newbie

[jellisrellish]

ok, so I've been reading up on the bates method for like a week, and now I'm fully convinced I wanna try it. But how should I start? What excercises should I do? Will I need snellen charts? Where can I get them?

sorry, im sure these qustions have been asked already. good luck, and thanks for any help.

[elanerajk30]

Hehe! Yeah! Maybe those questions are ask already. Just search for it here or post a new topic. It would be interesting!

[Ares]

Get a Snellen test chart from the Net and print it up.

Use paper fr photographs if you can, and put it in a photo-frame so it would be protected.
That's what i did.

Here is a big one.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Snellen_chart.svg">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _chart.svg</a><!-- m --> 8)

[spydermann]

yeah man a snellen is awesome, i got one shipped off of ebay for 8$ and its pretty dang helpful not to mention looks cool on the wall...

but! i'd say start practicing some deep slow soft breathing techniques and work that into your awareness, the key is relaxing the eyes, and in my opinion breathing is the best and quickest way to relax.

[JMartinC4]

As of last week, I would now say, that the first thing to do before beginning the Bates Method or any other natural vision improvement method, is to be aware that one probable cause of nearsightedness is the neonatal antibiotic eyedrops or ointment that most if not all babies receive within an hour or so of birth...
After palming, which simulates the pre-birth visual environment, imagine that you are immediately given a 'treatment' in one of your eyes (probably the one with worse vision). The baby squeezes both eyes shut to avoid the 'treatment', making it difficult to get the treatment into the other eye. The baby now sees nothing but blur. The baby is given back to the parents who are told, if anything, simply that "newborns can't see very well". Okay, then, start bonding! The baby hears and senses his parents but can't see them or anything else very clearly. Keep trying to bond! The 'treatment' wears off in 24-72 hours, (during which it also feels kind of heavy to the newborn and its eyes - feeling droopy anyone?) leaving no trace of the visual orientation/positioning/timing damage it has created. Don't look now, but in about 7-15 years, here comes myopia. Sit up straight! Listen up! Look here! Quit staring! Good luck. :-\ 8)

quote="spydermann"]yeah man a snellen is awesome, i got one shipped off of ebay for 8$ and its pretty dang helpful not to mention looks cool on the wall...

but! i'd say start practicing some deep slow soft breathing techniques and work that into your awareness, the key is relaxing the eyes, and in my opinion breathing is the best and quickest way to relax.[/quote]

[David]

The newborn eyedrops thing is an interesting theory. I would want to know more details of the effects these drops have, in terms of irritation, focus, and any other side effects, how long it lasts, and whether it affects all babies in the same way. Babies can't give complete feedback, so studies would have to be done on human adults, and then it's flawed because adults have already been seeing for years. And obviously not everyone subjected to this develops long term visual problems, and conversely I have to doubt that every myope had the eyedrops. For those who develop myopia or other visual problems in their teens, I can see a point for how a small amount of visual dysfunction might remain for years until it's exacerbated by teenage stress and the misuse of the eyes is compounded. So I can see how it could be a contributing factor along with other things we're exposed to, maybe even a very significant one, but as far as reversing it, it still comes down to correct use of the eyes, and palming is only an assistance to stop strain and one of many things that can help. People also have varied psychological issues related to visual problems, so I'm highly skeptical of a sweeping explanation along those lines.

Dave

[JMartinC4]

David,
Good comments. Thank you. Have you read the two documents that are linked in my signature? There is a 1989 report by a National Academy of Sciences commission on the increasing prevalence and progressive worsening of myopia since the turn of the century; and a 2006 legal essay on the use of silver nitrate since the turn of the century, the 1930's legislative mandate requiring the immediate post-birth administration of silver nitrate until 1956, and of less irritating antibiotics (penicillin, erythromycin) thereafter. Neither document seems to have been aware of the contents or importance of the other, or of the possible correlation between the two. Don't worry - I am completely convinced of the efficacy of Dr. Bates' methodology as a means of reversing the effects; I think this information provides a nexus of origination of most functional myopia, and which helps complete the theory and justify the Bates Method.
One easy first test might be a longitudinal check on which eye received the 'treatment' first, and whether it later on reliably becomes either the worst or best eye in myopes. (Don't neglect the possibility that 20/20 is an arbitrarily low standard of 'normal' visual acuity.)

The newborn eyedrops thing is an interesting theory. I would want to know more details of the effects these drops have, in terms of irritation, focus, and any other side effects, how long it lasts, and whether it affects all babies in the same way. Babies can't give complete feedback, so studies would have to be done on human adults, and then it's flawed because adults have already been seeing for years. And obviously not everyone subjected to this develops long term visual problems, and conversely I have to doubt that every myope had the eyedrops. For those who develop myopia or other visual problems in their teens, I can see a point for how a small amount of visual dysfunction might remain for years until it's exacerbated by teenage stress and the misuse of the eyes is compounded. So I can see how it could be a contributing factor along with other things we're exposed to, maybe even a very significant one, but as far as reversing it, it still comes down to correct use of the eyes, and palming is only an assistance to stop strain and one of many things that can help. People also have varied psychological issues related to visual problems, so I'm highly skeptical of a sweeping explanation along those lines.

