Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NeonatalEyeAntibiotics - A NearpointFixationDisorder Theory
This is a new thread for my theory, with a more accurate subject title.
My eyesight continues to improve.
My older (1.5 yrs) brother has been told he needs immediate cataract surgery. He has smoked cigarettes for 40 years. I quit when I was 22. Our mother quit when she was 40. She had cataract surgery in her 70's.
I have gained almost complete control over the projected blindspot map from each of my eyes. When I have each blindspot map projected (usually outside) I have noticed that there is a marked difference in their location in my visual field. This corresponds to my understanding of the effects of neonatal eye antibiotics and their subsequent induction of unsynchronized and unsymmetrical pseudo foveas.
My eyesight continues to improve. My control over my visual system continues to improve. I'm not fooling myself. I'm not kidding. It is gradual and continuous improvement like David recently posted, but also has its ups and downs like Pikachu recently posted.
I palm a few times a day for a few minutes each time. Sometimes I swing in front of a mirror or elsewhere inside; I haven't done it outside which may be illuminating - but would it make my face flush as the tension left? Wink
I thank God day and night for his wonderful creation.
Today I looked not at the sun but next to it. I like my biofeedback indoor sunning device. I like pinpointing for detail.
I have been communicating my theory to all who will listen. My brother and my sons seem interested.
But more than anything, I know now that I am releasing the unconscious, ingrained, imprinted strain caused by neonatal eye antibiotics, and now I am convinced that it is the root cause of my nearpoint fixation disorder.
I believe that what happened is that the 1% silver nitrate solution was instilled wrongly (too early in the 60 minutes-after-birth window) and wasn't washed out in time, or it wasn't washed out correctly. I was born in the evening. There could have been many reasons why they would have neglected to do it or done it wrongly. Afterwards they think - "Oh, look, he can see - it's okay now!" but it wasn't. No one thought to flash a light into/across my eyes to restimulate my true foveas.
My family soon left that town (Midland, MI) and I never saw clearly into the distance. (Neither did my older sister and older brother who were each also born in different towns.) My visual system and the way I used it must have developed abnormally. One eye's vision was much worse than the other, but I didn't know it. I thought it was all normal.
So, reading, close work, etcetera, had nothing at all to do with my nearsightedness. I had a very happy, active, interesting, small town, all-American childhood in a loving, intelligent family. None of it made any difference for my distance eyesight.
Nice to see that you're still improving! Smile

I'm curious: how much have you improved vision-wise since you started?

I was thinking about your entire theory and here's my conclusion on it: It's difficult to accept because there is little connecting the problem of the antibiotics (the silver nitrate) with the solution which includes, among other things, your biofeedback device. You can say all you want about the benefits of the solution and the dangers of the problem, but the connection I find difficult to make. The other connection that might need to be made stronger is that of the problem (the antibiotics) and the negative effect caused by the problem (poor vision). If you could somehow conduct an experiment of babies born with and without antibiotics and find conclusive evidence, then your theory would be all the stronger.

Just some suggestions. Whether you are right or wrong remains to be seen (at least to me), and unless you happen to have the time or the money, it may be difficult to prove it one way or the other.
Pikachu Wrote:...I'm curious: how much have you improved vision-wise since you started? I was thinking about your entire theory ...: It's difficult to accept because there is little connecting the problem of the antibiotics (the silver nitrate) with the solution which includes, among other things, your biofeedback device. ... The other connection that might need to be made stronger is that of the problem (the antibiotics) and the negative effect caused by the problem (poor vision). If you could somehow conduct an experiment of babies born with and without antibiotics and find conclusive evidence, then your theory would be all the stronger.
Just some suggestions. Whether you are right or wrong remains to be seen (at least to me), and unless you happen to have the time or the money, it may be difficult to prove it one way or the other.
Thanks for your thoughts. Improvement-wise, I've gone from the occasional flash of clear (normal 20/20 I suppose) vision for no definable reason other than that I seemed to be in the right place at the right time pointed in the right direction among the right people places and things - and it would only last for a few seconds; to nowadays actually being able to make slight adjustments to my posture, head tilt, viewing angle, blinking, shifting, breathing, etcetera to achieve near-normal (20/23? it varies like normal vision should) or better and able to actually prolong it at will.
The 'doctors' have tested my eyesight at anywhere from 20/40 R 20/80 L at age 11, to 20/100 R 20/200 L in the military, and many variations in between and afterwards.
