Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Success with Bates method -- from -8 diopters
#1
Here is a complete discussion of how Sassi cleared her vision from -8 diopters to reasonable-normal.

For anyone working with Bates methods -- i is a good education.


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sassisailor.wordpress.com/">http://sassisailor.wordpress.com/</a><!-- m -->

Enjoy,

Otis
Reply
#2
Thanks for the link, Otis. Smile It's encouraging to read about someone's progress, especially when it's hard to find success stories for people with moderate to severe myopia.

I'm new here, and I prefer to lurk a bit and read before posting to a new board. Since I don't have a success story to begin with, it is best I give a bit of a backstory before starting a whole thread about it.

- - - - - - - -
I've worn glasses since I was 6 for myopia. I mostly spent time indoors due to being an introvert and all. I dutifully wore my glasses for everything. Probably the only good thing was that my optometrist at the time was consciously under-prescribing my glasses. At some point, it was so bad that I was gaining a diopter per year in my early teens. My left eye developed severe astigmatism as well. It finally slowed down as I reached my early 20's. Despite what all my eye doctors (optometrists) said, my prescription has not stabilized when I reached around 18 or 19. It still continues to fluctuate. That aroused a suspicion for me to research alternate ways of improving my vision because what all the doctors told me didn't make logical sense in a consistent or predictive manner.

I'm now 24 and have finished my bachelor's degree a couple of years ago. I've been aware of the Bates method along with other alternate methods of vision improvement for the past 4 years or so. I've tried not wearing glasses as much as possible. I only wear them when I need to drive, watch TV, or read small letters far away (like a menu on the wall). During my last year of college, I tried to not wear my glasses except for reading notes on the board. I did experience some improvement especially when walking outside in the sunshine. Even if there wasn't that great an improvement overall, I felt much more confident walking outside, exercising, and doing house tasks like cooking without any refractive correction.

My prescription from another optometrist 3 years ago was -6.00 x -2.00 x 05 / -4.25 x 2.50 x 1.75. I convinced her to give me a weaker prescription for "computer glasses." She added a diopter to the lens making it -5.00 x -2.00 x 05 / -3.25 x -2.50 x 1.75. She also kept pushing me to do LASIK, saying I was a "perfect candidate." I politely pointed out to her that my astigmatism and moderately high myopia added complications in undergoing surgery. I was familiar with surgicaleyes.org as well as my dad's results from his LASEK procedure, but I kept quiet about it and didn't mention it to her. My dad sees well in the daytime, but he has a lot of light sensitivity and some night vision problems. He underwent the surgery at 50, and continues to do well with it overall (so he says). He's 62 now.

Recently I went to an ophthalmologist for an eye exam. He found that my right cornea is too thin for "safe" LASIK surgery. Not that I wanted to do the surgery, but it was good to know that someone actually bothered to test for these sorts of things before pushing refractive surgery on me. He said I might be able to undergo LASEK/PRK; however, I haven't stabilized in my prescription at all so he said it would be better to wait. i mentioned to him that I felt the current glasses (the -5.00 / -3.25 pair) felt a bit too much at times, even when driving the car. I was interested in finding any differences in my current prescription. He found after measuring my vision several times with the optometry machine (including with dilation) that my current prescription is -7.25 x 1.75 x 0.95 / -6.00 x 1.75 x 0.70

No signs of glaucoma. He warned me about the signs of retinal detachment due to the myopia increase. I have floaters, but they tend to be mostly translucent and not that many. I tried poking him for a reduced prescription. Unfortunately, he said he doesn't believe in such things. He says people my age can accommodate full strength at near and medium distances.

Well, there's always the internet for getting a pair of glasses. ;D

Reading case studies like the blog above gives me hope, and motivation to try establishing better habits. I've got a PDF copy of Bates' book from iblindness.org. There is no excuse for not going ahead and trying the exercises. I wouldn't bother discussing Bates or any alternate methods with any conventional eye doctor. My family is also skeptical/negative about my improvement as well, but they've been trying to push refractive surgery (LASIK) on me for some time (thanks to my dad's "success").

That was a bit long, but it's a relief to share my story with an understanding group of people. Smile
Reply
#3
Dear Friend,

Subject: Dr. Bates and the "stuggle" for prevention.

Thanks for your write-up.

You case is very similar to my case.

I have only asked that the majority-opinion ODs provide preventive information -- by statating that the minus lens (has a serious problem with it.

They could tell your parents that you are at 20/40 to 20/60, and at that stage you can get out of it. But that it takes understanding, work and commitment.

The problem is that they think that Dr. Bates was a fraud, and his 1913 study was a failure.

I don't know what to suggest to you, but Sassie Sailor did an incredible job.

For myself, I had a cataract develop, and there was no choice but to replace the lens. That is draconian -- but it works.

There are too many ODs who think that the minus is perfect, and perfectly wonderful. I don't.

I think it should have a warning on it -- and we should help prevention-minded ODs by paying them to help us.

That has not happened yet -- so I fight for the day when it will.

Best,

Otis
Reply
#4
otis Wrote:There are too many ODs who think that the minus is perfect, and perfectly wonderful. I don't.

I think it should have a warning on it -- and we should help prevention-minded ODs by paying them to help us.

That has not happened yet -- so I fight for the day when it will.
I agree wholeheartedly, Otis. Thanks for your kind reply.

What angers me the most about my situation is how no one ever mentioned that those minus lens were not for near work. I am happy to know better now to slow down and hopefully reverse my current condition. Nonetheless, I've read on various internet forums how parents try to find cures for their children's deteriorating eyesight from myopia. Some of these kids have stronger prescriptions at the age of 6 than I do now. It is a tragedy that so few professionals who know the dangers of minus lens are ethical enough to educate others about the situation.

It's so good that people like you, David, and others are using the internet's open publishing format to get the information across to those who need to know.
Reply
#5
catsup Wrote:My prescription from another optometrist 3 years ago was -6.00 x -2.00 x 05 / -4.25 x 2.50 x 1.75.

Recently I went to an ophthalmologist for an eye exam. He found after measuring my vision several times with the optometry machine (including with dilation) that my current prescription is -7.25 x 1.75 x 0.95 / -6.00 x 1.75 x 0.70

Just so you know, the two prescriptions are written in different forms, the first one in minus cyl, the second in plus cyl. To compare both in minus cyl form:

Your three year old prescription:
R -6.00 -2.00 x 005
L -4.25 -2.50 x 175

Your newer:
R -5.50 -1.75 x 005
L -4.25 -1.75 x 150

So they are both similar and your eyes likely have stabilized.

Judy
Reply
#6
Judyb Wrote:Just so you know, the two prescriptions are written in different forms, the first one in minus cyl, the second in plus cyl.
Thanks for pointing it out, Judy. And here I thought one of them made a typo when writing the refraction (silly me). :Smile

But that's great news! Whatever things I've done (not wear my glasses except for driving and wore a less powerful pair) haven't increased the progression of my myopia to a considerable degree. I never used the glasses with the full -6.00 / -4.25 prescription, but opted for the less powerful -5.00 x -2.00 x 05 / -3.25 x -2.50 x 1.75 for driving and far work instead.

A sceptic would say I simply "grew" into that refractive state by now given my age, and I've fallen over attributing it to the wrong causes. But the numbers are there either way: not as bad I misunderstood.

Thanks again. Smile
Reply

TEST YOUR VISION AT HOME!
- Free Eye Chart PDFs

  • 20 ft, 10 ft, and Near Vision Charts
  • Letters Calibrated to Correct Printed Size
Download Now