Today an Italian man who presented himself as a "vision educator" phoned me about the Italian version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses he wanted to buy.
I had to tell him that the book is sold out and is now in reprint and will be ready for deliver in a couple of weeks.
Then I shared with him a good conversation.
Even if he is a "vision educator" he is not accustomed to the Original Bates System. In fact, he not only does not understand how to benefit from the sun-gazing, neither from the sun-glass, but he never tried the experimenr of low light and microprint, I have learnt.
He promised me that he would have tried this soon.
He is a researcher and told me than most advanced theories about vision are discovering the hidden powers of the external muscles of the eye, and this is slowly being acknowledge in academic sites, exactly in the same direction as Bates did. It seems that only the idiots doctors here on sci.med.vision seem to not cope with this fact.
Nevertheless, he is not so much sure about his own understanding of Bates work that felt the urge to try my edition of PSWG. Also to subscribe to my magazine "il falco". He lives in the States, and has a story of hypermetropia, which he thinks he can definitely cure after he has spoken to me.
To one question, he answered that when he was at Columbia University in New York he tried to reach some documents about Bates but became aware that all was effaced out, he could not find anything about him.
I hope to work with him soon because he showed a kind of open mind which is not there when I have something to do with idiots like Cagnoli and Co., the mainstream "vision educators" in Italy. These people have spoiled the name of Bates for their own purpose, that is selling their courses and programs which have nothing to do with the Original Bates System.
"Friends" of Bates are largely great frauds, great false men. They understand nothing of Him. In fact, nobody gets a cure, and Bates himself gets mocked at by other idiots like the ignorant men we find here.
-- "As surely as any soldier ever died on the field, Dr. Bates gave his life for a cause, battling against fate, during many years of magnificent struggle, when the unending disappointment finally broke in hopeless despair. His torch is still burning. There will come some other battler, who is fit, and will hold it high until the people who are sitting in darkness have seen its great light." William B. MacCracken, M.D. (1937, Berkeley CA)
Thank you Rishi. Like I have even said before, many people do not truly understand what the Bates Method is. That is why I think it would be best to get together and conduct some studies, then contact researchers in various parts of the world, maybe in Europe, since they seem more open-minded and more socialistic than the capitalists here in the US.
Rishigg wrote: > Today an Italian man who presented himself as a "vision educator" > phoned me about the Italian version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses > he wanted to buy.
> I had to tell him that the book is sold out and is now in reprint and > will be ready for deliver in a couple of weeks.
> Then I shared with him a good conversation.
> Even if he is a "vision educator" he is not accustomed to the Original > Bates System. In fact, he not only does not understand how to benefit > from the sun-gazing, neither from the sun-glass, but he never tried > the experimenr of low light and microprint, I have learnt.
> He promised me that he would have tried this soon.
> He is a researcher and told me than most advanced theories about > vision are discovering the hidden powers of the external muscles of > the eye, and this is slowly being acknowledge in academic sites, > exactly in the same direction as Bates did. It seems that only the > idiots doctors here on sci.med.vision seem to not cope with this fact.
> Nevertheless, he is not so much sure about his own understanding of > Bates work that felt the urge to try my edition of PSWG. Also to > subscribe to my magazine "il falco". He lives in the States, and has a > story of hypermetropia, which he thinks he can definitely cure after > he has spoken to me.
> To one question, he answered that when he was at Columbia University > in New York he tried to reach some documents about Bates but became > aware that all was effaced out, he could not find anything about him.
> I hope to work with him soon because he showed a kind of open mind > which is not there when I have something to do with idiots like > Cagnoli and Co., the mainstream "vision educators" in Italy. These > people have spoiled the name of Bates for their own purpose, that is > selling their courses and programs which have nothing to do with the > Original Bates System.
> "Friends" of Bates are largely great frauds, great false men. They > understand nothing of Him. In fact, nobody gets a cure, and Bates > himself gets mocked at by other idiots like the ignorant men we find > here.
> -- > "As surely as any soldier ever died on the field, Dr. Bates gave his > life for a cause, battling against fate, during many years of > magnificent struggle, when the unending disappointment finally broke > in hopeless despair. His torch is still burning. There will come some > other battler, who is fit, and will hold it high until the people who > are sitting in darkness have seen its great light." > William B. MacCracken, M.D. > (1937, Berkeley CA)
> Thank you Rishi. Like I have even said before, many people do not > truly understand what the Bates Method is. That is why I think it > would be best to get together and conduct some studies, then contact > researchers in various parts of the world, maybe in Europe, since they > seem more open-minded and more socialistic than the capitalists here > in the US.
> Kory
> Rishigg wrote: > > Today an Italian man who presented himself as a "vision educator" > > phoned me about the Italian version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses > > he wanted to buy.
> > I had to tell him that the book is sold out and is now in reprint and > > will be ready for deliver in a couple of weeks.
> > Then I shared with him a good conversation.
