Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anticorrective lense sucess story
#31
(03-12-2014, 01:08 PM)Aethersky Wrote: hi arocrarty.

According to your what you said and the totally ridiculous results of those biased studies, then i guess everyone should wear a full powered minus all the time.

If a child is -3D myopic, we can all agree it is totally foolish to wear a -3D lens ALL the time. Also according to that logic, how can anyone's vision IMPROVE without an undercorrection.

If guessing your vision isn't perfect, so techniquely you have an "undercorrection". Are you willing to put a strong minus lens on your eyes. I think the answer is no.

It doesn't matter an iota whether we like the results or not, the results are the results. I can't say I'm being very logical if I say, I don't like it, therefore, it's stupid! These were properly done studies, they just don't make up the results. The first one had to be halted after 2 years (a 3-year study) because they recognized they were making people's vision worse. Probably feared big lawsuits if continued with that knowledge. That was the responsible thing to do, in that situation. (and avoid lawsuits) My point was that it would be the responsible thing to do to inform the pilot students of the results of such studies. If I were one of them, and they were to try some unconventional method on my vision, I sure would want to know what the outcome was in previous studies. I would think I'd have a right to know. Don't you think that would be the responsible thing to do?
Reply
#32
I found one way to help stop these eyeglass sales people from hurting people with unnatural methods;

I get a lot of requests from people on my YouTube video channel and other internet discussions in USA and worldwide;
I refer them to iblindness forum and also; include a list of the people to avoid, the abusive ones so they know ahead of time who will try to lure them into using eyeglasses, eye surgery, unnatural practices that will reverse their vision improvement.
Reply
#33
this is very funny.
if undercorrection made people's vision WORSE than i guess bates was wrong to tell people to stop wearing glasses. So that logic is people shouuld use their strong minus all the time.
Those studies are biased and totally idiotic.
Good advice arocarty

clarknight, you're the one that is being abusive in this forum. Would you like it if i did the same thing i go around the internet, on this forum telling people to avoid your opinions. saying bad things about you? (because i can i have time).
this is a FORUM people are here to express there opinions and ways of vision improvement. There is no "one way". but you attack everyone who disagrees with you as "a lure".
Reply
#34
(03-13-2014, 07:11 AM)Aethersky Wrote: this is very funny.
if undercorrection made people's vision WORSE than i guess bates was wrong to tell people to stop wearing glasses. So that logic is people shouuld use their strong minus all the time.
Those studies are biased and totally idiotic.
Good advice arocarty


I'm sure those whose vision was made worse didn't find it very funny. I'd bet they're saying to themselves, that was an idiotic thing to do, and will never touch another pair of plus lenses the rest of their lives.
Randomized clinical trials are structured in such a way to avoid as much bias as possible. These trials didn't have anything to do with using no correction, just the effect of full correction vs. undercorrection via plus add. Drawing conclusions with regard to using no correction would be impossible to make.
As far as studies being 'idiotic,' we've already discussed the logic of that. For an impartial look at interventions to slow progression of myopia, and the results, people can look at this: (note the effort they went to to avoid "bias") http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22161388
Reducing or eliminating accommodative load has little effect on the progression of myopia. Does not stop it, certainly does not reverse it. In some cases can accelerate it. Much more must be at play than simply accommodation.
Reply
#35
Most studies, trials done by businesses that sell the thing they are doing the study on make darn sure their studies are controlled in a deceptive manner, in their favor. Our government allows the drug companies to do corrupt studies, tests to insure the new drug is approved. The truth, side effects are flawed, hidden for the public. It's all about money; the stock market; many politicians own stock in the pharmaceutical companies. Same with the oil industry. Food industry. How long has the public begged Pepsi and Coke to remove aspartame, high fructose corn syrup from their sodas? They won't do it because NutraSweet, (aspartame) is made by a drug company and sold to the food industry. This artificial sweetener cause M.S., optic nerve damage, muscle dysfunction, so many health problems. Then the drug co, doctors say the person needs to buy drugs to control the health problems.

Remember the study done by eye doctors about UV light. They state the study shows it harms the eyes. They did not say the study was done by forcing monkeys eyes to stay open for a very long time as only UV light was constantly beamed into their eyes. Their eyes movement was limited. No full spectrum natural light. Just the (possibly also created extra strong?) UV.

I figure the optical and surgery companies sell stock.

