Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NeonatalEyeAntibiotics - A NearpointFixationDisorder Theory
#16
I have been confirming with additional people aged 45+ who have been nearsighted all their lives - that they had no memory of ever having seen clearly into the distance. Whereas most of this community forum's members who are younger than 45 indicate that they 'lost' their clear distance eyesight and are now hoping to regain it.
I knew this was a significant observation when I first noticed it, and now I think I know why: it indicates a definite non-natural cause of nearsightedness which underwent a fundamental change some 50 years ago.
I believe that change was the near universal switch to non-caustic neonatal eye antibiotic ointments with a much shorter treatment time than the caustic silver nitrate neonatal eye antibiotic solution near universally in use before that switch.
It made and makes a difference.
Reply
#17
I think it is probable that unnecessary neonatal eye antibiotics, instilled one eye at a time separated by multiple seconds if not minutes, with neglected or incorrect follow-up procedures and unawares parents, not only results in differential, unnatural blur but in differential, unnatural eye dominance as well.
I believe they disrupt the initial unity of the visual system, which is not easily reunified, resulting in, at a minimum, gradually worsening misalignment, mistiming, and miscoordination of eyesight.
This has dire consequences not only for the individual, but for interaction and communication between and among individuals, and over the decades of their use has gradually degraded human interaction, communication, orientation, direction and leadership in general.
Reply
#18
If my theory is correct, and the basic problem of nearsightedness is a misaligned and mistimed visual system, then the process of reversing it would require at a minimum:
1. Knowledge of each of the components of the visual system.
2. Knowledge of how the components are connected.
3. Knowledge of how the components are sequenced.
4. Knowledge of how the components are timed.

I think so-called optical and opthalmologic science has single-mindedly perfected their knowledge of the myriad physical micro components and their individual functions - but has done so to the neglect of knowledge of how the macro components must function as a whole (which was the fork-in-the-road path Dr. Bates was taking).

Why else would I have never heard - over the course of a bachelors degree in psychology, courses in eye anatomy and physiology, graduate work in ergonomics, etcetera - of a simple description of how all the macro components of vision have to be aligned and timed to provide clear continuous eyesight - sort of like a 10-speed bicycle's parts have to be aligned and timed to provide smooth and safe transportation?

They gloss over things like eye dominance and the optic chiasm as if they were practically extraneous components. They are not. They are crucial.

What must have happened is, in their Helmholtzian hubris, they believed they had 'solved' the then-rare problem of nearsightedness with lenses (and now surgery). In fact, they merely put a bandaid on a mrsa (flesh eating bacteria) infection. That infection has now spread worldwide and continues to worsen. The fact that the 'infection' is causing a warping and a loss of good leadership and communication is beyond their insight.
Reply
#19
In A Nutshell:
1) The method of installation and type of followup procedures used in conjuction with neonatal eye antibiotics can disturb the initial unity of the newborn's visual system.
2) Disturbing the intial unity of the newborn's visual system can result in slightly skewed and mistimed visual system development.
3) The mind prefers blur to double images.
4) Double images result when the two eyes are misaligned and unsynchronized.
5) Eye antibiotics can also disturb the tearfilm.
6) The body's attempts to repair/replace the tearfilm may result in a slightly bulged cornea.
7) The mind prefers one eye to be just slightly dominant in order to speed up decision making and reaction time.
8) In order for one eye to become dominant, one eye must develop slightly better eyesight.
9) The mind naturally and normally prefers the better eye to be slightly dominant.
10) Visual system development proceeds in conjunction with overall physical development.
11) The slightly skewed and mistimed visual system development can eventually result in an overdominant eye due to the mind's preference for unified visual input.
13) The overdominant eye can cause fixation at the nearpoint in a kind of afterimage stress effect.
14) Opticians are able to prescribe lenses which bring both eyes to equal 20/20 eyesight, and they do.
15) The magical improvement of an overprescribed worse eye lens produces a reversal of normal better eye dominance so that the worse eye becomes dominant.
16) Worse eye dominance produces continued worsening eyesight despite lens strength, until some lowest common denominator and/or full physical development is reached.
Reply
#20
For pre-1960's 1% silver nitrate solution neonatal eye antibiotics (nea):
The body naturally uses the symmetrically located centralized blindspots to point the eyes where the brain/mind wants to see. The brain/mind receives distance visual input from the symmetrically located centralized blindspots because that's where the optic nerves leave the eye. The visual system was a unified whole at birth, ready to develop normal vision naturally. The brain/mind naturally then still expects and believes the visual input to come from the symmetrically located natural foveas. When it doesn't (because of the instillation of nea), the brain/mind has to wander over the retinas until it finds some acceptable substitutes - et voila: the unnatural pseudofoveas are created.

