I read one of the poles as to how long it took to get improvement, but I feel it is irrevelant without knowing how bad a persons vision was to start with. Most of the people on this board seem to have minor (less than -2.0) to medium vision problems (-2.0 to -4.0), but I have very poor vision (-5.25). I am not one of the lucky few that can instantly learn to have correct vision, but I am working on it as much as possible and have signs of results, such as the clear flashes. It seems to me that the average time to perfect vision (2-4 weeks) applies to those of you with minor vision problems, but I can't make the determination until I know the average starting vision.
Thanks
Michele
When I took off my glasses for the last time I would have voted "can't read the top", so that's what I chose. You can read how my experiences with Bates's principles helped me here.
The MD told my parents that I was GOING TO BE MYOPIC!!!
Why? Because my refractive STATE was zero.
Two years later (after some "bad habits" and school) my
refractive STATE was -3/4 diopters (20/60).
Again, NOTHING was said to my parents or to me
about PREVENTION (by plus or Bates)
The result was that my vision (and yours) goes
DOWN at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.
So that 10 years later my refractive STATE was
-5 diopters.
After years of careful scientific research it
has become clear that it is PREVENTABLE at
the -1/2 to -1 diopter, or the 20/70 level.
I deeply regret that the Ophthalmologist that
talked to me did not have the WISDOM to discuss
the PREVENTIVE second-opinion -- and informed
me in a manner that I personally could have
done something about it.
Again, Bates got the minus "right" when he
said that a person at 20/70, who begins
wearing that wretched minus, will see
his naked-eye vision go rapidly to 20/200.
I think that all ODs or professionals who deal
with us should ALWAYS make that statement to us.
And then encourage us to review Bates and other
preventive methods.
My eyes werent that bad before I started wearing glasses, I could probably clear 20/70 to 20/100. Went to the opthamologist and guess what he told me after examinations of my eyes, "Looks like you're going to have to wear glasses for the rest of your life." And you usually get the gut feeling something is always wrong when someone says something like that, probably because he was lying and I can smell it. Well after wearing glasses (not daily), for about a year, my eyes went down hill to 20/200, 20/100 in bright sunlight. Thats proof of what bates has said was right. My refractive state is getting worse in the left eye, and so on further stronger subscriptions, this time another opthamologist said, "You'll get use to it." You know what that means, means my refractive state would adapt to the more powerful lens, which means more powerful subscriptions in the future.
I certainly know the difficulties of dealing with cocksure medical people.
They are taught to IMPRESS you with a strong minus. And in
total ignorance you ACCEPT IT.
Only years later that you discover that quite a few (second opinion)
ODs and MDs think that first MINUS is a TERRIBLE IDEA!!!
I have only asked the majority opinion ODs to ACKNOWLEDGE
the preventive methods -- BEFORE that first minus.
And THEY WILL NOT DO IT. If they did, and YOU did
your own research, and came back and said i LOVE
the minus, and don't mind the staircase myopia (now
proven) then that would be OK by me.
But they NEVER respect you -- at all.
I do not like to "fight" with them -- because
I, Bates, and everyone here will always "lose" if
we attempt it.
But let me post a very BAD situation where an
ophthalmologist took a child with 20/60 vision (eye chart)
and based on his profound misconceptions and
bad measurements -- insisted the child wear
a -10 diopter lens ALL THE TIME.
And the child was only 2 years old.
This will be a true disaster for this child.
At the very minimum, the ophthalmologist should
have suggested a 'go slow" with that -10 diopter lens -- but
he did not.
I know that the majority-opinion ODs and OMDs LOVE
to trash Bates and the plus, and swear by that
impressive minus. But sometimes their arrogance
goes over the top.
Here is the mother's story.
Subject: 20/60 vision and a -12 Diopter Prescription?
Your kids probably avoided this "stage". But the intellectual
blindness that would put a child into a -12 diopter lens
(by Retinoscope/cycloplegic exam) is terrible.
It is this attitude that is a killer. Here is the statement
by the mother concerned with this issue:
=======================================
By a "Concerned Parent" on sci.med.vision
I have posted several threads about my 3 year old on this
site (-10.5 but sees 20/60 without glasses).
My question is that a year ago when I brought my daughter in
to the pediatric ophthalmologist he originally had her prescription
at -12.50 each eye.
He gave her a lighter prescription to start out with
though(-10.00). About 3 months later she was -11.50 each eye.
About 3 months later he had her at about -11.00 each eye. Then
about 3 months later he had her at -10.50 each eye.