> > Even if he is a "vision educator" he is not accustomed to the Original > > Bates System. In fact, he not only does not understand how to benefit > > from the sun-gazing, neither from the sun-glass, but he never tried > > the experimenr of low light and microprint, I have learnt.
> > He promised me that he would have tried this soon.
> > He is a researcher and told me than most advanced theories about > > vision are discovering the hidden powers of the external muscles of > > the eye, and this is slowly being acknowledge in academic sites, > > exactly in the same direction as Bates did. It seems that only the > > idiots doctors here on sci.med.vision seem to not cope with this fact.
> > Nevertheless, he is not so much sure about his own understanding of > > Bates work that felt the urge to try my edition of PSWG. Also to > > subscribe to my magazine "il falco". He lives in the States, and has a > > story of hypermetropia, which he thinks he can definitely cure after > > he has spoken to me.
> > To one question, he answered that when he was at Columbia University > > in New York he tried to reach some documents about Bates but became > > aware that all was effaced out, he could not find anything about him.
> > I hope to work with him soon because he showed a kind of open mind > > which is not there when I have something to do with idiots like > > Cagnoli and Co., the mainstream "vision educators" in Italy. These > > people have spoiled the name of Bates for their own purpose, that is > > selling their courses and programs which have nothing to do with the > > Original Bates System.
> > "Friends" of Bates are largely great frauds, great false men. They > > understand nothing of Him. In fact, nobody gets a cure, and Bates > > himself gets mocked at by other idiots like the ignorant men we find > > here.
> > -- > > "As surely as any soldier ever died on the field, Dr. Bates gave his > > life for a cause, battling against fate, during many years of > > magnificent struggle, when the unending disappointment finally broke > > in hopeless despair. His torch is still burning. There will come some > > other battler, who is fit, and will hold it high until the people who > > are sitting in darkness have seen its great light." > > William B. MacCracken, M.D. > > (1937, Berkeley CA)
Now there's a thought. Make sure that you publish the results even if negative.
> On 30 Mar, 12:58, Kory Postma <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> > Thank you Rishi. Like I have even said before, many people do not > > truly understand what the Bates Method is. That is why I think it > > would be best to get together and conduct some studies, then contact > > researchers in various parts of the world, maybe in Europe, since they > > seem more open-minded and more socialistic than the capitalists here > > in the US.
> > Kory
> > Rishigg wrote: > > > Today an Italian man who presented himself as a "vision educator" > > > phoned me about the Italian version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses > > > he wanted to buy.
> > > I had to tell him that the book is sold out and is now in reprint and > > > will be ready for deliver in a couple of weeks.
> > > Then I shared with him a good conversation.
> > > Even if he is a "vision educator" he is not accustomed to the Original > > > Bates System. In fact, he not only does not understand how to benefit > > > from the sun-gazing, neither from the sun-glass, but he never tried > > > the experimenr of low light and microprint, I have learnt.
> > > He promised me that he would have tried this soon.
> > > He is a researcher and told me than most advanced theories about > > > vision are discovering the hidden powers of the external muscles of > > > the eye, and this is slowly being acknowledge in academic sites, > > > exactly in the same direction as Bates did. It seems that only the > > > idiots doctors here on sci.med.vision seem to not cope with this fact.
> > > Nevertheless, he is not so much sure about his own understanding of > > > Bates work that felt the urge to try my edition of PSWG. Also to > > > subscribe to my magazine "il falco". He lives in the States, and has a > > > story of hypermetropia, which he thinks he can definitely cure after > > > he has spoken to me.
> > > To one question, he answered that when he was at Columbia University > > > in New York he tried to reach some documents about Bates but became > > > aware that all was effaced out, he could not find anything about him.
> > > I hope to work with him soon because he showed a kind of open mind > > > which is not there when I have something to do with idiots like > > > Cagnoli and Co., the mainstream "vision educators" in Italy. These > > > people have spoiled the name of Bates for their own purpose, that is > > > selling their courses and programs which have nothing to do with the > > > Original Bates System.
> > > "Friends" of Bates are largely great frauds, great false men. They > > > understand nothing of Him. In fact, nobody gets a cure, and Bates > > > himself gets mocked at by other idiots like the ignorant men we find > > > here.
> > > -- > > > "As surely as any soldier ever died on the field, Dr. Bates gave his > > > life for a cause, battling against fate, during many years of > > > magnificent struggle, when the unending disappointment finally broke > > > in hopeless despair. His torch is still burning. There will come some > > > other battler, who is fit, and will hold it high until the people who > > > are sitting in darkness have seen its great light." > > > William B. MacCracken, M.D. > > > (1937, Berkeley CA)
> Now there's a thought. Make sure that you publish the results even if > negative.
> DrG
Of course one should, but the thing is, would it get published either way? That is the most daunting task.
> > Thank you Rishi. Like I have even said before, many people do not > > truly understand what the Bates Method is.
> Can you provide us with a statement as to what YOU think the Bates > Method is??
> And please don't say "a program to eliminate glasses". If that's your > claim, then say "a program to eliminate glasses BY..........."