But unnatural pseudofoveas are not symmetrically located because of the difference in instillation of nea to each eye. A few degrees of misalignment and a few seconds difference in timing develops from the differentially disturbed tearfilms and the imprinted muscle and fear memories of nea, which results in squeezing/squinting and 'closed eye' effects, which over time produce elongated/bulged corneas.

Normal human beings naturally develop a slightly dominant slightly better eye in order to speed up visual actions and decision-making. The misalignment and mistiming forces the mind to constantly choose one eye over the other in order to avoid double images - et voila: an overdominant significantly better eye. Satisfied, the mind continues developing in intellect, emotions, spirit, etcetera, as does the physical body. But they are now somewhat disconnected and pointed incorrectly. And the mind believes that the blurry vision upon which it has based its development, is normal.

In steps opthalmology which correctly measures the nearpoint fixation disorder but misunderstands it. Instead of helping the person realign their visual system and discover the path to clear eyesight development, opticians simply fixate the eyes in their misalignment and mistiming by magnifying the entire visual scene equally in both eyes. The mind is now delighted with the clear distance eyesight, but confused again because its overdominant eye must now compete with the formerly submissive eye. The submissive eye wins, et voila: worse eye dominance. The body and mind continue to develop (normally?) but the vision doesn't. It stays stunted below the body/mind development, letting the designated worse eye constantly and unnaturally take the lead, causing further nearpoint fixation until it reaches some lowest common denominator. Brilliantly Diabolical!!

Over human history, many other advanced civilizations have risen and fallen - Egypt, Greece, Rome, Europe, pre-1900's America and the world - producing great changes in their populations' stress levels, presumably not much different from that of our own. Only our own has seen a gradual rise in the incidence and progressive worsening of nearsightedness. And this epidemic displays a distinct difference in those born before 1960 versus those born after: most of the first set have no memory of clear eyesight at all; most of the second set have clear memories of normal sight which went bad. Neonatal eye antibiotics before 1960 were virtually all a slow-actiing caustic 1% solution of silver nitrate; after 1960 they were virtually all a fast-acting ointment.
Reply
#21
Here's something that's never discussed and no eye diagram ever makes clear:
1) The centerpoint of each eye and each retina is the blindspot - where the optic nerves enter/exit the eye.
2) Each macula/fovea is naturally and symmetrically located slightly above and to the temporal/ear side of each blindspot (measurements, anyone?). Normal clear eyesight (minimum 20/20) can only occur at the foveas.
3) Therefore, for normal clear eyesight, each eye has to focus light for clear vision not back to the center but slightly slanted!

I believe people with developmental myopia can hold the above knowledge in conscious awareness and use it (and other knowledge and Bates methods) to realign their visual system in order to gradually develop clear normal eyesight.

We are simply not pointing our visual system correctly, which actually produces friction on the corneas - and as with other parts of the body, the corneas begin to thicken, which over time produces a bulge which is difficult to reduce. Especially when we continue trying to see by focusing distance light back to the centerpoints (or other pseudofoveal points) rather than to the foveas.

This is the hardest thing I've ever done. It's the most difficult problem I've ever worked on. And solving it has been the most rewarding experience of my life. I'm sorry that it has taken me 37 years (obviously I'm no genius), but on the other hand it was 37 years well-spent. I think/hope I am about two steps away from completely normal vision. I hope they're not giant steps. But even so. My pathway works.
Reply
#22
JMartinC4 Wrote:Here's something that's never discussed and no eye diagram ever makes clear:
1) The centerpoint of each eye and each retina is the blindspot - where the optic nerves enter/exit the eye.
2) Each macula/fovea is naturally and symmetrically located slightly above and to the temporal/ear side of each blindspot (measurements, anyone?). Normal clear eyesight (minimum 20/20) can only occur at the foveas.
3) Therefore, for normal clear eyesight, each eye has to focus light for clear vision not back to the center but slightly slanted!