I know that the 1% silver nitrate neonatal eye treatments are the root cause of my disorder. But I didn't come up with idea and then start making up facts to fit it - I kept finding facts which kept fitting together like a giant puzzle, and then I began to see the full picture of what the problem and solution were and are. It has been an amazing and satisfying journey, although not without its scary and discouraging moments. I have been trying to make the connections since I was 19, but as with many discoveries, the biggest connections were accidental and I just got lucky due to my persistence and courage. Telling my high-powered father-in-law about Bates when I knew he would probably react disdainfully took courage; having him absent-mindedly flash me with a piece of metal while telling me he thought I was 'fooling' myself, was just lucky. Connecting that event a year later with a little mirror I'd brought to work to put contact lenses in, only to realize flashing a light across my eye could stimulate clear flashes - well, that was brilliant. But not my brilliance: my father-in-law's!
Pikachu Wrote:...there is little connecting the problem of the antibiotics (the silver nitrate) with the solution which includes, among other things, your biofeedback device. ... The other connection that might need to be made stronger is that of the problem (the antibiotics) and the negative effect caused by the problem (poor vision). If you could somehow conduct an experiment of babies born with and without antibiotics and find conclusive evidence, then your theory would be all the stronger. Just some suggestions. Whether you are right or wrong remains to be seen (at least to me), and unless you happen to have the time or the money, it may be difficult to prove it one way or the other.
Yes, the 'fact-dots' are out there, waiting to be connected. One next-step I thought of is to submit Freedom Of Information Act requests to each hospital that I, my wife, our two sons, etc. were born at, and see if they have additional information regarding the neonatal eye antibiotics and the personnel and procedures that were used or not used, how they differed, etc. If I could also collect such info for my three sisters and two brothers and their families, I would have the beginnings of the proof.
However, what if the hospitals aren't required to keep that info? Then, yes, it would require an investigation of the sort that would only be allowed under the auspices of the government or a university or some official agency like that.
Even if I was allowed to collect the data and it was available, I am not qualified to put it all together in a scientifically rigorous and definitive thesis. So I would need help from the very people who reject the idea. It's a quandary. I feel too old and set in my ways to dedicate the rest of my life to it. Plus I have a fulltime job. And a wife. And a house. Etc. And I haven't cured myself yet - I figure I'm only about 65% of the way there. So, I don't want to 'jump the gun' - my plan has been to wait until I have complete control, then see if the next steps are clearer for me.
Bwaa-haa-haa! It's mine! It's mine, I tell you! The Theory Of The Century! And it's All Mine!!! Soon I will unlock the secrets of the universe with it!! The last of the Seven Seals will be opened - by ME!!! Bwaa- haa-haa-haa!!! Dr. JMartinStein
:o Wink 8) O0
I have just now confirmed a suspicion I have held for many years: Those of us with nearpoint fixation disorder who have never seen clearly into the distance need to be able to 'project' out our blindspot map from each eye. Yarbus discusses the technique, a version of which I was required to perform in one of my experimental psychology courses at Michigan State University under Dr. Charles Hanley.
The trick, which I just now fully realized, is to actually get them projected out to the point where they are invisible rather than just stopping and holding them in the visible field of vision. There is a vey slight feeling of 'tension' when I accomplish that, but head/face/eye gyroscopic shifting, blinking and breathing dispels it and results in clear(er) eyesight.
In class, we only did it for one eye, by shining a light at an angle into the eye while looking at a sheet of white paper. The blindspot map of retinal veins and optic nerve entry are projected like a shadowy net onto the paper, which we then traced with a pencil. I used my left eye (worse visioned); I had never seen it before. I may still have the drawing in a notebook.
Afterwards and ever since then, the illusion would reappear when I suppose a glint of light would enter my eye at the right angle again, usually outside. Since I knew what it was, it didn't bother me. It quickly goes away.
But it made me wonder if it indicated a misalignment of my visual system. Now I am convinced it does, and can be held in memory and used as a realignment/calibration method. But both eyes need to develop this ability and to do it simultaneously. At first it seems uncontrollable, but eventually it comes under control.
Disclaimer: I am not recommending anyone do this to themselves. I am merely reporting on my own observations and experiences.
[I don't know how best to combine these two threads of mine...]
