Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CentralFixation/ClearFlashStimulatingBiofeedbackDevice
#1
I just want to report continuing gradual improvement, control and reversal of my nearsightedness due primarily (hopefully - there could be other explanations I guess) to daily use of my biofeedback setup as a suplement to the Bates Method. Also, my picasa site shows well over 50 visits/views of the devices as setup on my desk (although they are actually positioned at arms length about 30 degrees forward in my periphery); I am hoping to hear back from anyone who may have decided to try (or even considered trying) this method. I want to discuss its use and efficacy. :Smile Smile :o 8)
Reply
#2
Oh I found it.

I would like to get started, but I lack the willpower to do a search for it on Google or Picasa. It sounds interesting, and I'm sure everything works to some degree. And if one was convinced enough to think that it works, shouldn't it work?
Reply
#3
You shouldn't have to search - just click on the link. My office setup lately includes three of the 'devices' - one centered, one to the left periphery, and one to the right periphery.
Summer Wrote:Oh I found it.

I would like to get started, but I lack the willpower to do a search for it on Google or Picasa. It sounds interesting, and I'm sure everything works to some degree. And if one was convinced enough to think that it works, shouldn't it work?
Reply
#4
Oh it's a mystery I missed that. I don't normally even glance at signatures.
Reply
#5
Smile ??? 8) "THANK ME SO MUCH' for what exactly? Did you make a device and experience a clear flash? That would be great. O0

slenderlittleone Wrote:THANK YOU SO MUCHmake money from home
Reply
#6
JMartin,

I wanted to drop in and say I believe there is something to the idea behind your device.

While I haven't tried it exactly as you described yet (but plan to), something happened by accident which I think was a similar effect:

I was looking at the floor/wall and there was an LED night light plugged into the wall nearby. The room was mostly dark except some ambient light coming in from another room, so this nightlight was seeming kind of bright, almost like a glare. It wasn't far from where I was looking, so it was somewhere near the center of my vision, but not exactly in the center. Maybe halfway out from the center? Anyway -- I'm looking at some stuff near the nightlight and I noticed my vision get noticably clearer.

I have to mess with this some more, as well as trying your device again. I tried it before but I don't think I had the lighting just right, or at the right angle.

But then this thing with the nightlight just happened by accident. And the more I played with it, the clearer the vision got, to a point where it just stopped improving and I gave it a break.

So I wanted to let you know, if the "glare" of the nightlight was producing a similar effect to the light reflecting from the CD's, a "glare" effect, then I do believe there's something to what you say. Please keep playing with it & let us know how it goes.

Thanks
Reply
#7
liquidlight Wrote:JMartin,
I wanted to drop in and say I believe there is something to the idea behind your device.
While I haven't tried it exactly as you described yet (but plan to), something happened by accident which I think was a similar effect:
I was looking at the floor/wall and there was an LED night light plugged into the wall nearby. The room was mostly dark except some ambient light coming in from another room, so this nightlight was seeming kind of bright, almost like a glare. It wasn't far from where I was looking, so it was somewhere near the center of my vision, but not exactly in the center. Maybe halfway out from the center? Anyway -- I'm looking at some stuff near the nightlight and I noticed my vision get noticably clearer.
I have to mess with this some more, as well as trying your device again. I tried it before but I don't think I had the lighting just right, or at the right angle.
But then this thing with the nightlight just happened by accident. And the more I played with it, the clearer the vision got, to a point where it just stopped improving and I gave it a break.
So I wanted to let you know, if the "glare" of the nightlight was producing a similar effect to the light reflecting from the CD's, a "glare" effect, then I do believe there's something to what you say. Please keep playing with it & let us know how it goes.
Thanks
liquid - I waited a while to respond to your post because I wanted more people to read it. It is very, very similar to my experience(s) and I was happy to read it. Thank you for sharing. I'm not sure what year you were born - but I believe there is a qualitative difference in the visual development of those of us born before 1956 (and subjected to the neonatal silver nitrate treatments) and those born after (and subjected to other antibiotics). However, as the decades have gone on, more babies' parents have themselves been poor-visioned to begin with, which may be worse than receiving the caustic prolonged-effect of silver nitrate when one or both parents are still clear-visioned. I don't know - yet. I wish I was a super-genius or independently wealthy or free of responsibilities, but I am not. I'm therefore unable to pursue this as vigorously as it deserves. That makes me somewhat frustrated and sad. Positive responses from the people on this site are the only encouragement I've gotten so far. Thank you.
:-\ Smile
Reply
#8
Hi everyone!
I have clear flashes even more easily when I drive and the sun is shining directly in my eyes. (From the side window of my car, as an example)
I don't know exactly what makes it so easy to have good sight when the eye is exposed to such an amount of light, but it works well! Using your cd and a snellen test card to check exactly what you shoud (or shouldn't) do would probably be very useful to gain some improvement.

