Quote:It is a difficult subject as there are a range of therapies that provide less than promised results. Some of these are due to outmoded concepts from a century ago, when most myopia was ciliary, not axial.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://frauenfeldclinic.com/myopia-rehab-start-here/why-is-my-vision-blurry/">http://frauenfeldclinic.com/myopia-reha ... on-blurry/</a><!-- m -->
What do you guys make of this. I have had no success with the Bates Method after three years. Could the reason be that the Bates Method is essentially a "snapshot" from the early 20th century? A method that worked perfectly fine in his time but will not work as well today? Did Bates back then work with patients who had a different type of myopia (ciliary) than our generation today is currently experiencing (axial), which means that his treatment was perfect for the people of that time but not of today?
I mean I just keep seeing the Bates Method being debunked over and over again, and many people that I have talked to and mailed, have not been successful with it.
THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BASH THE BATES METHOD. I just want to know what you guys think of this piece of information? Maybe the Bates Method itself does work, but only when we go back to the early 20th century, before 8-10 hours of staring at a computer screen every single day.
Quote:It is a difficult subject as there are a range of therapies that provide less than promised results. Some of these are due to outmoded concepts from a century ago, when most myopia was ciliary, not axial.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://frauenfeldclinic.com/myopia-rehab-start-here/why-is-my-vision-blurry/">http://frauenfeldclinic.com/myopia-reha ... on-blurry/</a><!-- m -->
What do you guys make of this. I have had no success with the Bates Method after three years. Could the reason be that the Bates Method is essentially a "snapshot" from the early 20th century? A method that worked perfectly fine in his time but will not work as well today? Did Bates back then work with patients who had a different type of myopia than our generation today is currently experiencing, which means that his treatment was perfect for the people of that time but not of today?
I mean I just keep seeing the Bates Method being debunked over and over again, and many people that I have talked to and mailed, have not been successful with it.
THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BASH THE BATES METHOD. I just want to know what you guys think of this piece of information?
Hi,
Yes, I think you might be right there.
Ciliary myopia was most certainly more common 100 years ago.
Myopia is also genetic.
Researchers have shown that there are about 25 genes that cause myopia.
So that means that there might be 2^25 possible causes to myopia,
i.e. in total about 33 000 000 causes to myopia. :-[
This is why Bates method is so general and the personal advice often given is to learn to find out what excercises that really improves you vision.
This might take some time to find out and it puzzles people,
and if you do the wrong things you will not see any result what so ever.
Some teachers of today seem to have had an easy cure,
and that signals to me that they just suffered from the ciliary myopia.
Then they tend to go public and make people believe that they also can have a fast recovery,
but that is just going to turn out for a very few persons.
The rest will get disappointed and have to face a quite long period of training in order to make the eyes rounder.
I think still the eyes can get rounder and shorter because the eyes looks actually smaller after Bates method,
and also after for instance outdoor activities like walking in the forest or laughing while doing something you like.
This to me shows that axial myopia can thus be reversed when the environment changes for the good,
but when the environment falls back to the same myopia triggering patterns then you need to find your own strong way out of it (that is the Bates method).
What is good with the long swing I think is that it trains the coordination between the mind and the central seeing.
I think that will get your eyes moving in the long run and I think it might reshape your eyes.
To relax your ciliar muscle I think you need to do central fixation with shifting and palming.
You also find out that these excercises goes hand in hand.
I think NVI becomes more and more focused on the mind,
and that might be due to that we today have much more axial myopia, genetically triggered and also caused by to less light (outdoor activities), to much nearwork and wrong food.
This might of course be very hard to recover from with just pure Bates method depending on what history a myopic person have gone through.
This all is factors that shows up here on this forum, people often are very puzzled and they don't really know what red line to follow (and they doubt that there are a red line at all).
I think though you can quite easily identify what kind of myopia you suffer from.
For instance: If you suffer from just ciliar myopia then you got glasses quite late, didn't study so much, lived in a quite sunny country, was quite happy as a child and didn't worry so much.
