I am now thinking that this method should not be promoted to anyone under the age of 21. The world has changed a lot since Dr. Bates's time. Siince the method is not by any means instantaneous - like lenses are - anyone trying the method runs the risk of being unsafe in any number of activities - many if not most of which are far more dangerous than they were in Dr. Bates's time. Adults are free to assume that risk. Children, however, are not. Therefore I will no longer respond to any inquiries from anyone under the age of 21. Not that I'm an expert or anything.
JMartinC4 Wrote:I am now thinking that this method should not be promoted to anyone under the age of 21. The world has changed a lot since Dr. Bates's time. Siince the method is not by any means instantaneous - like lenses are - anyone trying the method runs the risk of being unsafe in any number of activities - many if not most of which are far more dangerous than they were in Dr. Bates's time. Adults are free to assume that risk. Children, however, are not. Therefore I will no longer respond to any inquiries from anyone under the age of 21. Not that I'm an expert or anything.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject of this thread. Nonetheless it is a very valid concern. But people of any age are not free to put others at risk, such as by driving a car with uncorrected vision. In fact, I see that as a very good reason why younger children should be given a chance to try the Bates method. If they either succeed or give up by the time they start driving, that's not a concern. But if someone who drives finds out about the Bates method and concludes that corrective lenses must not be worn.....
Subject: Responsibility -- to help your child and yourself.
Martin> I am now thinking that this method should not be promoted to anyone under the age of 21.
Otis> I have suggested -- in a "better" study -- that it should be promoted with "entering" college students at 20/60 to 20/70 and -1.5 diopters.
This would be very similar to Bates 1913 study -- but the students would be taught to make their own measurements, i.e., BOTH their Snellen and refractive STATUS. I am doing it now -- I would expect a 17 year old student to do the same. I would also expect (as per 1913) that after about six to nine months they would see their Snellens clear to read the 20/40 line clearly. They could then go pass the state DMV test -- and DISCARD THEIR MINUS LENS -- which whas Dr. Bates thesis.
Thus they would be SAFE to drive a car -- and CONFIRMED by the DMV. What more could you ask for?
Martin> The world has changed a lot since Dr. Bates's time. Siince the method is not by any means instantaneous - like lenses are - anyone trying the method runs the risk of being unsafe in any number of activities - many if not most of which are far more dangerous than they were in Dr. Bates's time.
Otis> Dangerous?? Wearing an over-prescribed minus lens is dangerous. This was in Bates FIRST PARAGRAPH. If you use the minus, "pseudo myopia" coverts to "permanent" myopia. This is why prevention (by Bates/Prentice methods) is so very important. But you are correct. It is not "instantenous". That is indeed the "problem" of these preventive measures.
Martin>Adults are free to assume that risk.
Otis> Yes, I understand. An educated student of science at age 17 can "assume the risk" -- if any -- for Bates/Prentice methods. A child can not. Where to you "darw the line?
Children, however, are not. Therefore I will no longer respond to any inquiries from anyone under the age of 21. Not that I'm an expert or anything.
Otis> But you will find that ODs/MDS support their own chilren with these methods -- that the public seems to hate.
I'm 16 and decided to hold off on learning to drive for a while, but if I do decide to drive before I succeed at Bates, I would certainly wear glasses for it. Bates is just like any other health decision kids my age make, along with drinking alcohol and dieting, though not as dangerous.
I also think that wearing glasses is much more dangerous. I am very free to say it as I have experienced this myself.
My turning head was very limitied. And turning your head is very important in driving, and moving head adn eyes in many different directions is much more important then looking straight only to see distant details. The instructors here in driving test emphasise this a lot when drivign a driving exam, we have to be turning head a lot and looking into mirros. All this is interfiered by glasses.
If you have in mind there is more of vision then what current ODs are focusing on. There is linear and spatial vision. They mostly focus on linear vision, seeing details in distances. But I would say the spatial vision is also very much important especialy when you move with a high speed. In my life I see driving as only risk activity. And noticed that without glasses I feel much more confident behind the weel. Glasses were making me feel of loosing balance. Also, turning the eye much behind the shoulder was limited and hard to do, eating energy.
And there is one important thing that I noticed when first time heard about long swing. I noticed my brain just blacks out while moving head in between start and end point. I am switching off until I come to the other side.
After I refereshed my memories from when I started wearing glasses I remembered I had feeling like some force is pushing my eyes and eventually I started not using eyes while head is moving and switch on only when the head is still. In head moving while having glasses on I would lose balance, and even could be feeling sick in stomack, the picture gets very distorted. -- And this is not good while driving.
I know also with glasses I would be slow to return my vision back to the road if I look aside.
All these functions improved since I am not wearing glasses. And long swing is helping me to learn to keep vision ON while turning the head, and have that movement in opposite direction feeling.
So, I would say go for those lower prescription glasses, to remove the blur, but just enough to cover legal obligations of 20/40. And do not wear glasses wherever you are safe.
FlowerPower - Sorry, but it really sounds like you shouldn't be doing any driving at all. Unless you are driving where there aren't any other drivers or pedestrians?! It is dangerous enough out there without lens-less myopes fooling themselves regarding how much better and safer they drive when they can't see very well. Please reconsider before you hit someone. Keep your glasses very handy at least. O0 ??? :o
FlowerPower Wrote:
I also think that wearing glasses is much more dangerous. I am very free to say it as I have experienced this myself.
My turning head was very limitied. And turning your head is very important in driving, and moving head adn eyes in many different directions is much more important then looking straight only to see distant details. The instructors here in driving test emphasise this a lot when drivign a driving exam, we have to be turning head a lot and looking into mirros. All this is interfiered by glasses.
