Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia
2xtreme2fit Wrote:Nope.
??? Yo no comprendo. Porque?
I have been noticing for a few weeks now a difference in types of blur that I am gaining control over. The 'original' blur is one that seems to have nothing to do with my eyes - it's just there, all the time, all-encompassing, and I'm gradually improving my ability to clear it up using the Batesian methods and improvements. The newer blur is accompanied by an actual physical sensation on my corneas as if coated with some viscous shmear, and is somewhat easier to hold onto and then dispel using some quick Batesian methods like blinking/shifting/headtilt/relaxation/central fixation, resulting in quick clear flashes/ing. The left eye is more shmeary than the right.

In analyzing this development, one thing seems very connected to it: my improved ability/consciousness of synchronizing the two eyes/pupils regardless of differential blur, and my belief in the root cause of neonatal eye antibiotics. Obviously if my theory is correct, what I have been achieving is increasing consciousness of the imprinted unconscious memory of the shmear of eye antibiotics, and I am 'picking up' with my visual development from there - using auto-biofeedback-learning methods (which happen to be extremely similar to the Bates Methods) to relax and train my eyes and visual system to (re)find the normal vision they were born with, which was disrupted by the unequal, mis-timed shmears from which I became unequally fixated at the nearpoint, and never received the necessary training or leadership to learn to unfixate from. (Probably not uncoincidentally, I just returned from a 6 day trip to Germany with my mother, probably the longest uninterrupted interaction I've had with her since birth.)

Now I have to DYI - do it myself - assisted unconsciously by interaction with clear-sighted people (like my mother). I am gradually unhypnotizing myself and retraining my visual system. It's working. But unlike the pitiful Little Red Hen who spitefully and greedily ate the whole cake that she had to bake all by herself because no one wanted to help, I am going to freely share my 'cake' with everyone, regardless. Because I love the truth and I love my fellow human beings. And we deserve better than nearpoint fixation disorder. It is hurting our ability to meaningfully communicate with each other. Neonatal eye antibiotics as a standard operating procedure desparately needs to be discontinued.
Keeping in mind that 'blur' is actually 'noise' in the visual system, I have progressed to the stage where I can differentiate between two kinds of blur/nearpoint fixation:
1. An overall, underlying, unconscious, mental, back-of-the-brain/occipital distance blur
2. A corneal/lens-related, eye-specific and visual angle-specific blur

In my case, it seems that the clear flashes of distance vision resulted from momentarily dislodging or arresting or dispelling the first kind of blur as a result primarily of palming, swinging, and sunning/biofeedback device training; which eventually (and relatively quickly after discovering and considering the probable root cause of neonatal eye antibiotics) resulted in overall postural and visual habit improvements and in ferreting out the 2nd type of blur, which is more localized and physically sensate, and responds to quick head/neck/torso shifting/shaking/tilting/blinking/breathing.

Interestingly, and completely in align with the backward chain conditioning theory of learning, it seems obvious to me now that the 2nd blur type was actually the blur/noise that I was subjected to in the first 60 minutes after birth and for many hours thereafter, resulting eventually in the 1st type which is more of a deep-seated imprinted illusion or a form of hypnosis.
I have read many excellent insightful posts on many topics. But returning to my theme, I have realized another piece of my NVI puzzle: I now need to 'lead off' with my worse eye when practicing any of the Bates Methods. The fact was, that I I had always been leading off with my better eye. It just seemed natural and I didn't even notice I was doing it. As a recent post stated, it is another aspect of NVI which seems counterintuitive. But leading off with the worse eye is exactly what I need to do now to continue developing clearer distance and overall vision.
I also just returned from a 3 day visit with my clear-sighted brother in law (age 65 - presbyopic) and clear-sighted friend from grade school (my age - not presbyopic either). We went night fishing, mushrooming and driving among other things.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... 8429575554</a><!-- m -->

In possibly the most illuminating discovery since the uncovering of the fact that probably 99% of all Americans born in US hospitals since the 1930's (and I guess probably 80% worldwide) received and are still receiving unequal and mistimed instillations of vision-blurring neonatal eye antibiotics within 60 minutes after their birth, I have today discovered a significant additional use of the above weblinked biofeedback device/setup.