For instance: If you suffer from axial myopia then you got glasses quite early, was worried as a child, studied very much, stayed indoors, maybe liked to play computer games, eat wrong food (perhaps your parents didn't like natural food like fish/fruit/vegetables).
I agree with you hammer. I guess what this generally means, is that the Bates Method is becoming less and less applicable every day, EXCEPT for those few people with similar myopic conditions as Bates' patients back in the day. Again, the method itself is sound, if we place it in an early 19th century context, if we focus solely on the era when it came out. Now that we read more, sit behind the computer for 10 hours a day (and ever increasing), use our smartphones every 2 minutes (I don't, luckily), e-readers, social media, etc...we are developing a different type of myopia that still can be reversed, but requires a different approach.
It is not Bates' fault, it's just that we now live in a different time that we ourselves have created in which we have reduced the potential effectiveness of the Bates Method. This explains why it did not work for me (and my friend and many other people I regularly talk to), even though I really wanted to believe it would improve my eyesight, no matter how many skeptics kept debunking it. Bates does not deserve to be ridiculed. His method worked for a lot of people back then.
I realize now that the Bates Method does not deserve to be debunked today. It is kind of like picking on an old man who used to be in his prime back in his day but is weak today. It is not fair.
So the environment (as you mentioned) that I am trying to create for myself right now, focuses on using distance vision as much as possible (the way nature intended us to use our eyes). When I read a book or sit behind the computer, I move as far back as my vision will allow me, introducing a slight blur. I read like that and after a half a minute or so, my eyes will have focused and cleared up the blur = print pushing > compressing the eye instead of elongating it > reversing myopia. I am three days into this and have already seen more results than the three years of Bates Method has produced (nothing). Clear flashes lasting up to 10 minutes. I am very excited.
I THINK the Bates Method will nowadays work only for those select few people who have not yet developed axial myopia, much like the people back in Bates' days.
You keep emphasizing that you had no success from Bates, but from your Aug 17 post you said:
"hi i'm new btw ready to do this bates method thing! i've discovered this method a few years back and dabbled with it a little and then i just never really did anything with it anymore. now i'm back, i'm older and i'm serious about this!"
To have success, one absolutely must do more than just 'dabble' in it, especially for those with long-term wearing of lenses. I dabbled for years as well, also trying all sorts of bizzaro things, determined to find that 'quick fix', or sure thing, because I felt I wasn't getting there fast enough. Saw little improvement. It's pretty par for the course, but does not reflect on the effectiveness of Bates, just on my own lack of understanding and impulsiveness. Doesn't sound like you were very serious. And this does sound like a subtle attack on the Bates method, to me anyways. Don't let your own failure be a reason to campaign against the Bates method or question it's effectiveness. You don't know of all the successes of the many thousands over the last century who don't post on these sites.
arocarty Wrote:You keep emphasizing that you had no success from Bates, but from your Aug 17 post you said:
"hi i'm new btw ready to do this bates method thing! i've discovered this method a few years back and dabbled with it a little and then i just never really did anything with it anymore. now i'm back, i'm older and i'm serious about this!"
To have success, one absolutely must do more than just 'dabble' in it, especially for those with long-term wearing of lenses. I dabbled for years as well, also trying all sorts of bizzaro things, determined to find that 'quick fix', or sure thing, because I felt I wasn't getting there fast enough. Saw little improvement. It's pretty par for the course, but does not reflect on the effectiveness of Bates, just on my own lack of understanding and impulsiveness. Doesn't sound like you were very serious. And this does sound like a subtle attack on the Bates method, to me anyways. Don't let your own failure be a reason to campaign against the Bates method or question it's effectiveness. You don't know of all the successes of the many thousands over the last century who don't post on these sites.
Hi arocarty, yes I have had no success. I have discovered this method a few years back (early 2010) but I am new to the forum. I have been practicing the Bates Method on and off in the last three years, but while leading a busy life so I practiced everyday in periods of 2-6 months before I would give up either from not seeing results (ANY results) or from being too busy with other stuff. Then maybe a month or two later I would pick it up again. Dabble is not the right word, and also it's dabble in and not dabble with, so I messed that up as well. Sorry if I used the wrong the word, English is not my first language (or second or third) so I mix up words sometimes! So then recently I picked it up yet again, really wanting to go for it until I just completely dropped it a few days ago.