Just recently when she went back she was -10. 25 in one eye
and -10.00 in the other. The astigmatism has been about the same
for all prescriptions. I was not at the last visit and would have
asked him why its going down.
I am not posting this in ANYWAY to start any controversy. We
have not been doing ANY sort of vision therapy or trying to
improve her vision in anyway, shape, or form. I was wondering if
it made any difference that she has lenticular myopia or if
because she is young maybe her lens could be changing still.
================================================
What is the problem? At the very MINIMUM, if the child's
visual acuity is 20/60 -- YOU DO NOT PUT HER INTO A -12 DIOPTER TO
BE WORN ALL THE TIME!
When you do this to a primate eye -- the eye's refractive
STATE follows the applied minus. That should be a WARNINIG.
At the very minimum, the mother should have been informed
that the SECOND OPINION is to NOT put the child into a -12 diopter
minus. And that with 20/60 the child is functional.
The mother should be aware of this choice -- and make it
herself. She should consult with second-opinion optometrists to
understand this issue.
I do not get involved with such people -- for obvious
reasons.
Maybe David should establish a "rant" section, or
a arrogance and abuse section were we discuss
the "ill" treatment we get from the
OD who is in a "hurry" to put us
into a strong minus.
I personally consider that "practice" deadly
to our longterm vision, and will do
everything I can to help you avoid
entry into myopia.
I personally consider that my vision
is destroyed because of this medical
arrogance, and failure to educate
me as to the alternative.
I am willing to admit as to the
difficulties of prevention (by Bates, or plus)
but I think it is time for a change.
I was "skeptical" of the preventive
second opinion.
I now support it -- and wish all of you
success with it -- for the new year.
Nice poll, Michele. It's hard to draw strong conclusions from just 8 respondents as of writing, but so far your guess was right in that most posters here tend to have started with only mild myopia. Of course there's hyperopia and other problems too.
Otis - I'm definitely not creating a section for ranting about eye doctors being first put into glasses. i'll explain why. I don't think it's doing anyone a favor to invite rants. Whatever we think about and stir strong emotion towards (whether it's positive or negative emotion) just attracts more of the same object or the equivalent thereof, and as much as I want to discourage that in the spirit of well-meaning for others, I also don't want it on my board because I don't want to have to read it myself. Eye doctors are fulfilling society's desires in the way that any void has to be filled, co-creating the mess with the patients that ask for it. I don't see any value in the blame game.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
I certainly understand the "position" of the eye doctor.
And, I understand my own "responsibility" in these
issues.
I think they do owe you a review of alternatives
when you can still pass some of the DMV tests,
i.e., Florida has 20/70, Georgia, 20/60, other
states 20/50, and most 20/40. See:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lowvisioncare.com/visionlaws.htm">http://www.lowvisioncare.com/visionlaws.htm</a><!-- m -->
What I see is ODs "cranking" on their phoropters
(trial lens kit) on children with 20/50 to 20/60. Not great, but
no reason to put the child into a -1.5 to -2 diopter lens -- with
NO WARNING to the parent to "go slow" with that minus.
I think this is EXACTLY what Dr. Bates objected to. I
think it is time to clear the air on this specific subject.
And I do agree that you can not let your child's vision
go below 20/70. And the time to make a decision
or choice would be at that level.
As both of us know, the OD is not going to
clear your naked eye from 20/70 to 20/40 or better.
Bates, and all others have said exactly that. So
it falls to you to do it -- and be effective at it.
It is not that they are callous -- it is just that the
minus is so incredibly easy.
In a way I can not blame them. But that is a
major issue we should all understand.
I do not advocate that if you are -6 diopters
and 20/500, that you "...throw away your
glasses" -- that would be nuts.
But I do SUGGEST that the minus lens
be considered an "necessary evil", and that,
for your own children, you have them read
the Snellen yourself, and if they have
been prescribed (in good faith) a -2 diopter lens,
but you find they read the 20/70 line -- you
consider Bates AT THAT POINT -- as being
a profoundly critical issue for your child.
If you are successful with Bates and your child
in clearing his Snellen to 20/40 -- then
any OD worth his salt will say "Bravo" -- as
we all will.
Patients are as much to blame as the eye doctor, both are ignorant. The doctors are taught in school that this is the way, it is like gospel, and anything different is quackery. Many of these doctors really think they are helping people. I understand how they feel when a patient comes to them and says they are healed or cured, the doctor is skeptical, as I skeptic I would have doubts also. Much as I would not believe someone who came to me and said they were disabled in a wheel chair yesterday, prayed to the powers taht be, and today they are walking. I am not trying to start a debate about religion, I am just saying that I would not believe that person. Who is to say whether that person is telling the truth and was healed, whether he is lying to get attention, or whether his disability was really a manifestation of his mind and the belief that someone above could heal him caused him to heal himself.