Through trial and error and luck, by performing various versions of a short swing/shift back and forth between the two twin Snellen, with the biofeedback reflector device centered as shown, and shifting my attention/focus from left to right while looking at the opposite Snellen (i.e., both eyes open, look through left eye at righthand Snellen, then vice-versa, then centered looking between them), I have significantly improved my vision, increasing the clarity of the bottom three lines.

I combine this with the cross-eyed technique to produce the imaginary 3D Snellen between them.

I then hold a rectangular white object (I'm using an unopened package of daily calendar refills, looking at the white edge(s)) in front of the Snellen to gradualy cover and uncover them while short-swinging/shifting.

I think the method works to unify the varied blur input from the two eyes and informs the brain and then the mind that the two eyes are not working well together, and of what needs to happen to unify their input and produce a clear(er) stereoscopic image.

I still have to do all the other stuff - relax, sit up straight, blink correctly, relax, breathe, stretch eyebrows and eyelids to keep open and not bulge or disturb the tear film, relax, etcetera. And palming of course.

Possible drawback: Appearance/projection of a loose 'floater' (seen it before - looks like a shadowy reflection of my blindspot map - kind of like a snarled fishing line with a nasty knot in the middle) in my worse-visioned left eye's visual field has reasserted itself; it is controllable and goes away, but it's annoying. My left eye still wants a life of its own I guess ...
pseudo fovea (split from: notes on looking at details... with additions)
After reading clarknight's referenced pdf bookfile by Yarbus, and learning about pseudo foveas, (and Yarbus also discussed the 'sparkle' of reflected light off the corneas), I have greatly improved my localization of the reflected/projected blindspot map - and as I walked to my car and drove home I realized it is remarkably similar to an overcast sky dotted with a large gray cloud or two.
This leads me to believe that as a result of my experience with neonatal silver nitrate eye antibiotics, I created pseudo foveas, especially in my worse left eye, and was then left in the dark about how to overcome them and return to developing normal eyesight again.
This insight seems to be giving me increased awareness and control over the pseudo-foveal illusion. Holding the shadowy blindspotmap projection in my (especially) left field of vision allows me to re-find and re-use the true foveas, providing more frequent and prolonged flashes of clear(er) vision.
Also, now that I have better awareness of the location of my true foveas/maculas in relation to the blindspots, I am gaining additional control over my visual alignment and clear vision flashes.
Still diabolically difficult.
So, just when I think I have all the puzzle pieces, clarknight's Yarbus .pdf file shows me another.
It looks like this:
1. The Yarbus illustrations clearly show that the cones are about 2/3 the length of the rods.
2. The cones are densely packed into the fovea/macula where there are no rods.
3. The density of cones and rods is inversely proportional as the retina expands from the fovea/macula to the periphery of the retina. The further from the fovea, the fewer the cones and the denser the rods.
4. The fovea/macula therefore exists as a slight dented depression or a crater on the retina.
5. The fovea/macula is the only spot on the retina where clear distance vision (so-called 20/20 or better) can occur. This is because of the differing sensitivity of the color-oriented cones vs the contrast-oriented rods. THE FOCAL LENGTH TO REACH THOSE CONES IS LONGER THAN THE FOCAL LENGTH TO REACH ANY OTHER PART OF THE RETINA.
6. The Yarbus article discusses the [temporary or permanent] creation of 'pseudo foveas' in persons whose true foveas are prevented from being used - for instance after a head injury - or, in my opinion, after the instillation of neonatal eye antibiotics.
7. The pseudo foveas can be created located at positions slightly shifted from the true foveas, next to them but not on them, necessarily resulting in blurry distance vision. [Probably the further they are from the true foveas, the blurrier the distance vision.]
8. Given the unequal and mis-timed instillation methods, the locations of the pseudo foveas in each eye will be necessarily different, unlike the locations of the true foveas of the normal eyes. I.e., the worse visioned eye probably has a pseudo fovea located further from the true fovea than the better visioned eye's pseudo fovea.
9. The true foveas are located in the exact symmetrically opposite positions outside of and slightly above the blindspots. The false/pseudo foveas are probably not in alignment even with each other.
10. A flash of clear vision can occur when a person accidentally or purposefully or serendipitously manages to temporarily focus the incoming distance light onto the true fovea of either one or both eyes.
11. This is why Dr. Bates' methods work to improve eyesight: palming (allows the visual system to revert to pre-pseudofoveal state), swinging (unlocks and reverse pseudo foveal fixation), sunning (re-stimulates the true foveas), and shifting (further refines-stimulates the true foveas and ability to focus light on them).
