On 30 Mar, 13:10, David K <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

-MT