Modern eye doctors have proved Dr. Bates correct; the eye does lengthen a bit when the lens accommodates. The eyes shape and lens change for accommodation and un-accommodation.

All people that have been harmed by the plus lens (ladies with children whose sight was impaired by it, the mothers and fathers whose comments about the eye damage were blocked, removed from the PowerVisionSystem Forum and Otis's Myopia... groups and the Yahoo Bates method group that allows Otis to run itWink; if you see this topic in search, come here to inblindness.org and post your statement. David allows the truth to be posted here. Help others avoid impaired vision.

Got to go, helping students.
Reply
#36
hi clark, can you the stories of people who were harmed by the plus? You mentioned that you saved a copies of websites for proof.

We can all agree that "monkey wears minus glasses. monkey develops myopia".
Reply
#37
(03-13-2014, 11:04 AM)Aethersky Wrote: hi clark, can you the stories of people who were harmed by the plus? You mentioned that you saved a copies of websites for proof.

We can all agree that "monkey wears minus glasses. monkey develops myopia".

Clarknight rants on about everything is about the money,but how about the money she makes pedaling her wares that do not work,and cause people to have false hope over such things a " CLEAR Flash ".
She seems to want to tie this guy named Otis into almost everything.Very strange behavior.
Reply
#38
Given that plus lenses don't physically interact with the eye, but only change the way light enters it, is it not possible that then difference between an eye remaining healthy and developing disease while on the plus lenses is dependant on how we use our visual system?

Not advocating the plus method, but on or off of plus lenses, people develop eye problems, and since many of these problems can apparently be corrected by the bates method, they all must inherently be caused by improper use of the eyes.

P.S. Wouldnt it would be funny if clarknight turned out to be Otis Brown. Fight club anyone? lolololol
Reply
#39
(03-12-2014, 06:26 AM)Aethersky Wrote: I don't wholly agree with this "anticorrective or plus lenses" stuff. They should be used to PREVENT nearsightedness in the first place. To gain improvements one needs to do active focus at the "edge of blur" (with or without a plus). Merely wearing a plus has little or no effect. A +2D does not "correct" -2D myopia so people get the wrong idea of a plus lens.
the plus lens is based on the assumption the close work is the main (and probably only) factor in myopia. Which logically seems true. Another thing that plus lenses are helpful is that they totally cancel nearpoint stress, so person can do reading with no stress on his eyes. that's the main benefit

As I understand it the military has found that A young pilot candidate can have 20/20,or better vision before entering the flight training program,but due to the extensive study,and classroom work,begin to have acuity problems,that many times wash them out of the program because they no longer meet the minimum standards,and sometimes are heading toward progressive myopia. This has usually happened after the military has invested a significant amount of money into their training,and well before they have completed the program.
This new part of the program will monitor their acuity on a regular schedule,and if it is found to be declining,anticorrective lenses will be given,along with a series of exercises to be done. Some of these exercises are done while wearing the prescribed glasses,and others without.
Since my friends daughter has done anticorrective lenses,they selected her to be a student / coach / adviser to anyone that is experiencing a decline in acuity.
They will also be watching her acuity,to determine if she may relapse back to myopia,as she progresses through the program.
The canceling of near point stress is a large part of this program.
Some of the eye exam tests that they put her through at the university ophthalmologist center required her to read small print ,in low light,at eight inches for two hours with no break,and then immediately transition to read a 20/20 eye chart in low light.
Reply
#40
(03-16-2014, 01:34 AM)Bifocal Wrote:
(03-12-2014, 06:26 AM)Aethersky Wrote:

Some of the eye exam tests that they put her through at the university ophthalmologist center required her to read small print ,in low light,at eight inches for two hours with no break,and then immediately transition to read a 20/20 eye chart in low light.

Reading small print close to the eyes, in dim light - that sounds like doing Bates! You have to relax in order to read it properly, and if you strain, Bates demonstrated that it can cause a hyperopic shift - either way, sounds like a win-win for someone with myopic tendencies.

Is this all suppose to represent some kind of scientific study? Not by any stretch of the imagination does it represent any kind of radomized clinical trial, where there are very strict protocols and guidelines to follow. Any results would be meaningless to the scientific community, bias could not be ruled out, there's no control group vs. treatment group, etc. etc. As a study it would be a sham. But great for for the anecdotal journals.
Reply
#41
"u have to relax in order to read it properly, and if you strain, Bates demonstrated that it can cause a hyperopic shift"
-where is the support for this claim??
Reply
#42
(03-16-2014, 08:18 AM)Aethersky Wrote: "u have to relax in order to read it properly, and if you strain, Bates demonstrated that it can cause a hyperopic shift"
-where is the support for this claim??