Edit postReport this postReply with quoteRe: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia
by JMartinC4 on Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:39 am
Proposition: That most of the methods successfully used by Bates practitioners to improve distance eyesight are in effect re-creations of actions taken by newborns after receiving neonatal ophthalmologic antibiotics. I.e.:
1) swinging recreates in effect the newborn's efforts to dispell the eye antibiotic from the first eye and to avoid the instillation into the second eye, and then to dispell the antibiotic from both eyes;
2) relearning to breathe correctly and to stop holding the breath recreates in effect the newborn's fear response to the instillation of the eye antibiotics;
3) relearning to blink correctly recreates in effect the newborns' efforts to clean its eyes of the antibiotic in order to clear the eyesight;
4) shifting recreates in effect the newborn's efforts to reunify the eyesight from the eye which was treated/blurred first and whose antibiotic therefore wore off first, with the eyesight from the eye which was treated/blurred second and whose antibiotic therefore wore off a few seconds or more later;
5) palming recreates in effect the newborn's pre-birth environment, relaxing the visual system and returning it to a more normal state;
6) uncovering from palming recreates in effect the newborn's first visual experiences, leading to flashes of normal vision immediately followed by fixation on blur;
7) ...
Apparently everything in the known universe rotates from West to East. Our planet Earth, like the other 7 (now excluding Pluto), spins slowly from West to East, creating the illusion that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. The Sun itself, like the other stars in the Milky Way Galaxy and therefore probably every star in every other galaxy, is also spinning from West to East. At the center of our Galaxy is, apparently, a supermassive Black Hole, around which our Sun and its Solar System, as well as the other Milky Way stars and their solar systems if any, are also rotating - again from West to East. Logically, the supermassive Black Hole is probably also spinning from West to East. All galaxies apparently operate this way. I think it is therefore safe to assume that the black holes at the center of the galaxies are also rotating around the Center of the Universe.
So, everything is rotating from West to East around the Center of the Universe. The Center of the Universe must be where the Big Bang happened, or, if you're a believer like me, where God said, 'Let There Be Light'. I suppose the Center of the Universe must also be spinning from West to East.
If someone was looking down at the universe, West to East would be Counterclockwise. If they were looking up at the universe, West to East would be Clockwise. If something is spinning clockwise as it crosses my field of vision, the motion becomes counterclockwise as it crosses the center. Therefore, clockwise and counterclockwise are the same motion, seen from opposite perspectives. Therefore if I am looking at or into another person's eyes, and to me something is spinning clockwise between us, to the other person it is spinning counterclockwise.
Is light spinning? Does the spinning motion of the Sun impart a spinning motion to the light? Whether it does or doesn't may not matter, given the speed of light. But I don't know. It just interests me.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ing-cat-49</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... w-dots-650</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... -wheel-653</a><!-- m -->
When I look at the spinning cat it is first spinning West to East (today it first spins East to West); with practice I found I could reverse the illusory motion by pointing my gaze outside the cat frame, above and to the right (at the ad located there) and shifting my mental focus to my worse, left, eye, keeping the cat in my left periphery, and synchronizing a slight head shift/swing. Now I can get the illusory sillhouetted image to simply oscillate back and forth instead of seeming to rotate.
Similarly for the wheel, it first spins counterclockwise, then I can get it to reverse.
Curiously, yesterday I found the wheel easier to reverse; today the cat is easier.
As I recently mentioned to hammer in another post: Last week, and even moreso over the weekend and today, awareness of the optic chiasm and its operation has emerged as one of the final pieces (hopefully!) of my nearsightedness puzzle. I am reaping improved eyesight alignment, coordination, unification and control (and thereby clearer distance vision) by understanding and paying attention to these facts:
1. Each eye has an optic nerve which draws retinal light impulses from E-W-N-S of the blindspot entrypoint.
2. The blindspots are symmetrically located at or near the center rear of each eye.
3. The macula/fovea (where clear distance eyesight can occur only if light is focused thereon and mentally attended to) exists slightly to the outside of and slightly above each blindspot.
4. The maculae/fovea are also symmetrically located in each eye/retina.
5. At the optic chiasm (Greek: chi = X), behind the eyes, some optic nerve fibers from the nasal/inside area of each retina cross over and join fibers from the ear/temporal/outside area of the opposite retina. That combination continues on to the same-side occipital lobe for each eye.