11. Mental development is inextricably linked with sensory input. The mind resists using the true foveas because it has accepted using the false foveas as a necessary part of its development.
Improvements to Yesterday's Post:
4. The fovea/macula therefore exists as a slight[ly] dented depression or a crater on the retina.
8. Given the unequal and mis-timed instillation methods [for neonatal eye antibiotics], THE LOCATIONS OF THE PSEUDO FOVEAS IN EACH EYE WILL BE NECESSARILY DIFFERENT, unlike the locations of the true foveas of the normal eyes...
9. The true foveas [of normal eyes] are located in the exact symmetrically opposite positions outside of and slightly above the blindspots. THE FALSE/PSEUDO FOVEAS ARE PROBABLY NOT IN ALIGNMENT[,] EVEN WITH EACH OTHER. [Because they were created in response to varying stimuli, rather than by normal prenatal development.
10. The visual system is 'programmed' to use foveas for distance/detailed vision - it becomes re-programmed to use the pseudo foveas which are incapable of clear distance/detailed vision (but can discern close black/white print for instance), and are not located at the necessary focal points, yet train the mind/visual system to fixate at an incorrect focal length, waiting for the clear input which never comes. Worse than that, because of the unsymmetrical locations and unsynchronization of input, the visual system is prevented from developing normally.]
[11]. Mental development is inextricably linked with sensory input.
[12]. A flash of clear vision can occur when a person accidentally[,] purposefully or serendipitously manages to temporarily focus the incoming distance light onto the true fovea of either one or both eyes [while at that same instant simultaneously - accidentally, purposefully or serendipitously - directing the mental focus to the true foveal input.
13. Even after a flash of clear vision, the mind resists using the true foveas because it has accepted using the false foveas as a necessary part of its development [and considers itself already fully developed based partially if not largely on the input of the pseudo/false foveas].
1) I have always had negligible eyebrows. But last fall, around November 2009, I noticed that the center of each eyebrow was growing one particularly long eyebrow hair, such that I had to trim it to size. That made me think of other bushy eyebrowed people with good eyesight: Andy Rooney; Robert Frost; blah-blah-blah.
2) My cat has sometimes perceived my projected blindspot map and tried to pounce on it as if it was a spider or something. Then she gets weird and runs around like crazy. Then she stares at me in the eyes.
Happy Halloween!
OPINION: For anyone born before 1956, all other methods (other than my approach) are doomed to failure.
"Looking for detail' is useless unless and until the looker realizes they have to reconnect their mental focus with their true foveas - first in the worse eye, then unified with both eyes. It is diabolically difficult.
Interesting. What's special about 1956?
Pikachu Wrote:Interesting. What's special about 1956?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
According to Dr. Ronald Standler, the Doctor of Laws who researched and wrote the above legal essay on neonatal eye antibiotics, from the 1930's until 1956 the congressionally-mandated requirement was for ALL U.S. hospitals to administer, within 60 minutes after birth, a caustic 1% solution of silver nitrate as an antibiotic into the eyes of ALL babies born in any U.S. hospital. But there was no standardization of procedures or follow-up treatment to ensure the babies' vision isn't affected.
After 1956 the requirement was changed to allow other antibiotics such as penicillin, erythromicin and terramycin in ointment form. Still no standardization of procedures or follow-up. And the requirement still exists for ALL babies born in ALL U.S. hospitals to receive the eye antibiotics.
That stuff is way over my head, but it's okay. Keep looking into this stuff. I know that a lot of people think it's ridiculous (I, for one, don't really know what to think of it), but if you want to achieve anything significant, you have to ignore what others think and focus on your own efforts. At one point in time, the Bates method was considered preposterous by everyone and in fact, it still isn't exactly "accepted" by people outside the natural vision improvement community, but already, more and more people are realizing that it's not so crazy after all. Personally, I think that trying to improve vision from the physical perspective (as it seems to me that you're trying to do) is theoretically sound, but it will take time to bring it all together. I'm following the Bates method because I feel a greater sense of security, since it has "worked" to some degree in other people. This neonatal blur theory is, in my opinion, untested, and being the selfish person I am (sorry, I do have selfish motives!), I don't exactly want to risk being that test subject. If anything, I have great respect for you because you're willing to go out on a limb and try all sorts of things by yourself, despite what others think. That takes real motivation. Smile