> Maybe you can help all us uneducated docs "truly understand what the > Bates Method is"
> nipidoc
I'm not Kory, but I will try to tell you how Bates explained it. He never called it the Bates Method. He said that if he had to put a name on it, it would have to be called Nature's Technique, because that is all that it is. Use your eyes the way nature intended them to be used, and you will obtain perfect sight.
> > Thank you Rishi. Like I have even said before, many people do not > > truly understand what the Bates Method is.
> Can you provide us with a statement as to what YOU think the Bates > Method is??
> And please don't say "a program to eliminate glasses". If that's your > claim, then say "a program to eliminate glasses BY..........."
> Maybe you can help all us uneducated docs "truly understand what the > Bates Method is"
> nipidoc
The Bates Method is a term that was later coined for what Bates called Nature's way of perfect vision. His main points were, the eye can only see one part of an object best and in order to see the rest of it your eyes must scan all around the object and you must be able to remember what is being seen clearly and to retain this mental image. He also said ne should blink as the normal eyes does because blinking refreshes the eyes and it will also prevent staring, because the eyes moves a little when you blink. He also taught people how to relax and to calm their mind (this is the part that most people do not understand), so that they may be able to remember things clearly and will be able to see more clearly. Basically, it is his method of un- teaching bad vision habits and replacing them with good vision habits. Once someone has learned to relax, will not strain, can centralize (see one part best), keep the eyes moving (learning oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve. I may be forgetting something, but I hope I am not. All of this information is in the 1920 book and in the medical journals and also in the magazines that were published around that time.
Some things can be found at www.iblindness.org and others at various parts of the net. It is all available for free because of the copyright laws expiring and what not.
> > oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things > > exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve.
> I missed something. What happens to make the vision improve?
> Does this work for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia?
> -MT
The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after reading Bates.
> On 30 Mar, 13:04, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Kory Postma" <kor...@NOhotSPAMmail.com> wrote
> > > oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things > > > exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve.
> > I missed something. What happens to make the vision improve?
> > Does this work for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia?
> > -MT
> The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more > relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the > sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after > reading Bates.
> Kory
Clearing the mind, improving the memory, and relaxing are all noble goals.
But when it comes to describing specifically how (or even whether) it reduces myopia, presbyopia, or astigmatism, we can't find good evidence other than enthusiastic anecdotes.
Bates said it "improves sight". Maybe in a new-age sort of fashion, it does. But it doesn't reduce structural anomalies and it can't be relied on as a cure for macular degeneration or glaucoma or cataract. There MIGHT even be some measurable effects. But doctors have to recommend what DOES work first, before they recommend what MIGHT work A LITTLE for SOME.
> On 30 Mar, 13:05, Kory Postma <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> > On 30 Mar, 13:04, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Kory Postma" <kor...@NOhotSPAMmail.com> wrote
> > > > oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things > > > > exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve.
> > > I missed something. What happens to make the vision improve?
> > > Does this work for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia?
> > > -MT
> > The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more > > relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the > > sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after > > reading Bates.
> > Kory
> Clearing the mind, improving the memory, and relaxing are all noble > goals.
> But when it comes to describing specifically how (or even whether) it > reduces myopia, presbyopia, or astigmatism, we can't find good > evidence other than enthusiastic anecdotes.
> Bates said it "improves sight". Maybe in a new-age sort of fashion, it > does. But it doesn't reduce structural anomalies and it can't be > relied on as a cure for macular degeneration or glaucoma or cataract. > There MIGHT even be some measurable effects. But doctors have to > recommend what DOES work first, before they recommend what MIGHT work > A LITTLE for SOME.
> -MT
Actually Bates said it would work for everyone who did not have organic problems (from accidents, etc.). But Bates only showed people what to do, they would have to continue it at home and all day long. They would then be seen 2-3 times a week.
Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like? Or if you would like any other info, and if I have time, I would be willing to try to dig up whatever you like and post it here.
Kory wrote: > Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with > Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from > the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like?
Kory, I read the Book. I read PSWG once years ago, again about 2 months ago, and I recently scanned through it again (online copy) to make a list of several things he says that can't be true.
There are so many misconceptions and falsehoods and unsupported claims in PSWG that it trashes his credibility and I really don't care to study Bates any more. None of his methods revolutionize the vision therapy I've already learned, and one or two of them are flat-out harmful. None of them hold up to controlled trials, none of them are approved by the FDA, and most of them are contrary to the physiology I was taught by people who are generally accepted as experts in physiology.
The number of web sites that promulgate Bates is enormous. The number of licensed doctors who recommend his methods is vanishingly small. Reading articles published in magazines in the 20s and 30s isn't likely to change my opinion, and life's too short to waste time on stuff that doesn't work.
Promote the Natural Method if you want to, but don't expect relaxation to improve hyperopia or presbyopia, and don't tell anybody to gaze at the sun.
