t666dom
Wearing glasses deoes not cause loss of connection twith the fovea, the anatomy of your eye dictates the cental fixation point. Eccentric fixation occurs when the central vision is lost e.g in macular degeneration, you can then learn to use the surrounding retina that has slightly better vision than the damaged centre

HappyHag
According to Dr Bates, central fixation can be lost by misuse of the eyes, i.e. straining to see. His thesis is that the amount of strain which causes the degree of vision loss, has to be maintained while wearing corrective glasses, so glasses engender permanent strain and loss of central fixation. Having a fovea is not the same as using it.

t666dom
I'm afraid Dr Bates is wrong, the anatomy of an eye dictates the central fixation point- the fovea centralis, eyestrain caused by whatever reason will not cause loss of central fixation, eyestrain is strain it will not lead to loss of visual acuity. Correct spex should not cause strain, even if they are wrong the strain would be temporary.

HappyHag
Where do you get your information from? It has been a common belief passed on by opticians that eyestrain can cause loss of acuity. How can you be so sure that correction will not cause strain? And if temporary, what is the mechanism whereby such strain is relieved?

t666dom
A correct prscription should not strain the eyes, the spex focus the light onto the retina improving the visual acuity. Admittedly the acurity is not treated, once the spex are removed the acuity will be poorer, if the spex are incorrct when they are removed that is the mechanism by which the strain is relieved.

HappyHag
OK, it's not the prescription that strains the eyes, but the attitude that maintains the poor vision that the prescription supports, according to Bates. On the subject of 'correct' prescriptions, do you accept that vision is variable, or not? (eg with planes of astigmatism). And if you do, do you think variability should be encouraged or discouraged, or do you believe it just isn't important enough to study?

t666dom
I don't accept Bates' idea of variable vision due to the effects of the extra ocular muscles changing the shape of the eye. That theory is simply incorrect, proved many times over with modern techniqes since 1920. Changes in the lens and cornea thro life can vary vison, 'attitude' wont effect these changes

HappyHag
Have modern techniques actually proved that the eyeball does not change shape at all during use? How does the cornea change shape unless the extraocular muscles are a factor? I do accept that Bates' assertions about ciliary muscles are pig-headed and illogical, but that doesn't mean that eo muscles play no part in focusing. Besides this, the technique gets results, and I don't think the opthalmic prfofessionals have ever tried to investigate it.

t666dom
The EO muscles have no effect on the shape of the cornea otherwise your sight would change every time you looked about, all the muscles do is move the eyeball around, the force required to change the shape of the eyeball can't be created by the EO muscles,change in focus occurs by the ciliary muscle in the eye contracting, loosening off the lens zonules to make the lens change shape, this has been proven by ophthalmic professionals

HappyHag
You think sight doesn't change every time you look about?

t666dom
Well you may have to refocus on a different object you want to look at but that change in focus would be brought about by the change in shape of the lens not by the action of th EO muscles

2xtreme2fit - I would like to counter-post at this website that you're pulling these quotes from - can you share its url with us?