If you have in mind there is more of vision then what current ODs are focusing on. There is linear and spatial vision. They mostly focus on linear vision, seeing details in distances. But I would say the spatial vision is also very much important especialy when you move with a high speed. In my life I see driving as only risk activity. And noticed that without glasses I feel much more confident behind the weel. Glasses were making me feel of loosing balance. Also, turning the eye much behind the shoulder was limited and hard to do, eating energy.
And there is one important thing that I noticed when first time heard about long swing. I noticed my brain just blacks out while moving head in between start and end point. I am switching off until I come to the other side.
After I refereshed my memories from when I started wearing glasses I remembered I had feeling like some force is pushing my eyes and eventually I started not using eyes while head is moving and switch on only when the head is still. In head moving while having glasses on I would lose balance, and even could be feeling sick in stomack, the picture gets very distorted. -- And this is not good while driving.
I know also with glasses I would be slow to return my vision back to the road if I look aside.
All these functions improved since I am not wearing glasses. And long swing is helping me to learn to keep vision ON while turning the head, and have that movement in opposite direction feeling.
So, I would say go for those lower prescription glasses, to remove the blur, but just enough to cover legal obligations of 20/40. And do not wear glasses wherever you are safe.
Martin, sorry if I have confused you , I am reading 6/15 since some couple of months ago, and am half on 6/12 which authorises me to drive without glasses. And initially I had come down from strong contact lenses to glasses, for driving only, until I got into 6/15 line. And there is where I noticed difference. And now feel pretty much "licenced" to talk about differences of when you live under glasses and under sky!
I am having my glasses with me all the time in case I need them. I am doing follow up with my doctor and interesting thing is that when I read I am confident on 6/15 and going half to 6/12 line but when they measure my dioptry by putting on different lenses, etc. I still come to -0.5 sph and cyl, similar to what I was (only this is for driving)
So, this proves that there is more to vision then reading small letters on 6m distance.
The other new thing in my exams is that I can concsiously clear my vision.
I blink, breathe, close my eyes and open, and it clears. I think we should ask doctor to be slower and also to take the best reading, because if you can read you can read, there is no average.
I was definitivelly less confident behind the weel when I was wearing glasses, but I think that was making me more causious. I didn't have any accidents so far, and know a few persons with very good vision that had bad accidents under their fault.
And in other areas of life, people wiht bad vision are achieving very high results, (as you are talking on the other post about your family's successes), me personaly as well. But this vision thing is about effortless seeing, effortless learning, effortless living. It is about HOW you live your life, how much you enjoy., etc.
I am aslo not so high in this and can't give you definite answer, but I have good book by Liberman in my hands now, and he also mentions how we see from within. I am very eager to read it now, maybe I'll give you better comments after that!
Just to add, when I got my son's diagnosis of very high astigmatism, I started asking myself how is he feeling, now these natural vision teachers are all proving that I was right, and vision is linked to feelings, etc.... this is where my concerns are. if it was good, maybe it could have been better! maybe you could give more, maybe you could help more to others...
Also, to add I have more ideas at work, I am moro easily going to test my new ideas and I do it quicker, because I focus less on "hard work" but just go and do it. You know, this is very subtle and hard to explain, but I can't igore this is happening. Maybe as time will pass I will be more confident to say "yes, this was because of improving my vision, my brain funcioning also improved, my integration of left-right brain imporved"
And look at you, in your commenting me, you are acting as typical myopic - focusing on negative. Have you give me support for new, have you noticed I am now more confident behind the weel, NO. I think this is new we need to change.
(Sorry if this is hurting your feelings, but I am the same, and am trying to change this) As someone on this forum mentioned - the good vision people will at some point imagine themselves as winner in some situation and make them feel better and forget about the whole thing. that's it, move on.
it is more about feeling and effort you put into everything you are doing.
Flower! I didn't mean to sound mean. I sincerely feel friendly towards everyone who sincerely posts here. I enjoy reading your posts and your progress in this journey which I now feel is a unifying journey for all of us. I do want to emphasize that people shouldn't be looking for quick reversals at the expense of safety or a 'normal' life. Thanks for communicating with me.
JMartin
I've recently been thinking a lot about the safety aspect. Once your nearsightedness is to the point where virtually nothing is clear, going without glasses or contacts is dangerous, period. Certainly far less dangerous when you're on your feet and in familiar surroundings, but there is still a risk of not noticing or not being conscious of something which could become a hazard. All it takes is one time. We can tell people to wear glasses when safety is an issue, but safety is always an issue to some degree. My conclusion is that moderate-to-high myopes generally should not be encouraged to try the Bates method. If they're really motivated they will anyway, and that's fine.
Daniel, I agree with you on the safety issue. Obviously, it's a bit subjective and it depends largely on just how bad one's myopia is.
That said, I think it's safe to say that most of the people who even bother to create an account on these forums and make a post asking for help are pretty motivated already, to some degree. I don't think there's a need to discourage them by saying that they have no chance. There is nothing wrong with saying that those with severe myopia are serious underdogs, but to say there is no way they can improve seems too absolute, and is probably untrue.
I also want to point out that the Bates method leads to more things than just vision improvement. I have learned stress management, acceptance, questioning conventional "wisdom", etc. On that level, I think that the Bates method is something that should be promoted. Maybe not everyone will succeed, but I think everyone can at least learn a little something about who they are as they go about their journey. I think that myopes need to at least give it a try, or else they'll never know what could come of it.