I don't expect mind-over-matter or feel-good techniques to fix anatomical anomalies. You can, if you like, because your patients can't take away your license for withholding or delaying appropriate treatment.
-MT
On 30 Mar, 13:07, Kory Postma <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Mar, 13:06, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 30 Mar, 13:05, Kory Postma <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> > > wrote:
> > > On 30 Mar, 13:04, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "Kory Postma" <kor...@NOhotSPAMmail.com> wrote
> > > > > oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things > > > > > exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve.
> > > > I missed something. What happens to make the vision improve?
> > > > Does this work for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia?
> > > > -MT
> > > The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more > > > relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the > > > sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after > > > reading Bates.
> > > Kory
> > Clearing the mind, improving the memory, and relaxing are all noble > > goals.
> > But when it comes to describing specifically how (or even whether) it > > reduces myopia, presbyopia, or astigmatism, we can't find good > > evidence other than enthusiastic anecdotes.
> > Bates said it "improves sight". Maybe in a new-age sort of fashion, it > > does. But it doesn't reduce structural anomalies and it can't be > > relied on as a cure for macular degeneration or glaucoma or cataract. > > There MIGHT even be some measurable effects. But doctors have to > > recommend what DOES work first, before they recommend what MIGHT work > > A LITTLE for SOME.
> > -MT
> Actually Bates said it would work for everyone who did not have > organic problems (from accidents, etc.). But Bates only showed people > what to do, they would have to continue it at home and all day long. > They would then be seen 2-3 times a week.
> Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with > Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from > the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like? > Or if you would like any other info, and if I have time, I would be > willing to try to dig up whatever you like and post it here.
On 30 Mar, 13:09, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Kory wrote: > > Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with > > Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from > > the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like?
> Kory, I read the Book. I read PSWG once years ago, again about 2 > months ago, and I recently scanned through it again (online copy) to > make a list of several things he says that can't be true.
Could you share this list with us, and why they can't be true?
On 30 Mar, 13:10, David K <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Mar, 13:09, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Kory wrote: > > > Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with > > > Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from > > > the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like?
> > Kory, I read the Book. I read PSWG once years ago, again about 2 > > months ago, and I recently scanned through it again (online copy) to > > make a list of several things he says that can't be true.
> Could you share this list with us, and why they can't be true?
> David
OK. The context was: Someone was berating for saying that nobody has usable accommodation after age 60. The argument was if I could make such a wide generalization, then all of Bates' generalizations must therefore be true. My response below, newly edited:
==============================================
Bates' assumptions and his leaps of logic are HUGE compared to "nobody has significant accommodation after 60."
Bates: "That glasses cannot improve the sight to normal can be very simply demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or concave glass. It will be noted that the color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with the naked eye; and since the perception of form depends upon the perception of color, it follows that both color and form JUST be less distinctly seen with glasses than without them." [emphasis mine]
I don't get the same results. Most of my patients see better color and form _with_ their glasses than without them. Minus lenses minify and have barrel distortion, but that doesn't outweigh seeing forms you can't see without them, seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together.
Bates: "Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as EVERYONE knows who has ever looked out of a window."
I don't get that either. There's a difference, but I don't think "everyone" notices it. Maybe glass is better these days? Spectacle lenses are clear on the edges, not green like windowpanes. Color distortion is measured by spectroscopy and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.
Bates: "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or less degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted. "
I don't get the same result. If you can't "note" improvement, where is it? Refractive error simply does not go away when they take off their glasses. Ask patients who lose their glasses and make do without them for three months. Their refractions are not generally better. Every eye doctor can document anecdotes that disprove this gross generalization, and very few to support it.
Bates: "That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which NO ONE would attempt to deny."
I would. Ask a hyperope or presbyope if his eyes feel better with or without glasses.
Bates: "The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex glasses enlarge them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome."
But people overcome them all the time.
Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."
Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more objects are "drawn into" the field.
Bates: "It has been demonstrated, however, that the lens is NOT A FACTOR, either in the production of accommodation, or in the correction of errors of refraction. Therefore under NO circumstances can there be a strain of the ciliary muscle to be relieved."
Patently false. No contribution at all? Ask any aphake. Ask yourself after cycloplegia. Ask any eye surgeon - they pluck 'em out all the time and usually the other parts still work.
Bates: "It is fortunate that many people for whom glasses have been prescribed refuse to wear them, thus escaping not only much discomfort but much INJURY to their eyes."
This is particularly treacherous if they drive. Bates didn't have to meet his patients on a dark rainy highway with 120 mph between them. I can't find this INJURY he's talking about.
Bates: "As refractive abnormalities are continually changing, not only from day to day and from hour to hour, but from minute to minute, even under the influence of atropine, the accurate fitting of glasses is, of course; IMPOSSIBLE."
I don't share his experience. I have refracted people who remained consistent over decades. I have frequently refracted without any knowledge of their previous prescription, and later found it within a quarter-diopter of values from previous years. I often repeat refractions when people have problems with their new glasses, and to say they NEVER refract the same a few days later is ludicrous.