I am relatively young (mid-twenties), I have never worn minus lenses, even though I had them lying around in my drawer. So in my case (being young, having never worn glasses, having relatively low myopia) I would expect to see at least a litte sign, a little result, a little clear flash, from religiously palming up to one hour every morning and working the Snellen chart, sunning for a few minutes in the afternoon, and long swinging for 10-30 minutes after a hard day at work, before bed. I have changed my eye habits (blinking more consistently, keeping central fixation in mind, being relaxed, etc). And where have all these hours that I spent every day gotten me. Nowhere. Not even a little improvement, NO improvement at all. I have recently realized that my vision actually got a little worse over the last three years, which is natural. But then that means that Bates Method did not even halt further worsening of my vision, despite all those months of time I put into it. How can I then expect it to improve my vision? I could've done so much with all that time. That is a LOT of time gone down the drain for me, and this is why I am so frustrated with the Bates Method or any other similar natural vision improvement system. Then a couple of days ago I find out about print pushing/plus lens therapy, and on the second day of doing that I'm already getting clear flashes that last up to 10-15 minutes. Lasting clearer vision.
If I'm going to spend months trying to improve my vision, I would expect to see at least a little sign that it's working for me. But nothing ever happened. Of course I will be frustrated then. Forget about it being discouraging, even if the Bates Method did work, it's not efficient, it's not fast enough, people today are not going to have the motivation to keep it up, most people are simply not going to have the time to spend hours on improving their vision everyday. Most of us live fast lives. Bates Method revolves around relaxation to achieve better vision, relaxation is central to improving vision. But I find it hard to believe. I believe relaxation is nice but it's not going to do much for you. What DOES seem to work and seems to be logical and common sense is reversing myopia by compressing the eyes (instead of elongating) by print pushing (moving away from your near work (text, writing, etc) until you see a bit of blur and then letting the eyes clear up the blur by letting them focus). This is what compresses the eye. This to me is more logical and scientifically sound than simply relaxing the eyes by palming. That might work for ciliary myopia which is what most people had back then, but now most of us have to deal with axial myopia. Here's a blog post I came across:
Quote:Why I wonât use the Bates method
Posted in Myopia - - No comment
If youâre looking for a natural treatment for myopia, you will come across the Bates method sooner or later. When I first saw it mentioned, I thought that it could be the answer I was looking for.
But as I did some research on the method, I realized that it was probably not going to work.
Bates designed his method for treating nearsightedness/myopia in the early 20th century, about a hundred years ago. At that time, the myopia that most nearsighted people had was probably the ciliary kind. This is a mild nearsightedness that does not involve a permanent deformation of the eye, which axial (permanent and severe) myopia does.
The Bates method appears to be based on a principle of relaxation. That makes sense when tiny muscles cause the myopia by contracting, which is what ciliary myopia is.
It seems Bates believed that the muscles around the eye help the eye focus by elongating it. Most medical professionals today know that it is the ciliary muscles in the eye that cause the eye to change and keep focus, by affecting the crystalline lens in the front of the eyeball.
The Bates method seems to be designed to relax the muscles around the eye, that Bates thought caused the eye to focus and keep focus. Because that is not what happens, I would consider the thinking behind the method to be wrong. That in itself is reason enough not to use it.
The method also seems to use exercises like palming the eyes and looking at the sun to treat myopia. I donât think those methods would be useful parts of any program to treat myopia, and staring at the sun may be genuinely harmful.
Is the Bates method a scam?
If I donât think the Bates method is effective, does it mean that itâs a scam?
While I donât believe that the Bates method works for the vast majority of nearsighted people, it may well have an effect in managing mild and ciliary myopia. That is what it was designed to handle a century ago.
The axial elongation of the eye, which is the cause of severe and permanent myopia, is what most nearsighted people suffer from today. And that, I believe, is far outside the scope of what Bates had in mind when he designed his method.
