I read "Bates magazines" and I noticed that his patient since 1930 year, was cured more faster then us.
There are so many instances, which are cured for least 15 min to the length of 1,5h,but, when I see on this community, much more of us, have a very slow progress, which is in most cases almost a year....Can someone tell me a reason why is that?
Probably, people in this old time, have maybe more of problems, eat poorly, bad condition for life, they even maybe don't have electricity(?!)
Now, we living in 21 century, and have all kind of technologies, good food, good condition, all kind of books...one word, we have more benefits then these peoples!
I am confused when I think about that, because I can't recognize when all of us made mistake or maybe only our problem is that, what dr. Bates is not alive???!!!
Subject: Dr. Bates 1913 study -- to be restarted in 2013?
Dr. Bates was the world's first second-opinion (prevention) ophthalmologist.
He was in the process of becomming successful in 1913 with this study:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevention-teachers.php">http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-m ... achers.php</a><!-- m -->
He had done this work in N. D., and was successful there. But to be clear, these were children at 20/50 to 20/70, who had not started wearing a strong minus lens.
But then one mother became "concerned" and went to her majority-opinion ophthalmologist. He told her that her child reading the Snellen on the wall would "strain" and therefore "hurt" her eyes in some way.
That "word" got out that Bates was doing somthing "not standard", and that went to the School Board.
Since no one would stand up for Dr. Bates, the study was "killed" and the necessary Snellens were all removed from the classrooms.
Now, we have a truly massive problem of myopia -- and no one seems to want to face these facts and start a new (and probably successful) effort.
This "block" is truly a matter of "Imagination Blindness" on the part ot he medical community, sorry to say.
But don't give up -- future studies will confirm success if his methods can be started before that first over-prescribed minus is put on a child's face.
Commandos,
I agree that this needs to be researched -- perhaps someone's doctoral thesis. I'm interested in the work Dr. Bates did in the schools. Back then schoolkids had less stress. They also probably had less exposure to pollutants and ate more fruits and vegetables and spent much more time outside. Most of them had normal vision. Since most of Dr. Bates' student 'patients' are probably still alive, if their identities could be determined (easy enough, if we know which schools he worked in) then follow-up interviews could be done. That would be very interesting. Did the 'cures' last? What was it like from their perspective during the school year? What insights would they have?
There may be a teamwork factor at work in the cures. I think normal visioned people if given the awareness, knowledge and opportunity, are able to assist myopes in fixing their vision. There is probably some reciprocity that is being missed. I think a lot of it may happen at an unconscious or subliminal level. Think of all the incredible scientific discoveries that were made back then - and by and large made by clear-sighted people (although they all seemed to develop presbyopia as usual). What kind of discoveries do we have nowadays? BluRay vs DVD? Big cell phones vs small ones? Who cares? We are losing our way in more ways than one. Glasses, contacts, lasik, have 'fixed' the eyesight, but not cured the problem. There is a human interaction problem causing most myopia, and it has not been identified.
I read "Bates magazines" and I noticed that his patient since 1930 year, was cured more faster then us. There are so many instances, which are cured for least 15 min to the length of 1,5h,but, when I see on this community, much more of us, have a very slow progress, which is in most cases almost a year....Can someone tell me a reason why is that? Probably, people in this old time, have maybe more of problems, eat poorly, bad condition for life, they even maybe don't have electricity(?!)
Now, we living in 21 century, and have all kind of technologies, good food, good condition, all kind of books...one word, we have more benefits then these peoples!
I am confused when I think about that, because I can't recognize when all of us made mistake or maybe only our problem is that, what dr. Bates is not alive???!!!
I read "Bates magazines" and I noticed that his patient since 1930 year, was cured more faster then us.
There are so many instances, which are cured for least 15 min to the length of 1,5h,but, when I see on this community, much more of us, have a very slow progress, which is in most cases almost a year....Can someone tell me a reason why is that?
Probably, people in this old time, have maybe more of problems, eat poorly, bad condition for life, they even maybe don't have electricity(?!)
Now, we living in 21 century, and have all kind of technologies, good food, good condition, all kind of books...one word, we have more benefits then these peoples!
I am confused when I think about that, because I can't recognize when all of us made mistake or maybe only our problem is that, what dr. Bates is not alive???!!!
I've thought about this a lot, starting with -10 hard contacts about 8 years ago & very slowly reducing my prescription where I can drive most of time during the day without glasses now. Why did it take me so long? I've read all the books & do daily vision practices, but my progress has been slow & sporadic, & I often felt like I had no direction, just kept going motivated by the small improvements I was seeing.