A bunch of anecdotes can't prove a rule, but they easily DISPROVE this one, plus millions of people who find their glasses work the same day after day.
Bates: "It has been demonstrated in thousands of cases that all abnormal action of the external muscles of the eyeball is accompanied by a strain or effort to see, and that with the relief of this strain the action of the muscles becomes normal and ALL ERRORS OF REFRACTION DISAPPEAR."
I don't know of anything that provides relief such that "ALL errors of refraction disappear". Nor did Bates, nor do you. muscle imbalance causes strain. Not the other way around.
Bates: "The eye may be blind, it may be suffering from atrophy of the optic nerve, from cataract, or disease of the retina; but so long as it does not try to see, the external muscles act normally and there is no error of refraction. This fact furnishes us with the means by which ALL these conditions, so long held to be incurable, may be cured."
Whaaaat? ALL these conditions? Relaxation cures ALL cataract, optic atrophy, and histoplasmosis? That's faith-healing, and its frankly cruel and anxiogenic to tell people these problems are their fault because they can't relax.
Bates: "Myopes, although they see better at the near-point than they do at the distance, NEVER see as well as does the eye with normal sight.."
Myopes do not see WORSE up close than emmetropes. At age 50, they definitely see BETTER up close than everybody else. And a macro lens doesn't have lower inherent resolution than a telephoto.
Bates: "The remedy is not to avoid either near work or distant vision, but to get rid of the mental strain which underlies the imperfect functioning of the eye at both points; and it has: been demonstrated in thousands of cases that this can ALWAYS be done. "
So how come nobody but Jesus matches his success rate? No I DON'T want to read all thousand stories. I want to hear averages, before and after, with a treated group compared to an untreated group with the same demographis. Why hasn't it been done? Because every believable attempt to modify refractive error with lenses, training, and mental effort has shown such limited success that the noone will invest the effort and expense to prove that if we re-hash it just right, it WILL work. That's what the COMET study attempted to do.
Bates: "Fortunately, ALL persons are able to relax under certain conditions at will."
Well, "at will" means they would have to be conscious, so that rules out death, coma, narcosis or sleep. So why isn't the "Natural Method" used for other anxieties? Yoga and biofeedback would outsell Valium and Xanax combined, if they worked. Which professional would you expect to use the Natural Method - a psychologist, or a psychic?
Bates: "In ALL uncomplicated errors of refraction the strain to see can be relieved, temporarily, by having the patient look at a blank wall without trying to see."
Um, OK I'll buy that one. Closing the eyes works, too. Bell's reflex 'n all that.
Bates: "The fact is that when the mind is at rest nothing can tire the eyes, and when the mind is under a strain NOTHING can rest them. ANYTHING that rests the mind will benefit the eyes."
So will Xanax or meditation or spiritual enlightenment make my astigmatism better? Never worked for me. My K readings didn't change appreciably.
Bates: "After looking at the sun most people see black or colored spots which may last from a few minutes to a year or longer, but are NEVER permanent."
My textbooks beg to differ. But what do they know?
>Bates: "That glasses cannot improve the sight to normal can be very simply >demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or concave >glass. >It will be noted that the color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with >the >naked eye; and since the perception of form depends upon the perception of >color, it follows that both color and form MUST be less distinctly seen with >glasses than without them." [emphasis mine] >I don't get the same results. Most of my patients see better color and form >_with_ their glasses than without them. Minus lenses minify and have barrel >distortion, but that doesn't outweigh seeing forms you can't see without >them, >seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together.
It's still not the same as someone with perfect sight seeing, yes more functional
>Bates: "Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as >EVERYONE >knows who has ever looked out of a window." >I don't get that either. There's a difference, but I don't think "everyone" >notices it. Maybe glass is better these days? Spectacle lenses are clear on >the >edges, not green like windowpanes. Color distortion is measured by >spectroscopy >and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.
Disagree look through any glass less quality of color
: "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or less
>degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be >noted. " >I don't get the same result. If you can't "note" improvement, where is it? >Refractive error simply does not go away when they take off their glasses. >Ask >patients who lose their glasses and make do without them for three months. >Their >refractions are not generally better. Every eye doctor can document anecdotes >that disprove this gross generalization, and very few to support it.
MAybe we just become accustomed to blurriness? Sure seems like a little rebound effect. Who did without their glasses for 3 months, most people run right out?
>Bates: "That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which NO ONE would >attempt >to deny." >I would. Ask a hyperope or presbyope if his eyes feel better with or without >glasses.
Ask them whether they'd rather see without them no problem. Yes most everyone would prefer not to need glasses
>Bates: "The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all >objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex glasses enlarge >them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome." >But people overcome them all the time.
People become accustomed and function alright, there is still changes in the way things are seen compared to perfect light
>Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less >degree." >Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They >don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and >more >objects are "drawn into" the field.
How well can you see out of corner of your eye with glasses. It's all blurry and lose attention to this field focusing only on part glasses make artificially clear.