So you're saying the macula isn't in the center of the retina? Do you have a reference for that?

If so, why is it that we can tell (if we can see clearly enough), from a distance, whether a person is looking directly at us or to the person next to us? We go by where their eyes appear to be pointed.
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Reply
#23
Thanks for having me look at the location again. I may have misstated that the macula/fovea is slightly above the centerline, when it may actually be slightly below it. There is very wide variance in depictions. But this review showed more that put the location below the line.

A pretty good diagram is here:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macula_of_retina">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macula_of_retina</a><!-- m -->
which shows the blindspot at the center of the retina and the macula/fovea next to it, to the temporal side.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis_in_macula">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis_in_macula</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iovs.org/content/45/9/3257.full">http://www.iovs.org/content/45/9/3257.full</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.eurasip.org/Proceedings/Eusipco/Eusipco2008/papers/1569104283.pdf">http://www.eurasip.org/Proceedings/Eusi ... 104283.pdf</a><!-- m -->

"The fovea comprises less than 1% of retinal size but takes up over 50% of the visual cortex in the brain. [7] The foveal pit is not located exactly on the optical axis, but is displaced about 4 to 8 degrees temporal to it. The fovea sees only the central two degrees of the visual field, which is roughly equivalent to twice the width of your thumbnail at arm's length.[8]"
Reply
#24
What do we myopes have in common?
1. We all seem to be very observant of both the outside world and of our inner selves.
2. We all seem to have rather normal families.
3. We all seem to have our other senses intact and functioning quite well.
4. We all seem to have excellent mental faculties.
5. We all seem to have excellent memory abilities.
6. We all seem to be excellent students.
7. We all seem to be quite sane and reasonable.
8. We all seem to have developed myopia when we were still developing physically and mentally.
9. We all (probably) received some form of eye antibiotics when we were born.

Are/were we all susceptible to hypnosis? Were we subjected to hypnotic-like conditions as a result of the eye antibiotics, which forced us into a form of self-hypnosis, which produced either a state of blur-acceptance (as 'normal') or of a post-hypnotic suggestion of blur-acceptance (which reasserts itself in our formative developmental years)?

Or did we - being the great students that we are - simply learn a very important lesson as soon as we were born? A lesson we never forgot. Something having to do with our eyes and our visual system.