I think what's needed is a dedicated & committed teacher like Dr. Bates who you see regularly, plus your own practice & commitment to healthy vision habits, plus not wearing glasses at all.The point about support from folks with healthy vision is a good one: how many of these folks are there now? Being told "Stop doing all that work; just get Lasik" is what you hear. People want a quick fix. The sound bite culture we live in is so pervasive that few people seem interested in something that takes any effort or longer than a few minutes. We need to be able to reach the minority who actually are willing to face their blur rather than run from it.
Nancy
Hello all!
Patients on Bate's time were praticing all day long and were supported and motivated by Dr. Bates. I think that even the worst case of myopia would be cured in 2 months or less if the person would palm for 1 hour ten times a day plus blinking and shifting all the time and swinging 30 minutes and reading your snellen card 3 times or more a day and ... the list can be long...
I know that I am really near to perfect sight. I feel it, I know it's coming soon, stay tuned to the success story part of the forum! I really do think that it will be my duty to write my own succes story when I will be cured.
If you want a fast cure, you have to be 1000% dedicated to this task. When I started the bates method in may 2008, my sight was at 10/40 and I had all possible symptoms of strain. I had my 2 first clear flashes 2 weeks after I started and it was the only thing that was required for me to continue. But, I'm not someone that have much discipline for works that don't have a deadline, so, I took my time and my sight improved a lot some week, lowered a lot others weeks and with the time, with much ups and downs, it has improved to the point that I'm between always oscillating between 10/15 and 10/10 and headaches and strains are a thing of the past!
If I had not passed weeks doing nothing to improve my sight, it is absolutely sure that my vision would have been perfect now. It think that not praticing enough is the main thing that slows us down in our journey with that Bates method.
I think Alexndre makes a good point. 80 years ago there wasn't such a culture of saving time by doing things quick and accomplishing something by doing exercises for a few minutes a day (Bowflex, 3 Minute Abs, etc.). Everything is rushed, and people don't know how to slow down and take their time. There are many easy distractions now - TV, computer, hopping in the car and going pretty much anywhere. Stop ten times a day for even 5-10 minutes, then longer in the morning or evening, and you should see results. People just don't do that.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Subject: Dr. Bates 1912 study as a Ph.D. Doctoral thesis.
Martin> I agree that this needs to be researched -- perhaps someone's doctoral thesis.
Otis> I have been "involved" with some of this academic research. There is indeed a "failure" in this type of research. The issue is the political nature of a person who would propose a preventive study based on the leadership provided by Dr. Bates and Dr. Prentice. The Ph.D. candidate has already spent about $100,000 to get to his position (after a Masters). Now he must write a Ph.D. dissertation "topic" or outline. That outline will go to the "medical" review board. If the topic (prevention by Bates/Prentice) is not warmly received -- the topic is "black-balled". The result is that the Ph.D. candidate "wakes up" to this "reality", and chooses another topic. Would you put your $100,000 at risk for the "cause" of prevention. I would not, and I would not ask a Ph.D. student to do it either. That would be academic suicide. Don't expect any Bates research to develop from that source, but be wise enough to understand why there will not be any. This is the true source of "imagination blindness".
Martin> I'm interested in the work Dr. Bates did in the schools. Back then schoolkids had less stress. They also probably had less exposure to pollutants and ate more fruits and vegetables and spent much more time outside. Most of them had normal vision.
Otis> Way "back then", kids stayed on the farm. They did not start school until six -- if then. Futher, many would drop out to help on the farm. Most worked out doors. Futher a large percentage did not finish high school. Today we have kids taught to read in kindergarden, and now in PRE-kindergarden. And we expect that will have NO EFFECT on their refractive STATE??
Martin> Since most of Dr. Bates' student 'patients' are probably still alive, if their identities could be determined (easy enough, if we know which schools he worked in) then follow-up interviews could be done.
Otis> Almost 70 years later?
Martin, I am not disputing this. And I support a future PREVENTIVE effort similar to Bated 1913 study. But it was not science that killed Bates study, it was medical biase that caused the parents to complain that reading the Snellen caused "stress" and that was ASSUMED tobe harmful to the child's refraction. It wsa medcila "politics and "'fear" that killed his 1913 effort.
Otis> I have been "involved" with some of this academic research. There is indeed a "failure" in this type of research. The issue is the political nature of a person who would propose a preventive study based on the leadership provided by Dr. Bates and Dr. Prentice. The Ph.D. candidate has already spent about $100,000 to get to his position (after a Masters). Now he must write a Ph.D. dissertation "topic" or outline. That outline will go to the "medical" review board. ... Don't expect any Bates research to develop from that source, but be wise enough to understand why there will not be any. This is the true source of "imagination blindness".