>Bates: "It has been demonstrated, however, that the lens is NOT A FACTOR, >either >in the production of accommodation, or in the correction of errors of >refraction. Therefore under NO circumstances can there be a strain of the >ciliary muscle to be relieved." >Patently false. No contribution at all? Ask any aphake. Ask yourself after >cycloplegia. Ask any eye surgeon - they pluck 'em out all the time and >usually >the other parts still work.
I already posted the studies that it's not all the lens either.
>Bates: "It is fortunate that many people for whom glasses have been >prescribed >refuse to wear them, thus escaping not only much discomfort but much INJURY >to >their eyes." >This is particularly treacherous if they drive. Bates didn't have to meet his >patients on a dark rainy highway with 120 mph between them. I can't find this >INJURY he's talking about.
Minus lenses make the eyes worse some of us think. Otis just posted about this better than I can. Got to go don't have time to address any more, will do changes in refraction later.
>MT >seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together. > It's still not the same as someone with perfect sight seeing, yes more > functional
No but that wasnt' the argument. Bates said they see better color and form worse with glasses. Nonsense.
> >and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat. > Disagree look through any glass less quality of color
Never mind the spectrographs, huh.
> MAybe we just become accustomed to blurriness? Sure seems like a little > rebound effect. Who did without their glasses for 3 months, most people run > right out?
Because they get better when they lose their glasses?
> Ask them whether they'd rather see without them no problem. Yes most everyone > would prefer not to need glasses
Yes but most people see better with them. Bates said they see better without them.
> >them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome." > >But people overcome them all the time. > People become accustomed and function alright, there is still changes in the > way things are seen compared to perfect sight
So the "unpleasantness" cannot be overcome?
> How well can you see out of corner of your eye with glasses. It's all blurry > and lose attention to this field focusing only on part glasses make > artificially clear.
That wasn't the argument. The field of vision is not always smaller with lenses, so Bates was wrong.
> I already posted the studies that it's not all the lens either.
Yes but that doesn't change the experience of EVERYONE who has cataract surgery or cycloplegic drops. Where is this "other" accommodation when the lens is removed?
> Minus lenses make the eyes worse some of us think. Otis just posted about this > better than I can.
Otis didn't post any proof. He posted an 80-year-old opinion that is contradicted by several studies. I quoted them here and Otis just ignored them.
> Got to go don't have time to address any more, will do changes in refraction > later.
"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:iLVY > No but that wasnt' the argument. Bates said they >see better color and form worse > with glasses. Nonsense.
On 30 Mar, 13:24, Mike Tyner <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:iLVY > > No but that wasnt' the argument. Bates said they > >see better color and form worse > > with glasses. Nonsense.
> I meant "see color and form worse with glasses."
You know I wasted too much time arguing the point even with 20/20 correction someone with glasses doesn't have the same quality of vision as someone with perfect sight, acuity same, function may be fine, but there's at least a little difference in ways things are seen. Glasses are a pain and most everyone would prefer to have perfect sight, thus the popularity of unnecessary surgical risk.
In article <2zEYa.1631$vo2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, mty...@mindspring.com says...
> Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree." > Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They > don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more > objects are "drawn into" the field.
The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by the simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual field. To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the point.
There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames themeselves block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the frames are no longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes accustomed to working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus lenses minify is quite correct, - they draw more information into an area of sight that has been contracted.
It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn glasses.
An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.
> In article <2zEYa.1631$vo2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, > mty...@mindspring.com says...
> > Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree." > > Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They > > don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more > > objects are "drawn into" the field.
> The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by > the simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual > field. To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the > point.
> There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight > which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames > themeselves block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the > frames are no longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes > accustomed to working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus > lenses minify is quite correct, - they draw more information into an > area of sight that has been contracted.
> It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at > the very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn > glasses.
> An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being > myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into > using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.
>============================================== >Bates' assumptions and his leaps of logic are HUGE compared to "nobody has >significant accommodation after 60." >Bates: "That glasses cannot improve the sight to normal can be very simply >demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or concave glass. >It will be noted that the color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with the >naked eye; and since the perception of form depends upon the perception of >color, it follows that both color and form MUST be less distinctly seen with >glasses than without them." [emphasis mine] >I don't get the same results. Most of my patients see better color and form >_with_ their glasses than without them. Minus lenses minify and have barrel >distortion, but that doesn't outweigh seeing forms you can't see without them, >seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together. >Bates: "Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as EVERYONE >knows who has ever looked out of a window." >I don't get that either. There's a difference, but I don't think "everyone" >notices it. Maybe glass is better these days? Spectacle lenses are clear on the >edges, not green like windowpanes. Color distortion is measured by spectroscopy >and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.
Bates said that color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with the naked eye. You showed a spectrograph of R-39 and this is exactly what it shows that the color is ALWAYS less intense. It was only at about 93%, which is not near what the normal human eye can see. There is a difference and Bates is right on this. He mentioned "intensity", not "distortion".