Also, the doctors would go out of business healing people. Many doctors are in partnerships with eye glass sellers, at the price of starting a business, it is the only way many can get started. Even if the doctor started with the best of intentions, in the end he has to cater to the partnership and agreement with the eyeglass sellers.
There are many other practices out there where the treatment for the patient does not actually cure them. It seems to mean that many specialists seem to think they are experts and their ego won't let them be wrong. As a suffer of arthritis and thyroidits for 12 years, I have been to many specialists, only to have been told several times that there is nothing wrong. Or to be sent home with pain medicine. I still wonder, what causes all this and how can I cure it? The pain medicines are as bad as the disease and in many cases also have life threatening side-effects.
The problem is not the doctors or the patients, it is the lack of knowledge, or the abundance of it. Either there is too much knowledge for any one person to process and come to a conclusion as to what is real, or there is not enought knowledge on how to treat it.
Well, I have wandered too far off topic and my conversation is probably too long, so I will stop boring everyone now. Good luck with your eyes, and never stop the pursuit of knowledge.
Meir Schnedier has an extraordinary understanding of how the body works. He says, "Multiple sclerosis and arthritis are degenerative processes, not diseases. Unless the cooperation of the mind is sought in reducing the tension of the body and lessening the overload on the nervous system, the nerves of the multiple sclerosis [and arthritis] patient will continue to deteriorate." Citation: Movement for Self-Healing, p. 232-233. Arthritis involves damage to the cartilage, which can deteriorate and eventually disappear. This is a degenerative process that eats away cartilage based either on immune system malfunction or a sedentary lifestyle (lack of movement) or anything else that "grinds" the cartilage, such as running. Do you understand why it's not necessarily a "disease" to be treated with medicine, but a degenerative process that in most cases results from an incorrect usage of the body?
Schneider successfully treats patients who have arthritis and he shows illustrations of what arthritis patients can do... his treatment of arthritis has resulted in cartilage regeneration (as doctors confirmed through lab x-rays) and medical opinion stands firmly against the idea of cartilage regeneration. The concept of regeneration also follows the concept that "thoughts and emotions can either create or destroy healthy tissue" (such as in depression manifesting in physical forms, like weakening the immune system and causing high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases)...this second concept directly has to do with regeneration, in which cells of the body are encouraged to repair any form of tissue. Without addressing the mind entirely separately from the body, the cells may lack the "command" to repair any tissue, including cartilage.
Schneider has cured several things that Western doctors cannot understand given their evaluation methods. If you get the book, flip to the arthritis section which is 26 pages long. It won't require much reading time to grasp, as he writes in laymen term. The pain medication you speak of does not address the destructive process of arthritis, because it only masks the pain. Any medication to "help" arthritis may not have good results unless the body is addressed correctly and the mind is consciously addressed to "command" the cells to begin or strengthen a regenerative process.
Thanks for the recommendations. I will definately look into them. I have suspected, and from what I read in your post, Dr Schneider confirms, that my poor eyesight and arthritis may be manifestations of the same problem (i.e. stress).
I did purchase and follow the suggestions from the book Movement for Self-Healing. While my vision is still poor, I have not had a flair of arthritis in 3 years now. There are times when I feel it coming on, such as when I'm tired or there's a cold front moving down, but I keep the pain and problems at bay. I have found a strenght I wish my family would find. After a hard day of working or playing, we all go home and crash hard, but the next morning I am up and going while my sister and mom lay disabled in bed. This book has helped me so much that I have told everyong I know about it. I met a man at work who adopted a child who developed vision problems. They did surgery to correct the problem, only after the surgery his pupils would no longer react and the surface of his eyes burned off such that they had to sew his eyes shut. I don't know how he is doing now, but his father read the book when I gave it to him and was beginning the exercises with his son. I have found an improvment in my body, my mind, and my vision as a result of this bulleting board and that book. However, I wish I could get more poeple to do the poll!!
Another tidbit I have been spreading that I learned on this post is about Zenni optical. It is so funny that 2 people I told about it needed to go get their prescription first. They ended up buying $400 or more in eyeglasses :o , they are such sharks! Its worse than going to a car dealership.
Anyway, I think I intended on saying more, but don't remember what. Today is not one of my best days ???