Otis, Thanks for the responses. I agree with you. But the research could be done in other than the medical fields - psychology or ergonomics for two.
Otis> Way "back then", kids stayed on the farm. They did not start school until six -- if then. Futher, many would drop out to help on the farm. Most worked out doors. Futher a large percentage did not finish high school. Today we have kids taught to read in kindergarden, and now in PRE-kindergarden. And we expect that will have NO EFFECT on their refractive STATE??
I absolutely agree!
Martin> Since most of Dr. Bates' student 'patients' are probably still alive, ... follow-up interviews could be done.
Otis> Almost 70 years later?
Point well, taken, but, yes, many of the original students or those in the classrooms could still be alive. What grade levels were used back then? When was the last effort stopped?
Otis>Martin, I am not disputing this. And I support a future PREVENTIVE effort similar to Bates' 1913 study. But it was not science that killed Bates study, it was medical bias that caused the parents to complain that reading the Snellen caused "stress" and that was ASSUMED to be harmful to the child's refraction. It was medical "politics and "'fear" that killed his 1913 effort.[/quote]
I totally agree. But I think the time may be very ripe for another attempt.
Subject: Dr. Bates successful preventive study in 1913.
Re: That was shut down because the majority-opinion medical community "scared" the parents.
I think that study ran for about two to three years. But the school board was afraid of the parents, and they did not want to be put in the "position" of "practicing medicine", so the effort was shut down.
As to what happened to each kid in his study -- I doubt that you could find any.
Further, the "knowlege" as to what happens when you put a kid in a strong minus -- DID NOT EXIST.
Today, almost 100 years later, we can answer that question.
There eyes almost universally go DOWN. Thus Bates was right to attempt to "stop" entry, and the majority-opinion was WRONG to kill Dr. Bates effort through "fear" with no proof.
But, in the las 50 years, scientific studies show what happens. Check this site and scan down to the picture of the refractive STATE of kids -- once they get a strong minus lens:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html">http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html</a><!-- m -->
I don't care if you "believe" in Bates or not. But this graph is very accurate and should be part of a study in 2013 to STOP this problem before it starts.
Definitely the culture and society we were born into.
I'm certain if someone born in a medieval forest setting with little to do could benefit much faster than any of us. Even if that person was born in the 21st century. It's also probable that if we ourselves stopped worrying, stressing and trying to speed things up with economic progress, we may make more progress in health itself.
Otis,
If we could identify the children, then many of them would have had children of their own who would still be alive and who would remember things about their parents - such as whether they wore glasses. I'm getting excited about the possibility of finding and interviewing them. Did those who became parents pass along the Bates Method to their children? That is a very intriguing question.
JMartin
otis Wrote:Dear Martin,
Subject: Dr. Bates successful preventive study in 1913.
Re: That was shut down because the majority-opinion medical community "scared" the parents.
I think that study ran for about two to three years. But the school board was afraid of the parents, and they did not want to be put in the "position" of "practicing medicine", so the effort was shut down.
As to what happened to each kid in his study -- I doubt that you could find any.
Further, the "knowlege" as to what happens when you put a kid in a strong minus -- DID NOT EXIST.
Today, almost 100 years later, we can answer that question.
There eyes almost universally go DOWN. Thus Bates was right to attempt to "stop" entry, and the majority-opinion was WRONG to kill Dr. Bates effort through "fear" with no proof.
But, in the las 50 years, scientific studies show what happens. Check this site and scan down to the picture of the refractive STATE of kids -- once they get a strong minus lens:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html">http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html</a><!-- m -->
I don't care if you "believe" in Bates or not. But this graph is very accurate and should be part of a study in 2013 to STOP this problem before it starts.
Subject: Kids -- and their "rememberance" of Bates.
Otis,
If we could identify the children, then many of them would have had children of their own who would still be alive and who would remember things about their parents - such as whether they wore glasses.
Otis> Good idea -- except that his 1913 study was forgotten by all. Kids don't have any interest in this work.
Otis> Even today, after I suggested that a child NOT be put into a strong minus (with 20/60 vision) the OD monitoring the covernstaion INSISTED that if you did not "correct" the child with a strong minus for full-time use -- this would CAUSE bi-lateral amblyopia. To my knowledge there is no clinical proof for that statement. But you could always charge Dr. Bates with "causing" amblyopia by NOT puting the kid into a strong minus.
I'm getting excited about the possibility of finding and interviewing them.
Otis> Good luck!
Did those who became parents pass along the Bates Method to their children? That is a very intriguing question.
Otis> But it would be very "expensive" to find the answer.
Interviews with dr Bateâs patients if done in the 1950âs, 1960âs when those people could remember how they practiced the techniques would be a âgold mineâ.