So I would not call it a scam. But I would urge caution when todayâs vision therapists claim that the Bates method, or any related method, works on severe myopia. It may turn out to just be a waste of time and money for you. Note that most (pretty much all the ones Iâve seen) treatment methods online are based on the Bates method, and thatâs why those things have a bad reputation in general.
Now, while the basic principles of the Bates method are likely ineffective, it has one good point: A natural and effective treatment for myopia would use exercises for the eyes to be performed every day. But it would incorporate other exercises and other principles.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.naturalmyopiatreatment.com/bates-method/">http://www.naturalmyopiatreatment.com/bates-method/</a><!-- m -->
The Bates Method and its derivates are being advertisted as natural vision improvement methods. But what is never mentioned is that it will only work with a certain type of myopia. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT MENTIONED in all those books I have read (maybe I missed Bates himself mentioning this somewhere?). Most of us nowadays have developed axial myopia, we do not have the ciliary kind (I think you start out with ciliary and then that progresses into axial myopia, I believe). I guess what we need to do is figure out what type of myopia a person has and determine the correct approach (Bates Method for ciliary and print pushing/plus lens for axial). With all those natural vision improvement books by authors from Bates himself to Meir Schneider, I was always under the impression that it wil "just work". Never a mention of different types of myopia. Never asking the reader what type of myopia he/she has. Not once. Maybe I just didn't read the right books?
It's really my own fault. I kept practicing the Bates Method regardless of all the skeptics being EXTREMELY critical of it. I just wanted to improve my vision. But I should have done more research than I already did (hundreds of hours, mostly looking for advice on Bates techniques, but ironically I never figured out the ciliary and axial thing until recently, I feel so stupid right now).
And really, authors of vision improvement books are going to have to start making it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the Bates Method and its derivatives will only work for people with a type of myopic similar to Bates' patients back in the day (mostly ciliary).
As axial myopia becomes more prevalent, the Bates Method is becoming less and less and less effective. This is not Bates' fault obviously. He did not/could not forsee that we would eventually be spending tens of hours on end sitting behind computer screens/tablet screens/smartphone screens every day and thus developing axial myopia.
Quote:When I think of Bates, I think of the Ford Model T.
That car was the cutting edge of its time, in many ways. It was what could be done back then, within the knowledge that was available, and the tools of the time. Henry Ford took the knowledge, and applied it to a large group of people, mass producing that car. It was a notable accomplishment.
Bates, similarly, took the science of the time, and then brought it to a (relatively) large group of people. It was relevant, in its day, and an accomplishment, in a similar way.
But then ⦠you wouldnât want to drive a Ford Model T, today.
Partially you wouldnât, because the roads are different (back then average speeds werenât 65 on any âhighwaysâ), and partially because we just know a lot more about engineering and safety now than we did back then.
Bates times were ciliary myopia times. Lower degrees of myopia, much more prevalent. There was a lot of latitude for practices that may not be the most effective things in the world, and still relax the ciliary muscle â and reduce myopia. Reading his advice today does sort of make me think of hand cranking my car in the morning.
Bates is great, the way the Ford Model T is great â in a museum.
Today, where the majority of myopia is expressed as axial myopia, where we donât have the time or patience to go through a whole lot of eye exercises with only marginal impact, we need the 2013 model year solution.
The problem with the whole Bates discussion is that some of it, sometimes, for a short period of time, sort of â works. People who know no better (or maybe do), sell ebooks, apps, books, exercise routines, that sound complex and inspiring, attach the Bates name (Model T, still famous, still known, and familiar does equal confidence inspiring). So somebody who really wants better eyesight sees the cute illustrations, finds some positive feedback (from 1920), is willing to spend 20 Euro to try it.
But then it doesnât fix his/her -4D axial myopia.
And then, we have the real problem: âTried that, didnât work, there is no myopia cure.â
Thatâs how people, via the Internet, arrive here. So now we have the uphill battle of explaining that thereâs more than the spray-painted-pink Model T, and that some cars can actually go 65 and not blow up in the process. We have to overcome undue skepticism because some guy, in some basement, had to make 20 Euro off an unsuspecting and curious individual.
