of glasses or they get lasik to hopefully eliminate their
dependancy on glasses till they need reading glasses or till their eyes
get worse again. They want 20/40(and usually) better or they just arent
interested. Glasses and if they get lasik gives them that. Natural
vision improvement rarely does once you go past the -2 treshold. I know
I will still need glasses after natural vision improvement, but they
will be paper thin and I will be able to see and do most things without
glasses. The alternative is stair-case myopia. Then my vision will be
so bad Ill need glasses for EVERYTHING, even reading(or read with my
nose almost touching the book!) I will be in big trouble if I lose or
break my glasses. My glasses will be quite thick and heavier too. I
will get lots of minification and this may reduce my BSCVA another
line. Ill be looking forward to retina problems, including detchment
and other problems associated with high myopia(starts at -6)
so you can see why I am so excited about natural vision improvement!
Its not an "all or nothing" its more like an "all for something or all
for alot" I look forward to oneday seeing well enough to read the very
text im typing with my bare eyes!

My impression after nearly 23 years of clinical practice is that
identical findings for the manifest and the cycloplegic refraction for
myopes is more the rule than the exception. In those cases where there
is a difference, that difference is rarely more than one diopter.

My impression is that very few individuals have the time or the
interest to pursue the elusive goal of pseudomyopia reduction, and then
maintain it once they have achieved their goal. In fact, rarely are
such people even symptomatic. If they don't have symptoms and cannot
readily accept the cycloplegic refraction, but readily accept the
manifest refraction, then what is the basis for me to recommend vision
therapy? Often, I will prescribe the cycloplegic refraction,
especially in high myopes who are prone to wanting extra minus in their
manifest. Unfortunately, I wind up remaking the lenses in a
significant percentage of cases.

DrG

I ret every patient (most of my colleagues here don't ret much at all)
and find this to be the case. Consequently, all the exercises are going
to do is reduce the script a bit.

grant