6. So, for distance vision (as well as near vision), at a minimum, the distance foveal impulses must combine with the non-foveal nasal-side impulses of the opposite eye. That knowledge helps with visual orientation and positioning both while stationary and while moving.
7. So, there are two distinct sets of impulses for distance vision, which have to be unified. (This accounts for the 'vanishing dots' illusions, for example.)
8. The mind has to find the center points of both eye combinations and then unify the images, first for each eye separately, and then for both eyes together. It should happen naturally - but it doesn't for us nearpoint fixated people. But it can be learned.
elevenoceans Wrote:Hammer, During the last three years I thought my sight was getting better because I could see better without glasses. When I went to an O.D. to check my refractive error it happened that I had 2.0 D more. What I think it happened is that I got used to see blur images and my visual acuity improved (not refractive error).
elevenoceans Wrote:radiation15 wrote: * DO NOT READ THIS IF YOUR DOING GREAT RESTORING YOUR EYESIGHT I DO NOT WANT TO BRING DOWN ANYONE WITH ME * hi, i've been doing these exercises for uhmm...about 11 months now, throughtout this time i saw great improvement and today i went to the optimetrist to get my eyes checked up. I was so confident that i have improved once i took my turn i was told that my eyesight decreased 1 diapter, i felt so disgusted with my self and ashamed, everything that i done in the exercises was perfect i always felt good throughtout the exercises and in exercises where i closed my eyes i always always imagened having clear vision i thought i was seeing improvement..ha..more like worse vision, its sad how every organ in the body heals it self exepct the eyes, no one in my family wears glasses exepct me , i did my best in the exercises and can't do any better and there fore i know i really cant restore my eyesight, i feel so upset because i was looking forward to it because im still young i guess and want to live without glasses...
It happened the same to me. I have been practicing the Bates Method for 3 years and I thought that I was improving. During this time I never went to a O.D. or optometrist and 2 months ago I finally checked my vision. I am nearsighted and my vision got worse having an increase in 2.0 D in each eye. I am 37 years old and it was the time of my life that my vision got worse.
When normal babies are born, they have normal eyes with normal eyesight, equal in both eyes. If born in a hospital, here is the probable sequence of events that may lead to nearsightedness:
1. At some time within the first 60 minutes after birth, the infant is taken away from its mother by medical people.
2. In accordance with a vaguely defined procedure, one or more of those medical people then squeeze a drop or two of an antibiotic ointment into either the right or left eye and then manipulate the eyelids so the ointment covers the cornea.
3. The antibiotic is completely unnecessary unless the mother has syphilis or gonnorrhea.
4. The ointment is painless, and does not temporarily blind - but it does temporarily completely blur the eyesight.
5. Some seconds later the same procedure is done on the other eye. That eye probably has to be forcibly pried open to get the ointment in because the infant probably squeezes both eyes shut in response to the first eye's maltreatment.
6. A minutes-old infant has no idea how long the blur will last.
7. A minutes-old infant is highly attuned to its mother's voice- and emotional-vibrations, having learned them while in the womb.
8. Also while in the womb, the normal eyes were created over the 9 month gestation period, such that the optic nerves enter and leave at the midpoint, creating a 'blindspot' in the center of each eye.
9. During gestation the macula and fovea were also created, located slightly above and to the outside of each blindspot.
10. The blindspots and macula/foveas are symmetrically located on the retina in each eye.
11. Also during normal gestation, the optic nerves connect directly behind the eyeballs, forming a kind of cross called the optic chiasm (chi = Greek for 'X'). All humans (and many other mammals) must carry that cross for all of our life, but it is light, and easy to bear. Smile Wink
12. At the optic chiasm, the nasal side retinal nerve fibers physically cross over and join the opposite optic nerves, which then continue on to the same-side occipital lobes. This hard-wired crossing over is probably necessary for smooth and clear visual transitioning when looking from one distance to another, or rotating the vision from one area to another.
13. At birth then, the physical parts of normal human visual systems are symmetrical, synchronized, equal, aligned, and ready to receive and transmit visual information clearly to the brain, so that everything, including the mind, can develop normally.
14. Eye antibiotics and their instillation and follow-up procedures (they need to be flushed out at some point) probably disturb the initial unity of the visual system.
15. After instillation the child is returned to the mother, who probably verbally and physically soothes her infant, but is unmindful of the procedure and its effects.
16. Hypnosis is a psychological technique of putting a fully awake human being into a transfixed state of deep inward concentration, and thus susceptible to suggestions.