And finally that is, why I cringe, when I hear the word âBatesâ.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://frauenfeldclinic.com/myopia-forums/topic/dr-bates-and-successful-myopia-prevention/">http://frauenfeldclinic.com/myopia-foru ... revention/</a><!-- m -->
It all makes sense now. Why does no one talk about this. Why are the Bates Method and its derivatives being advertised as, how do I describe it, general, universal? The Bates Method works, but only for those people with ciliary myopia! And MAYBE for SOME people with axial myopia. MAYBE
The Bates Method itself is not a scam. The selling of ebooks based on the Bates Method, in our times, today, without mentioning the difference in ciliary and axial myopia and that it will only work for people with ciliary myopia, THAT is the scam. And it's sad to see this happening. Some figures are taking advantage (or not, maybe they themselves had ciliary myopia and don't know the whole picture) of people by essentially repackaging the early 20th century Bates Method and selling it off as a legitimate natural vision improvement program in a world were it's mostly AXIAL myopia that we suffer from. It is a shame and it is insulting Bates' legacy: the skeptics are being misled by the people who act as a proxy and who are profiting off of unsuspecting people. Bates himself didn't do anything wrong! He genuinely helped a TON of people, in HIS TIME. He isn't the one the skeptics should be bashing, it's the people who repackage his method without explaining ciliary and axial myopia that must be confronted!
BEFORE picking up vision improvement, it needs to be made clear what type of myopia the person is suffering from. Sadly, I myself was naive and uninformed and did not bother to look all this up when I started out, simply because I didn't know any better, and neither do many many others with axial myopia who just simply pick up the Bates Method with the expectation of vision improvement.
If the owner of this forum is a good and honest person, I ask that he/she makes it clear somewhere on the top of the page on the banner or whatever, or through a popup, or anywhere visible on this site, that people MUST know the difference between ciliary and axial myopia. Too many people with axial myopia pick up and go through the Bates Method without knowing that it most likely won't help them because they have axial and not ciliary myopia. I am not bashing the owner of this forum and I am not singling this person out, I will be talking to a lot of other authors and website owners as well, but I believe that from now, it has to be made extremely crystal clear by any proponent of the Bates Method or author of natural vision improvement ebooks based on the Bates Method, that the reader must determine his/her type of myopia. If he/she suffers from ciliary myopia, he/she will most likely have great success with the Bates Method. However if he/she suffers from axial myopia (the more prevalent type today as opposed to the ciliary myopia times of Bates' era), he/she will most likely be wasting time.
Now it's starting to sound like an Otis rant; using anything and everything to campaign against the Bates method. (and providing no evidence / proof / research for your own claims). By your own admittance you just 'dabbled' with the Bates method, and didn't take it very seriously. I'd tell any dabblers to expect little in return, if anything. Doesn't matter if you have .25 or 40 diopter of myopia. Sometimes the least amounts are the most difficult to relieve, because it's just that much more subtle. Talk to Nancy about her -10 axial myopia, which has improved to near normal levels. I had astigmatism AND axial myopia, but am now seeing at normal levels. (tests with drops never improved my vision) Wore glasses & contacts for 25 yrs. I work at the nearpoint all day long, on computers, plus more hours at near reading music, doing other things. All the while my vision improved w/ the Bates method. Don't wear reading glasses, though I am well into an age where presbyopia should be crippling me, like all my friends/family.
Most people already know about this (ciliary/axial) through their vision specialist. It's the first thing they usually test in an eye exam - through cyclopegic refraction, to determine the absolute state of refraction. Bates extensively tested his facts while using the same ciliary-paralyzing drops.
Nick, I believe you're well-intentioned. To me the "difference" between ciliary and axial myopia is a matter of degree, and you're making an artificial distinction. I feel like I'm hearing a medical professional invent new terms for degrees of the same thing, so he can prescribe different drugs for them. Oh, you don't have an ulcer YET, you have a pre-ulcer. You have GERD! We have to treat it right away with my method so you don't get an ulcer! Your axial myopia is just a more severe more entrenched case of your ciliary myopia.