Dave

[David]

David,
Good comments. Thank you. Have you read the two documents that are linked in my signature? There is a 1989 report by a National Academy of Sciences commission on the increasing prevalence and progressive worsening of myopia since the turn of the century; and a 2006 legal essay on the use of silver nitrate since the turn of the century, the 1930's legislative mandate requiring the immediate post-birth administration of silver nitrate until 1956, and of less irritating antibiotics (penicillin, erythromycin) thereafter. Neither document seems to have been aware of the contents or importance of the other, or of the possible correlation between the two. Don't worry - I am completely convinced of the efficacy of Dr. Bates' methodology as a means of reversing the effects; I think this information provides a nexus of origination of most functional myopia, and which helps complete the theory and justify the Bates Method.
One easy first test might be a longitudinal check on which eye received the 'treatment' first, and whether it later on reliably becomes either the worst or best eye in myopes. (Don't neglect the possibility that 20/20 is an arbitrarily low standard of 'normal' visual acuity.)

I can't help but think that there were a lot more factors introduced roughly 100 years ago than silver nitrate. Everything was changing. The world was modernizing at a rapid rate. The links you refer to don't even mention any long term effect, unless I missed it. Why do you believe this one thing is causing long term problems over such a high portion of humans? It seems interesting, but has anyone done any research on this? It seems like you're going way overboard on a hunch.

Dave

[JMartinC4]

I don't disagree with you. I am at a point in my life where I could choose to pursue this in a number of ways: journalistically, PhD-psychologically, PhD-demographically, NVI-teachability, etcetera. Or just do nothing but write posts every day. I find the challenge daunting in every regard. Except I know what I know. This 'theory' fits all the known facts - including the observations of people who believe in the Bates Method. The etiology of myopia remains undefined by the very science that has attempted to measure and understand it for 100 years. John

"I can't help but think that there were a lot more factors introduced roughly 100 years ago than silver nitrate. Everything was changing. The world was modernizing at a rapid rate. The links you refer to don't even mention any long term effect, unless I missed it. Why do you believe this one thing is causing long term problems over such a high portion of humans? It seems interesting, but has anyone done any research on this? It seems like you're going way overboard on a hunch.
Dave"

[Andrea Major]

To JMartinC4:
I think you are a bit too pushy about your silver nitrate theory. I am a grass-root bates believer. He clearly stated that the epidemic of myopia begins in civilizations when the class-room type of education is introduced. There are ample of recent statistics on the subject, unfortunately even the scientists analyzing the stats have not made the connection to what Bates have already said and so logically explained. Dave is way too nice to you. But I think we should stick to the Bates theory and people's own experiences with it. That's what makes this forum so great!

Thank you,
Andrea

[JMartinC4]

Andrea - Do you have one eye with worse vision than the other? Why would that be? Find out from your parents whether you received any neonatal antibiotic eye treatment (drops or ointments) and what they remember about your birth. What are your parents' and siblings' vision - normal or myopic or other?
In psychology they describe how to train animals (pigeons, mice/rats, cats, dogs, etc.) to do things: it's called backward chain conditioning. In order to teach them a task with multiple steps they have to start from the end step and work backwards, until they gradually reach the final first step.
That is pretty much how I have reached my theory. It took me 36 years. So far, my theory fits all the known facts and observations.
What is it about my posts that you think is not nice?
Dr. Bates was seeing the first influx of children who had probably been treated with the neonatal antibiotics - but the antibiotics leave no physical evidence that they've been used, so no one thinks they are the cause of anything - because they don't stop to think about the probable psychological effects of imposing hours-long blur on normal sighted infants, and then telling the parents (if anything) that newborns can't see very well to being with - which is untrue.
The Bates Method is an effective way to reverse the effects of neonatal antibiotic blur and common myopia - regardless of the cause. I've been an advocate of the Bates Method ever since I stumbled upon it 31 years ago.
All my theory does is provide a connecting link of causation for a large chunk of the increasing prevalence and progressive worsening of common myopia in America - which has eluded the scientists for 100 years. Because they don't want to think that something they're doing could have bad consequences. And they are forced to do it by legislative mandate.

To JMartinC4:
I think you are a bit too pushy about your silver nitrate theory. I am a grass-root bates believer. He clearly stated that the epidemic of myopia begins in civilizations when the class-room type of education is introduced. There are ample of recent statistics on the subject, unfortunately even the scientists analyzing the stats have not made the connection to what Bates have already said and so logically explained. Dave is way too nice to you. But I think we should stick to the Bates theory and people's own experiences with it. That's what makes this forum so great!

Thank you,
Andrea

[Nancy]

JMartinC4, I'm with Andrea -- I've held myself back from writing to object to your beating the drum constantly about infant eyedrops for a while now. It's getting so that I don't even want to read your posts, because I know they'll either be warning of this dreaded practice (often to very young people who only need some minor Bates guidance and encouragement, not to be sidetracked by this possibility about which they can do nothing now anyway). Or else you're writing about your glinting CD in the styrofoam cup as the "cure"! You're answering every question with the same 2 topics!

OK, that's off my chest. I know you're well-intentioned, but please stick to the topic the person is asking about. It's not obvious to me at all how knowing about the infant eyedrops would help this newbie person improve their vision now. Thanks for listening.

[JMartinC4]

Okay, I guess now I know how Dr. Bates felt after being rejected by the opthalmologists. Oh, well. My vision continues to improve by leaps and bounds now. I discovered the truth and it (plus the Bates Method) is setting me free. Unlike others, I vow never to make a penny off it. I will never charge anyone for anything ever.