17. One method of achieving hypnotic susceptibility is to blur the person's vision while lulling them into deep relaxation with soothing sounds and directive talking. Self-hypnosis is an acknowledged method of biofeedback training to change one's behavior and beliefs.
18. I suggest that some if not many infants are accidentally hypnotized at birth into believing that blurry eyesight is acceptable, good, and normal, or some other incorrect beliefs. These unconscious, imprinted, incorrect beliefs prevent them from developing normal visual habits. The Bates Methods can be used to retrain a person's visual habits, but are incapable of changing anyone's incorrect beliefs.
I wonder where I can post my theory for review by people who are interested in the 'big picture' and overall implications for people in general? ...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Optic chiasm
The optic chiasm or optic chiasma (Greek χίασμα, "crossing", from the Greek χιαζω 'to mark with an X', after the Greek letter 'Χ', chi) is the part of the brain where the optic nerves (CN II) partially cross. The optic chiasm is located at the bottom of the brain immediately below the hypothalamus.
The images on the nasal sides of each retina cross over to the opposite side of the brain via the optic nerve at the optic chiasm. The temporal images, on the other hand, stay on the same side. This allows the images from either side of the field from both eyes to be transmitted to the appropriate side of the brain, combining the sides together. Beyond the optic chiasm, with crossed and uncrossed fibers, optic nerves become optic tracts. This allows for parts of both eyes that attend to the right visual field to be processed in the left visual system in the brain, and vice versa. This is linked to skin sensation which reaches the opposite side of the body, after reaching the diencephalon (rear forebrain). Decussation is an adaptive feature of frontally oriented eyes and therefore having binocular vision. Some animals, with laterally positioned eyes, have little binocular vision, so there is a more complete crossover of visual signals. The signals are passed on to the lateral geniculate body, in turn giving them to the occipital cortex (the outer matter of the rear brain).
Optic chiasm in catsIn Siamese cats with certain genotypes of the albino gene, this wiring is disrupted, with less of the nerve-crossing than is normal, as a number of scholars have reported. To compensate for lack of crossing in their brains, they cross their eyes (strabismus).
Restatements of NVI Based on Neonatal Blur Theory
1. Refusal to remain fixated on blur. Requires constant shifting of eyes, body, and mind. Requires relaxed breathing and blinking. Requires shared dominance (cooperation) between the two eyes and union of mind with foveal input. Requires realignment, synchronization and equalization of visual input from both eyes. Requires awareness of optic chiasm crossover. (Blur fixation requires disruption/deactivation of optic chiasm.) Staying receptive to clear visual input from foveas requires turning away from/ignoring subsequent or concurrent misleading/misorienting/misunderstood environmental stimuli.
1a. Understand that the mind believes it cannot concentrate without fixating on blur. (This is a form of auto-hypnosis or post-auto-hypnotic suggestion.)
1b. Understand that fixating on blur is not normal and probably a result of stunted visual system development.
1c. Understand that visual blur indicates misfocusing of incoming light onto non-foveal areas of retinas (pseudofoveas) stemming from misalignment and dissynchronicity of visual system including:
1c.1. orientation/direction/'attitude' of dominant/leading eye;
1c.2. orientation/direction/'attitude' of non-dominant/following eye;
1c.3. disengagement/misalignment of following eye from leading eye (via optic chiasm?) and vice-versa;
1c.4 disengagement/misalignment of bodily positioning (nose/face/head/neck/shoulders/arms/hands/torso/hips/legs/feet) from that of the eyes;
1c.5 disengagement/misalignment of mental positioning from that of the eyes and the body.

Practice by beginning at the nearpoint and gradually expanding the visual distance, aligning/focusing on objects further and further away. Locate an object at the nearpoint and shift body/eyes/mind until object is as clear as possible. Then check positioning by shifting attention from dominant eye to non-dominant eye and vice-versa, while shifting body/face/etc., until equal clarity is achieved in each eye. Close dominant eye and adjust until non-dominant image is clear (fovea is located slightly above and outside of eyeball's center. Then open the other eye to check alignment.
The objective is gradual, permanent, controllable, visual improvement. Clear flashing is good but unless it is in both eyes equal and simultaneous, producing unity of mind and clear eyesight, it may be just a distraction from development of normal visual system.

Perfect Sight Without Glasses free download