My inquiring mind wants to know.
Reply
#25
JMartinC4 Wrote:What do we myopes have in common?
1. We all seem to be very observant of both the outside world and of our inner selves.
2. We all seem to have rather normal families.
3. We all seem to have our other senses intact and functioning quite well.
4. We all seem to have excellent mental faculties.
5. We all seem to have excellent memory abilities.
6. We all seem to be excellent students.
7. We all seem to be quite sane and reasonable.
8. We all seem to have developed myopia when we were still developing physically and mentally.
9. We all (probably) received some form of eye antibiotics when we were born.
Are/were we all susceptible to hypnosis? Were we subjected to hypnotic-like conditions as a result of the eye antibiotics, which forced us into a form of self-hypnosis, which produced either a state of blur-acceptance (as 'normal') or of a post-hypnotic suggestion of blur-acceptance (which reasserts itself in our formative developmental years)?
Or did we - being the great students that we are - simply learn a very important lesson as soon as we were born? A lesson we never forgot. Something having to do with our eyes and our visual system.
My inquiring mind wants to know.
Or, alternatively, did we simply overreact to the antibiotics because we're so sensitive - overreacted by tensing up too much and throwing our unified but still formative visual system out of alignment ever so slightly. An ever-so-slight misalignment which gradually gets worse until one eye has to be over-dominant in order to prevent double vision? An ever-so-slight misalignment and residual muscle-memory of tension, which produces odd friction on our corneas, degrading the tearfilms, and causing them to build up a bit of a corneal bulge?
Reply
#26
Please don't include me in your generalizations about all myopes. Either they don't fit me, or I can think of many other exceptions (myopic people who also have trouble hearing, those who do not come from normal families, etc.) I think myopia is often a coping strategy some of us developed to blur out a stressful environment, whatever that happened to be in our case. If your antibiotic theory is helping you with your own myopia, great. I'm just very uncomfortable with broad sweeping statements about all the people in any group having something in common, especially if I'm part of the group -- I feel like you're trying to put me in a box that's too tight to fit properly. Thanks for listening.
Reply
#27
Nancy Wrote:Please don't include me in your generalizations about all myopes. Either they don't fit me, or I can think of many other exceptions (myopic people who also have trouble hearing, those who do not come from normal families, etc.) I think myopia is often a coping strategy some of us developed to blur out a stressful environment, whatever that happened to be in our case. If your antibiotic theory is helping you with your own myopia, great. I'm just very uncomfortable with broad sweeping statements about all the people in any group having something in common, especially if I'm part of the group -- I feel like you're trying to put me in a box that's too tight to fit properly. Thanks for listening.
I wouldn't dream of it. In fact you are not mentioned anywhere.
Just so we're clear: I am sure that myopia of the type that has existed since at least the days of ancient Greece ('myopia' from the Greek for 'closed eye') is still with us today, still being developed as a result of whatever similar circumstances are still with us as natural, normal human beings, some of whom experience some rare set of circumstances which produce nearsighted fixation. That small percentage or ratio has probably never changed.
What has changed, though, is a steady increase in a progressively worsening kind of myopia. That is what I'm interested in. I think Dr. Bates' genius, which predated the weird steady increasing myopia, was much more effective against the first kind of myopia, and has been shown to be less effective against the second type.
Reply
#28
I searched on 'medical models of the eye' and found further confirmation of my contention that the optic nerve is attached to the centerpoint of the back of the eye/retina, with the macula/fovea slightly offset 4mm to the temporal side and 2mm below each of the two blindspots.
I believe normal sighted humans (and those of us experiencing clear vision flashes) unconsciously/naturally point our eyes with our blindspots, but focus light from the target onto our maculas/foveas - and mentally attend to those maculas/foveas. Most, or probably all, myopes do not or cannot. But they can be trained to do so.
(Or, they can remain 'stuck in their unnatural ruts' and use magic lenses or drastic surgery to fool themselves into thinking they're back on track. They aren't, but the business of science doesn't care.)
Of course the training has to be combined with a regimen designed to gradually reduce the corneal bulges, repair the tearfilms, relax the ocular orbits, equalize the eye dominance, develop better-eye dominance, and coordinate/synchronize the two eyes. That shouldn't take more than a couple of years.
Thank you, Dr. Bates - your genius laid the groundwork.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://theevolutionstore.com/store/eye-with-eyelid-and-lachrymal-system-5-times-full-size-8-part-mm3005/">http://theevolutionstore.com/store/eye- ... rt-mm3005/</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.global-technologies.net/details.php?id=2018&c=11&s=&pqn=&name=SOMSO-CS-2---Eyeball-with-Part-of-Orbit-">http://www.global-technologies.net/deta ... -of-Orbit-</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.medivisuals.com/back-of-the-eye-10301402x.aspx">http://www.medivisuals.com/back-of-the- ... 1402x.aspx</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#29
It's not that I'm "'straining to see' clearly into the distance" - it's that I "'strain' or I'm 'under stress/strain', therefore I can't see clearly into the distance". The strain predates and preceded the myopia. The myopia is a result of the strain, not the other way around. Same for 'squint' and 'stress'. Why do I strain? What unconscious factors are causing me to strain and to hold onto the strain? How do I stop straining? The answers are going to be different for each myope.

I am now closer than ever to normal eyesight - and I realize that wherever I look now, I should probably first look for something living. If there is a living being, I look for their eyes. If nothing is living, I look for something moving. If nothing is moving or living, I look for something new or interesting. If nothing's interesting (not likely since for me a brick wall seen clearly is interesting), I look for an edge or a contrast. If I find an edge, I look for a point or a string of points.

But I usually have to start off looking sideways. Sideways to the left and back. Sideways to the right and back. It's all good.

It's all working beautifully. My eyes and orbits are learning to stay relaxed from all the cold water baths I've been giving them. My eyes are learning to maintain normal tearfilms. I am gaining control over my visual system - like any normal human should have - and I am relaxing, aligning, and synchronizing the system. I'm not holding my breath or blinking wrong. I'm sitting, standing, and walking erect, not scrunching into some fetal position. I'm not holding my head rigid. I'm forcing my submissive worse eye to participate more equally and to help in the hunt for clear eyesight. I'm learning to quickly and correctly orient myself visually within whatever surrounding lighting conditions I am in.
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