Unfortunately this did not happen.
Here is a photo of Meir Schneider together with a former patient of dr Bates (bottom page).
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.self-healing.org/navigation/instructors/meir-schneider/">http://www.self-healing.org/navigation/ ... schneider/</a><!-- m -->
I have also thought about this one. i think it comes down to working out what exactly is he prescribing in his methods. After all, most people can't give directios for addresses to save their lives (the Irish version being: I wouldn't start from here if I were you).
Bates book has been confusing for me: dense and full of incident but hard to come to grips with. You feel like you are interpreting sacred scripture or reading about medieval miracle cures. My experience was to ask myself: where do I start? Then try one thing and then another, without giving much time and without any result. So you put the book down and say to yourself: I must read that again some time. I mean what exactly does he mean by palming, but imagination or memory? And it's all perfect sight this, perfect memory that - you'd need 20/20 to even start reading it surely? And the stories are like miracle cures told by a medieval monk for all the relevance they seem to have to you. (talking for myself here) Sea monsters and mythical beasts.
This topic coming up again seems a bit of a coincidence in the light of the following.
I mentioned earlier that I found a link for on Sorrisi's site for a Bates fairy tale â <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.central-fixation.com/better-eyesight-magazine/better-eyesight-1924-02.php">http://www.central-fixation.com/better- ... 924-02.php</a><!-- m -->
Don't know if hte link will come out.
I look out of my office window and rest my eyes upon a sign that says Brook Lodge Hotel. I imagine at the same time that I am back in my house and looking at a small black fairy standing next to an egg cup on the table. When I say 'imagine' it feels much more like remembering it as I am of course very familiar with my kitchen/living room. I am back at home looking at the fairy. All the while my eyes are resting on the sign. That's it.
It's just that earlier attempts at imagining didn't work for me, nor anything with my eyes closed. Assembling an image Frankenstein-like is no good. But for me actually putting myself in my own living room looking at an actual, real-life fairy is something else. A fairy moreover who demands that I keep her company at regular intervals and who tells me to shut up and just watch! And I do as I have been told as I have made a commitment. (This probably sounds bizarre.)
What happens is that when I imagine the fairy, often just a glimpse, the letters clear up. Then the imagined image goes. So I start again and again. Now, finally, I think I know what Bates meant in his chapter on memory (or the following one on imagination) about being "on the horns of a dilemma" and it's a dilemma I like.
I feel like a mythical beast has stepped through the door and introduced himself. So it's a fair deduction that all the other "monsters" are real too.
I'll just add that I really value the posts here where people go into detail as to what exactly they ahve been doing in their methods. (I value all the posts here, I hasten to add.)
I'll just add one more thing while I'm at it. Lest I forget how it was when starting out on this a couple of years ago, the biggest question I had then was: is this real at all? And in the current climate it was quite difficult to convince myself that there was anything in it. The quicker someone new to the methods sees concrete results it stands to reason the more likely they are to stick with it.
The value of "I-Blindness" is that you get many opinions. The difficulty is that you must pick the 'right one'.
Dr. Bates had the guts to "buck the system". For that reason, his 1913 study was SHUT DOWN. However difficult it may be, I think we should look at other "minus lens objectors" of that time and BUILD and effective preventive study. I believe that is possible, but in todays "climate" it proves to be impossible. I think we should all understand the reason why a Bates-type study is impossible.
Sean> I'll just add that I really value the posts here where people go into detail as to what exactly they ahve been doing in their methods. (I value all the posts here, I hasten to add.)
Otis> I do also.
Sean> I'll just add one more thing while I'm at it. Lest I forget how it was when starting out on this a couple of years ago, the biggest question I had then was: is this real at all? And in the current climate it was quite difficult to convince myself that there was anything in it. The quicker someone new to the methods sees concrete results it stands to reason the more likely they are to stick with it.
Otis> "...is prevention real at all"? That was my question. What is it going to take for me to avoid entry into myopia. There are people who say that Bates book is "...hard to read". Well maybe.
Otis> But what you must look at is not what he SAID so much, but what he attempted to accomplish.
Otis> His study INSISTED that these kids at 20/50 to 20/70, read their Snellens.
Otis> Thus for all reading this site -- I strongly recommend that you do exactly that. If there is one "method" -- that is the one used in the 1913 study.
Otis> So that is EXACTLY HOW I SUPPORT DR. BATES.
Otis> Looking towards the future. When will we run the study? 2013? 2053?
Otis> Just try to ask the National Eye Institute to review this.
Otis> They have not "referenced" Bates in the last 50 years. Talk about "imagination blindness".