>Bates: "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or less >degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted. " >I don't get the same result. If you can't "note" improvement, where is it? >Refractive error simply does not go away when they take off their glasses. Ask >patients who lose their glasses and make do without them for three months. Their >refractions are not generally better. Every eye doctor can document anecdotes >that disprove this gross generalization, and very few to support it.
My personal experience shows that Bates is right on this as well. Also, didn;t you mention before that the axis of astigmatism doesn't change because it lies in the cornea? Well guess what, would you like to see my old records? I can scan them in or what not and show you that my axis for my left eye changed from ~70 degrees to ~130 degrees. How would you explain this? You already mentioned before that this doesn't happen.
>Bates: "That the human eye resents glasses is a fact >which NO ONE would attempt to deny." >I would. Ask a hyperope or presbyope if his eyes feel better with or without >glasses.
Bates used glass, you use plastic CR-39, things may be different now.
>Bates: "The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all >objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex glasses enlarge >them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome." >But people overcome them all the time.
Why do they overcome them? Why do you tell patients, oh don't worry you'll get used to it, just remember to look through your glasses and move your head if you want to look somewhere else. This is not normal.
>Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree." >Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They >don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more >objects are "drawn into" the field.
Where was this cited and under what heading / chapter?
>Bates: "It has been demonstrated, however, that the lens is NOT A FACTOR, either >in the production of accommodation, or in the correction of errors of >refraction. Therefore under NO circumstances can there be a strain of the >ciliary muscle to be relieved." >Patently false. No contribution at all? Ask any aphake. Ask yourself after >cycloplegia. Ask any eye surgeon - they pluck 'em out all the time and usually >the other parts still work.
I have seen studies going both ways, my personal belief is that they both contribute.
>Bates: "It is fortunate that many people for whom glasses have been prescribed >refuse to wear them, thus escaping not only much discomfort but much INJURY to >their eyes." >This is particularly treacherous if they drive. Bates didn't have to meet his >patients on a dark rainy highway with 120 mph between them. I can't find this >INJURY he's talking about.
By wearing glasses you are under a constant strain, this is the injury.
>Bates: "As refractive abnormalities are continually changing, not only from day >to day and from hour to hour, but from minute to minute, even under the >influence of atropine, the accurate fitting of glasses is, of course; >IMPOSSIBLE." >I don't share his experience. I have refracted people who remained consistent >over decades. I have frequently refracted without any knowledge of their >previous prescription, and later found it within a quarter-diopter of values >from previous years. I often repeat refractions when people have problems with >their new glasses, and to say they NEVER refract the same a few days later is >ludicrous.
You previously agreed that the eye changes its refraction many times a second, and that you asked children to look at an object and to see if it would move so that you could get a more accurate refraction measurement. Are you now contradicting yourself?
>A bunch of anecdotes can't prove a rule, but they easily DISPROVE this one, plus >millions of people who find their glasses work the same day after day. >Bates: "It has been demonstrated in thousands of cases that all abnormal action >of the external muscles of the eyeball is accompanied by a strain or effort to >see, and that with the relief of this strain the action of the muscles becomes >normal and ALL ERRORS OF REFRACTION DISAPPEAR." >I don't know of anything that provides relief such that "ALL errors of >refraction disappear". Nor did Bates, nor do you. Muscle imbalance causes >strain. Not the other way around.
Could you elaborate regarding how muscle imbalance causes strain? What kind of strain and what are the effects of this strain? Also, because you don't know of it doesn't't mean that it doesn't exist. Just because the profession as a whole doesn't know of it, doesn't prove its nonexistence.
>Bates: "The eye may be blind, it may be suffering from atrophy of the optic >nerve, from cataract, or disease of the retina; but so long as it does not try >to see, the external muscles act normally and there is no error of refraction. >This fact furnishes us with the means by which ALL these conditions, so long >held to be incurable, may be cured." >Whaaaat? ALL these conditions? Relaxation cures ALL cataract, optic atrophy, and >histoplasmosis? That's faith-healing, and its frankly cruel and anxiogenic to >tell people these problems are their fault because they can't relax.
Bates was able to use his methods of relief of the strain so that these conditions could be cured. you mentioned above that you don't know of anything that provides this relief hence you cannot make this argument that his method couldn't cure these conditions. You do not have first hand experience of the Bates method nor do many professionals here. It is just left to laymen to practice and use his techniques to help others.
>Bates: "Myopes, although they see better at the near-point than they do at the >distance, NEVER see as well as does the eye with normal sight.." >Myopes do not see WORSE up close than emmetropes. At age 50, they definitely see >BETTER up close than everybody else. And a macro lens doesn't have lower >inherent resolution than a telephoto.
I see worse than the eye with normal sight. I posted a message about that before and how I used my imagination to improve my near sight. But still, I cannot see as well as someone with normal vision. A person with normal vision should be able to read diamond type from 6 to 18 inches and should be able to see at least 20/20, but mostly 20/10. I have demonstrated this fact and so have others, and so has Bates. Myopes do not see as well as someone with normal vision up close. Also, do not say that someone at 50 can't see as well as a myope. That person more or less strains at the near point as does your every other presbyopic patient.