Yes, I too followed and still follow the Bates Method. For a decade or so I followed a consistent routine of multiple daily sessions of palming for up to 10 minutes at a time (sometimes longer) and swinging to a count of 75 - 125 or more. I fully believed that one day my flashes of clear eyesight would become permanent. But the way it has all started to come together over the past two years was not what I expected. I think that without the knowledge and insights I gained beyond what is covered in Dr. Bates' and his followers' books, I would still be stuck in a visual rut. Knowledge and insights such as:
1) that flashing a bright reflected light across the eyes can stimulate a flash of clear vision;
2) that the incidence of myopia worldwide and especially in industrialized countries has been steadily increasing and progressively worsening, over the course of the last 100+ years;
3) that normal newborn babies have normal 20/20 eyesight or rarely may be farsighted and only very rarely nearsighted;
4) that over 100+ years ago medical science discovered that maternally-passed syphllitic and gonorrheal blindness in infants could be prevented by instilling into newborn babies' eyes a 1% solution of caustic silver nitrate as an antibiotic within 60 minutes after birth (otherwise it doesn't kill the germs in time);
5) that in the 1930's the U.S. Congress mandated the above procedure for ALL babies born in ALL U.S. hospitals;
6) that the instillation procedure necessarily results in one eye receiving an unequal amount of the antibiotic, and at some seconds or more after the first eye, necessarily resulting in the disunion of binocular vision;
7) that one consequence of the antibiotic is to render the newborn functionally blind for up to 72 hours under the 1% silver nitrate solution and up to many minutes or hours, even with the more recently authorized (post-1956) antibiotic ointments;
8 ) that one probable consequence of such blindness is the creation and use of pseudo foveas located on some other part of the retina and thus incapable of detailed distance eyesight;
9) that 'myopia' is a Greek word which means 'closed eye';
10) that when medical science says the myopic eyeball is 'elongated' it is the front part of the eye which is the longer portion;
11) that the focal length to reach the true fovea is longer than the focal length to reach any other part of the retina including any pseudo foveas in use;
... you get my drift, I hope.
Just so I'm clear, I believe most nearsightedness is a developmental issue. And what makes it diabolical is that, for people who have never been able to see clearly into the distance, our visual system development, and how we use it, has been off-track since birth.
In the old days (pre-1990 probably), nearsighted kids were not diagnosed as 'myopic' and fitted with lenses until they got to be 10-11 years old. That may have actually been better for their visual development than what seems to be happening currently with kids being diagnosed and fitted with lenses before they even go to school.
Either way, it is diabolically difficult to disengage the mental focus from the pseudo-foveal input, and transfer it to the true foveas, because the visual system development and the mental development are inextricably linked, and also linked with the person's physical development. The unconscious mind will rebel at the prospect of having to restart its development along the true visual alignment, because it is accustomed to thinking and problem solving and developing while receiving blurry visual input.
What makes it doubly diabolical is when the two eyes have significantly different levels of blur. It is difficult to have one eye with clear vision and the other blurry. It is actually easier to have one eye with clear vision and the other eye completely blind. But no one wants that!
Luckily there is a natural preference for clear vision. And we have the Bates Method model to follow.
Unfortunately, as a 'developmental issue', where most people have two eyes with markedly different blur-levels, most people can't be helped in an instant anymore (i.e., cured after one long palming session). Each of us has to embark on a personal, trial-and-error effort that will probably take at least a year.
The reason I predict it should take each person around at least a year to redevelop their visual system along clear vision pathways, is that our physical, visual, and mental development is pretty much complete. Once that state is reached, it is notoriously difficult to 'teach an old dog new tricks', to simultaneously unlearn bad habits while learning good ones.
In the womb, there is a normal gestation period of 9 months for humans, and at the end of those 9 months, our eyeballs are normal and capable of normal eyesight, or very rarely farsighted, and very, very rarely nearsighted.
And finally, I beileve that what makes it even more difficult is that I believe the nearsightedness disorder is tied in our unconscious minds to certain orienting/misorienting sounds and events that occurred in the delivery room and antibiotic instillation areas during the imposed period of antibiotic blur-blindness.

Perfect Sight Without Glasses free download