I have done the historical research of the Helmholtz concept. Helmholtz SUGGESTED that the lens MIGHT be a factor in the eye's ability to change its refracitve STATUS from far to near, and from near to far.
There are pople who will miss-quote Helmholtz (who have not read the text), and insist that he INSISTED that ONLY the lens was responsible. No, Helmholtz only made a SUGGESTION.
What Dr. Bates said and judged was that the entire eye CHANGED ITS TOTAL POWER, by the required distance. This is in fact what the natural eye does do (in response to micr-blur) at the surface of the retina.
Here is the Helmholz SUGGESTION (not PROVEN theory).
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/standard-eye-theory/">http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/standard-eye-theory/</a><!-- m -->
Was Bates "proven"? Was Helmhotz "proven"?
I suggest that they are OPINIONS, and should be respected as such. Rather than get into endless arguments about it, just call Bates concept as the scientific second-opinion, and move forward with Bates/Prentice methods of prevention.
I again suggest that a study conducted along the Bates 1913 study -- would succeed in its concept if the people were more mature and consistent.
But the subject of Bates scientific concept -- remains open.
I think this could be a possible example of how humans assume things. When Helmholtz suggested others assumed he meant that the lens is the only key factor in accommodation.....
I don't think right now any theory is proven (or at least I haven't read about a proven theory)..... perhaps the Lens and the ExtraOcular muscles play apart in accommodation.
My sibling recently found themself to be myopic..... both of us (well until I changed many of my habits) used a computer a lot and I mean a lot. So that played apart in us becoming myopic. Although despite me being told to where a minus lens I don't where anything..... as I am practicing the Bates Method and I am also looking for something to augment it.
But I told my sibling that it is their choice whether or not they want to where the minus, or try Bates or the Plus Method...... I fear that when they get their Minus they will love the clarity..... hopefully I can intervene.
Here is what Dr. Bates said in his FIRST statements of his 1913 study. You will find that I ALMOST agree with his first statement.
There have been many "spins" on what Bates said (and I don't object to them). But I take that first staement to mean that:
1. We MUST NOT USE THE MINUS -- IF WE CAN PREVENT IT BY HIS METHOD.
2. By NOT using his method (in his study), you get into that first statement. I TAKE THAT VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY, and I BELIEVE THAT THE NEXT (FUTURE) STUDY should have that a the "leadership" statement.
But, as you said, when the kids and the parents see the effect of that FIRST MINUS, the fall in love with both the minus, and the OD who provided it. It is VERY HARD TO RESIST BOTH THE MINUS, AND THE OD WHO SAYS THAT HIS "METHODS" ARE PROVED BY THE GREAT HELMHOLTZ. This is why I presented this bit of history. Helmholtz said no such thing. In fact Bates "fear" of that minus is well founded in pure science. However these "arguments" may "play out", it must be said that there is considerable evidence that the ENTIRE EYE changed its refractive STATE, and no EXCLUSIVELY the lens as Helmholtz SUGGESTED.
Inother word, don't let any "authority" intimidate you into believing that Helmholtz got this right. Bates was far closer to scientific truth than was Helmholtz.
=====================
From Bates 1813 study:
Myopia with elongation of the eyeball is incurable.
It is usually acquired during school life.
Acute myopia, spasm of the accommodation, or functional myopia is an early stage of incurable myopia.
The cause of myopia is an effort to see distant objects.
Corroboration:
1. Myopic refraction has always been produced in man and the lower animal when regarding unfamiliar distant objects which required an effort.
2. Myopia was prevented in the public schools of Grand Forks, N. D., for eight years by methods which prevented an effort to see distant objects.
3. Myopia was always benefited by treatment suggested by the cause.......
Here is what Dr. Bates said in his FIRST statements of his 1913 study. You will find that I ALMOST agree with his first statement.
There have been many "spins" on what Bates said (and I don't object to them). But I take that first staement to mean that:
1. We MUST NOT USE THE MINUS -- IF WE CAN PREVENT IT BY HIS METHOD.
2. By NOT using his method (in his study), you get into that first statement. I TAKE THAT VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY, and I BELIEVE THAT THE NEXT (FUTURE) STUDY should have that a the "leadership" statement.
But, as you said, when the kids and the parents see the effect of that FIRST MINUS, the fall in love with both the minus, and the OD who provided it. It is VERY HARD TO RESIST BOTH THE MINUS, AND THE OD WHO SAYS THAT HIS "METHODS" ARE PROVED BY THE GREAT HELMHOLTZ. This is why I presented this bit of history. Helmholtz said no such thing. In fact Bates "fear" of that minus is well founded in pure science. However these "arguments" may "play out", it must be said that there is considerable evidence that the ENTIRE EYE changed its refractive STATE, and no EXCLUSIVELY the lens as Helmholtz SUGGESTED.
Inother word, don't let any "authority" intimidate you into believing that Helmholtz got this right. Bates was far closer to scientific truth than was Helmholtz.
=====================
From Bates 1813 study:
Myopia with elongation of the eyeball is incurable.
It is usually acquired during school life.
Acute myopia, spasm of the accommodation, or functional myopia is an early stage of incurable myopia.
The cause of myopia is an effort to see distant objects.
Corroboration:
1. Myopic refraction has always been produced in man and the lower animal when regarding unfamiliar distant objects which required an effort.
2. Myopia was prevented in the public schools of Grand Forks, N. D., for eight years by methods which prevented an effort to see distant objects.
3. Myopia was always benefited by treatment suggested by the cause.......
Interesting, it says Axial Myopia is incurable..... then why have some on here gone from 5/200 to 20/50ish?
I'll look into this......
Would someone not using a minus wind up with Axial Myopia or just another form?
I will not get into the word "CURE" -- because that implies many things that are not exactly true.
But I take Bates statement to mean that, if you don't start with Bates/Prentice methods, your Snellen will go down at a rate of about -1/2 diopter per year, starting with that FIRST minus lens.
If anything, science has shown that Bates was "wise before his time". He did not have this data showing the "down" rate for school-childeren in 1913.
Thus if anything, this further enhances the first sentence in his 1913 study. We could "argue" about this -- but what would be the point?
I think a person at 20/50 to 20/60 (range of visual acuity for the kids in the study), and a refractive STATE (from about -3/4 to -1.25 diopters), could have SLOWLY cleared their Snellen by Bates/Prentice methods.
But, Bates study was "killed", and no further HONEST efforts were made after 1913 -- because everyone thought that Helmholtz was the FINAL AND PERFECT SCIENTIFIC WORD ON THE SUBJECT.
Tragically, that is the wrong way to "do science". All of us suffer from that "attitude" -- up to the present day.
This is due to the POWER of the minus lens, and the fact that very few people are aware of the SCIENCE showing that the entire eye "responds" to an imposed minus lens -- as again Bates intimated with that first sentence.
The final science about the risks of tha minus lens is indeed almost final. But that science is ignored in the manner that Bates (and all second-opinion ophthalmologists) are ignored.
