Message from discussion
Stay away from "vision educators"
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Kory Postma <lite...@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.vision
Subject: Re: Stay away from "vision educators"
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 243
Message-ID: <e9eeb0ca-a3d0-4ff4-9565-bedf7f655517@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
References: <5c58e0d1-9b12-42fc-b541-b0e21ac201b8@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
<370b87a0-9f26-493c-8c0f-5b2f46001cb4@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
<6a97121c-b1a8-4b86-92a4-5cfbdc5bf2b5@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
<0fc77cc3-eb62-4cd4-a21c-a33345912a71@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<b2dfab4a-eec8-4095-8a12-89a0520ba9be@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<f8d9f984-7b1b-452b-a2e7-6968203146d6@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
<0d8b1c83-9db8-44a0-9e72-dfe66d593937@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<2976925e-3f96-4a02-9d0d-d24b62e2fc3c@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
<1612ca7a-f7dd-41ed-b573-1ab6b877088c@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<c483c175-9838-47ce-a446-5a2cd25277c7@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<e9e22bef-0069-479a-8ffb-1d1b6c2630c7@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
<5824817a-ca97-4f13-a00c-30ca3d3fb0aa@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 90.199.160.31
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1206880358 12037 127.0.0.1 (30 Mar 2008 12:32:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:32:38 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=90.199.160.31;
posting-account=_Gm4UgoAAAC2-81M-H--nVC5SC5u3ptc
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13)
Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 03:13:02 GMT, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
snip
>==============================================
>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.
Exactly as I said above.
>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?
At will and under certain conditions. What "Natural Method" are you
referring to?
>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.
Why would closing the eyes help relieve the strain to see? Are you
saying that palming is effective? That is basically what palming is,
closing the eyes and cupping your hands over them, but yet you say
palming is ineffective, are you contradicting yourself once again?
>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.
These things have nothing to do with the Bates method. Also,
according to Bates, your mind must still have been under a strain.
>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?
Can you cite some studies done as to the effect that they are never
permanent?
>-MT
Kory Postma
Washington University in St. Louis
|