JMartinC4, I'm born in 1990, so I should probably not use my eyes to read what you write, but since many persons have perfect sight, even if they had any substance in the eyes, I can't say that there is a big link with imperfect sight but, still I agree that I would be better to not have received such substance in the eyes. Remember how Bates worked: If there is any exception to a theory, it doesn't work, so I believe that stress/strain/problems are a much more important cause of imperfect sight.
Reply
#9
Alexndre Wrote:I can't say that there is a big link with imperfect sight but, still I agree that I would be better to not have received such substance in the eyes. Remember how Bates worked: If there is any exception to a theory, it doesn't work, so I believe that stress/strain/problems are a much more important cause of imperfect sight.

Sorry, but that logic doesn't actually work. There are always exceptions.

Example: Just because drug X may only cause death as a side effect in a small number of people, does not mean the drug does not cause death.
Reply
#10
I'm with Alexandre, the wise youngster. One counter-example disproves the theory -- one person who got the dreaded neo-natal drops who can see clearly is all it takes. People of all ages, even infants, can recover from strain. JMartinC4, I'm glad this theory is helping you improve, but I disagree that it's a major factor for most or even many people as a cause of poor eyesight.
Reply
#11
Nancy Wrote:I'm with Alexandre, the wise youngster. One counter-example disproves the theory -- one person who got the dreaded neo-natal drops who can see clearly is all it takes. People of all ages, even infants, can recover from strain. JMartinC4, I'm glad this theory is helping you improve, but I disagree that it's a major factor for most or even many people as a cause of poor eyesight.
Do you always disagree with ideas before they're tested - or just my ideas? One counter-example of an untested theory doesn't disprove anything, and your example doesn't disprove anything about my full theory. Plenty of people who have tried Dr. Bates' methods have had no success. Does that mean his methods are incorrect?
From previous posts, I know you agree that normal newborns have normal eyesight. Why does it become blurry?
How do you explain the increasing prevalence and progressive worsening of myopia?
Would you agree that most Americans have one eye with worse vision than the other? If you don't like my theory of why that might be, what is your alternative?
If you look into the history of science, before the industrial age and for most of its infancy, most highly educated people were not myopic. Now I think the 4-eyed science nerd is a well-known and accepted observation. Why?
But if you don't believe my theory of how a lot of children probably become myopic under stress due to latent (or continuiung) imprinted unconscious memories of blur-acceptance, and visual misalignment, caused by neonatal antibiotics and their unequal instillation and subsequent lack of proper visual training, what theory of myopic etiology do you subscribe to? Opthalmolgy itself doesn't know what causes it! Yet they refuse to believe Bates Methods can reverse it. My theory does not contradict Dr. Bates' theory; it verifies and improves it.
Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west or is that just a nice illusion?
If lenses (continually) alter the angle of the surrounding light to fit the myopic person (Opthalmology thinks it's just the eyeballs), why can't the person learn to (continually) alter their own visual angle to fit the surrounding light instead? I think that is what the Bates Methods actually accomplish in the end.
I remain convinced of the truth and efficacy of my insights and supplements to the Bates Methods for anyone who received neonatal eye antibiotics.
Smile 8) O0
Reply
#12
Actually, Dr Bates writes that all infants' vision changes very much from one day to the next. According to his observations, one day may be myopic then hypermetropic the next, and so on.
Reply
#13
Andrea Major Wrote:Actually, Dr Bates writes that all infants' vision changes very much from one day to the next. According to his observations, one day may be myopic then hypermetropic the next, and so on.
Dang right - the silver nitrate treatment renders the infant's vision a complete and completely unequal blur for up to 72 hours! I guess my theory is still on track!
(I don't get it - why do some supposed Bates Method followers seem very intent on disproving an untested theory which primarily bolsters and verifies the use of the Bates Methods? Why wouldn't they instead or at least simultaneously be offering examples that confirm aspects of the 'new' untested theory? A completely free theory based on facts and discoveries, which connects and updates the history of natural vision improvement, and is forthrightly given in a positive manner. To me, they seem jealous, maybe angry, incurious and somewhat snotty. And I'm not sure why.)
Smile 8) O0
Reply

Perfect Sight Without Glasses free download