Good question. Glad that you ask. Why did Bates claim that if you strain at near, you produced a hyperopic shift, and if you strain at far, you produce a myopic shift (in one or all meridians of the eye - as he also observed that it often produced astigmatism as well): simultaneous retinoscopy. One has to understand, first, that Bates was extraordinarily skilled at utilizing a retinoscope. Probably better than any ophthalmologist in the history of the instrument. This gave him the ability to detect errors of refraction, very quickly, in a very objective manner, even when a patient was unaware of one being present. And the ability to do it under all sorts of conditions. He used it to examine hundreds of thousands of eyeballs,on babies, children, teens, adults, people who had their eye lenses removed, animals, anything that moved or breathed.

By means of this instrument, he was able to verify, in a highly objective way, many highly consistent patterns in the nature of refractive errors. When people strained or made an effort to see at the nearpoint, he invariably observed that it produced temporary hyperopia, or a hyperopic shift, and when people made an effort or strained to see at the distance, a myopic shift. Even with people from whom the eye lenses had been removed, the same principles always applied. He observed long-standing high levels of myopia disappear in seconds under certain conditions, and people who normally had remarkable vision create errors of refraction in seconds as well. He could demonstrate this to anyone, on anyone, within a few minutes. Armed with this knowledge and factual data, he separated, as we know, from conventional methods of treating refractive errors.

I can personally testify that reading fine print, is a benefit to vision. I've used my eyes for hours and hours and hours, for years and years and years, at the nearpoint, and my vision did not move in a myopic direction, quite the contrary, when I learned how to relax and release mental stain, shift and swing more freely, and fixate, thanks to fine print. It helped much with releasing astigmatism as well. I don't want to think where I might have ended up if I had continued the same straining ways.
Reply
#43
Even back in 1901 natural health teachers such as Bernarr MacFadden, the public knew that reading glasses, all glasses, plus and minus destroy the eyes health, are addictive, lead to increased blur.

In time the glasses cause so much progressive tension in the eye muscles, inner ciliary and outer oblique and recti that the pressure on the eye form the tension is greatly increased resulting in extremely shortened, lengthen eye shape, irregular causing all light rays form close and far objects to not focus on the retina.

See the PDF.

and entire books;
http://books.google.com/books?id=kLXpAAA...es&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-w8H3eZ...es&f=false

and the modern;
http://books.google.com/books?id=qpQLV_t...&q&f=false


Attached Files
. strong   Bernarr MacFadden states that reading glasses, all glasses cause more vision impairment, impair eye circulation. Strong (Size: 929.18 KB / Downloads: 1)
Reply
#44
hi,
the Plus is a good tool to prevent nearsighetness.
case closed
Reply
#45
(03-16-2014, 03:39 AM)arocarty Wrote:
(03-16-2014, 01:34 AM)Bifocal Wrote:
(03-12-2014, 06:26 AM)Aethersky Wrote:

Some of the eye exam tests that they put her through at the university ophthalmologist center required her to read small print ,in low light,at eight inches for two hours with no break,and then immediately transition to read a 20/20 eye chart in low light.

Reading small print close to the eyes, in dim light - that sounds like doing Bates! You have to relax in order to read it properly, and if you strain, Bates demonstrated that it can cause a hyperopic shift - either way, sounds like a win-win for someone with myopic tendencies.

Is this all suppose to represent some kind of scientific study? Not by any stretch of the imagination does it represent any kind of radomized clinical trial, where there are very strict protocols and guidelines to follow. Any results would be meaningless to the scientific community, bias could not be ruled out, there's no control group vs. treatment group, etc. etc. As a study it would be a sham. But great for for the anecdotal journals.

That part of her test was apparently because she had previously been myopic,and had corrected it with anticorrective lenses.
All of the pilot training candidates were not given that test.
There was one young male that was subjected to some special testing that none of the others had too do.
If any of this group of fifty,and another group of fifty begin to show the slightest sign of myopia during flight training,the plan is that they will be fitted with the appropriate anticorrective lenses immediately.
Reply

5 TIPS TO IMPROVE YOUR VISION IMMEDIATELY!

Quickly prove to yourself that vision improvement is possible, with this free PDF download.

Download Now