>Bates: "The remedy is not to avoid either near work or distant vision, but to >get rid of the mental strain which underlies the imperfect functioning of the >eye at both points; and it has: been demonstrated in thousands of cases that >this can ALWAYS be done. " >So how come nobody but Jesus matches his success rate? No I DON'T want to read >all thousand stories. I want to hear averages, before and after, with a treated >group compared to an untreated group with the same demographics. Why hasn't it >been done?
Because people think there is no value in it, plus they do not properly understand it. I think Bates is the only person to have clearly understood his method. There will be someone in the future to rediscover this and then prove it.
>Because every believable attempt to modify refractive error with >lenses, training, and mental effort has shown such limited success that the >noone will invest the effort and expense to prove that if we re-hash it just >right, it WILL work. That's what the COMET study attempted to do.
>Bates: "Fortunately, ALL persons are able to relax under certain conditions at >will." >Well, "at will" means they would have to be conscious, so that rules out death, >coma, narcosis or sleep. So why isn't the "Natural Method" used for other >anxieties? Yoga and biofeedback would outsell Valium and Xanax combined,
In article <MPG.199ecb5f8066fe68989...@news.ntlworld.com>,
Kevin <sevenths...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the > very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn > glasses. > An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being > myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into > using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored. > Kevin
BatesCultist:
Your statements are absolutely scientifically false.
1. ALL myopes DO NOT have deterioration of the retina. Some do, some don't. For that matter, so do hyperopes. Some do, some don't. For that matter, so do people with no optical correction. Some do, some don't. And some people are born with a predisposition, and some people are simply born that way.
2. Lattice degeneration, peripheral holes and tears have nothing to do with whether a person has worn glasses or not, and hardly to do with whether or not there is a refractive error. The only FACT we know for certain is that SOME people with enlongated axial length or who have a physical growth anomolgy thining the peripheral retina, or those who have had head trauma are at higher risk for "deterioration". Wearing glasses has nothing to with it. Hitting your head on the windshield because some loonatic crashed into you because s/he was Bate-d into not using optical correction is a definate potential cause.
3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.
4. It is not a fact that a myope wearing glasses is trained into using a smaller area of the retina. The perihperal retina gets plently of stimulation----and whatever, it has nothing to do with peripheral retina anomolies.
SO....
Your statements are absolutely scientifically false. Like most everything Bates. But, your a zealot, a fanatic and nothing contrary to your position means a damn thing to you.
> In article <MPG.199ecb5f8066fe68989...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> Kevin <sevenths...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the > > very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn > > glasses. > > An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being > > myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into > > using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored. > > Kevin
> BatesCultist:
> Your statements are absolutely scientifically false.
> 1. ALL myopes DO NOT have deterioration of the retina. Some do, some > don't. For that matter, so do hyperopes. Some do, some don't. For that > matter, so do people with no optical correction. Some do, some don't. > And some people are born with a predisposition, and some people are > simply born that way.
> 2. Lattice degeneration, peripheral holes and tears have nothing to do > with whether a person has worn glasses or not, and hardly to do with > whether or not there is a refractive error. The only FACT we know for > certain is that SOME people with enlongated axial length or who have a > physical growth anomolgy thining the peripheral retina, or those who > have had head trauma are at higher risk for "deterioration". Wearing > glasses has nothing to with it. Hitting your head on the windshield > because some loonatic crashed into you because s/he was Bate-d into > not using optical correction is a definate potential cause.
> 3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.
> 4. It is not a fact that a myope wearing glasses is trained into using > a smaller area of the retina. The perihperal retina gets plently of > stimulation----and whatever, it has nothing to do with peripheral > retina anomolies.
> SO....
> Your statements are absolutely scientifically false. Like most > everything Bates. But, your a zealot, a fanatic and nothing contrary > to your position means a damn thing to you.
> --LB
Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an astonishing reaction!
I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.
But your reaction is to me the very opposite of unassuming.
> 3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.
Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe your words won't sound so hollow.
In article <Mn6Za.5577$BC2.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, mty...@mindspring.com says...
> So you blame glasses for lattice degeneration? That's new. > -MT
No, not quite - see my response to LarryDoc.
I'm coming from the experience of teaching people the method, and one of the most common improvements is in the sensitivity of the peripheral vision. There needs to be some controlled studies done to verify/negate this observation, but in due course that will come about.
> I'm coming from the experience of teaching people the method, and one of > the most common improvements is in the sensitivity of the peripheral > vision. There needs to be some controlled studies done to verify/negate > this observation, but in due course that will come about.
How many of your patients walk in complaining of poor peripheral vision?
And of all those who seek improvements in the sensitivity of their peripheral vision, how many have glaucoma or retinitis pigmentosa?
After you taught them to increase their peripheral awareness, how many showed measurable improvements in myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, or cataract?
|