I stand by Bates and his techniques. Since I got strong glasses at age 5 which got stronger every year, and wore them for decades, I haven't reduced my myopia totally yet. Someone with a very mild case might be out of glasses completely in a year or less. I need to do more palming, more Long Swings, more sunning, spend more time with the eye chart, more consistently than someone with a mild case of myopia, in order to continue to improve. Bates is not wrong, or outdated, to me. Yet again people are mis-reading him and mis-understanding him, then saying his method doesn't work.
I'm glad the print pushing is giving you results. This may be Bates too, you know. He says when the eye chart you're using for distance practice gets too easy because it's too close now, move it back. I like your enthusiasm and that you want to share what you've learned. I don't like that you're calling Bates outdated without fully understanding his method.
He's been totally 'Otis' ing all over the forum last 2 days. Starting to think hes Otis. I am burnt out trying to keep up with his posts and keep the truth known about the plus lens causing cataract... I wish there was a rule on this Forum to keep this harmful method off. It's just too much.
arocarty Wrote:Now it's starting to sound like an Otis rant; using anything and everything to campaign against the Bates method. (and providing no evidence / proof / research for your own claims). By your own admittance you just 'dabbled' with the Bates method, and didn't take it very seriously. I'd tell any dabblers to expect little in return, if anything. Doesn't matter if you have .25 or 40 diopter of myopia. Sometimes the least amounts are the most difficult to relieve, because it's just that much more subtle. Talk to Nancy about her -10 axial myopia, which has improved to near normal levels. I had astigmatism AND axial myopia, but am now seeing at normal levels. (tests with drops never improved my vision) Wore glasses & contacts for 25 yrs. I work at the nearpoint all day long, on computers, plus more hours at near reading music, doing other things. All the while my vision improved w/ the Bates method. Don't wear reading glasses, though I am well into an age where presbyopia should be crippling me, like all my friends/family.
Most people already know about this (ciliary/axial) through their vision specialist. It's the first thing they usually test in an eye exam - through cyclopegic refraction, to determine the absolute state of refraction. Bates extensively tested his facts while using the same ciliary-paralyzing drops.
NickGrouwen Wrote:If the owner of this forum is a good and honest person, I ask that he/she makes it clear somewhere on the top of the page on the banner or whatever, or through a popup, or anywhere visible on this site, that people MUST know the difference between ciliary and axial myopia. Too many people with axial myopia pick up and go through the Bates Method without knowing that it most likely won't help them because they have axial and not ciliary myopia. I am not bashing the owner of this forum and I am not singling this person out, I will be talking to a lot of other authors and website owners as well, but I believe that from now, it has to be made extremely crystal clear by any proponent of the Bates Method or author of natural vision improvement ebooks based on the Bates Method, that the reader must determine his/her type of myopia. If he/she suffers from ciliary myopia, he/she will most likely have great success with the Bates Method. However if he/she suffers from axial myopia (the more prevalent type today as opposed to the ciliary myopia times of Bates' era), he/she will most likely be wasting time.
This is just your hypothesis. Where's the actual evidence for the increased prevalence of axial vs. ciliary myopia? And the evidence that the Bates method works better for one than the other? And don't use circular reasoning. That the Bates method doesn't work for someone doesn't prove that his/her myopia is axial, and when it does work for someone, that doesn't prove the myopia was ciliary.
I agree however that people should be informed of all possibilities. Different things are going to work for different people, and some people will try many things and still not get results.
Oh, I see now that this is not your hypothesis, but it is still just a hypothesis. It would be very difficult to prove that myopia was more ciliary in the past. Thanks for the link, though, it's interesting.
It would also be extremely difficult to prove that eyestrain is any different today than it was a century ago. Back in Bates' day, millions worked in sweatshop factories, or under other horrific conditions, where they were subjected to 12 or more hrs per day of work, many doing tedious near point work in dim lighting. There were no unions to protect your worker rights - you had none, if you wanted to keep your job. Today we get every ergonomic convenience. Even the very poor were coming to Bates for treatment - thousands came to the NY infirmary, the city provided the service the residents. How did so many uneducated, poor folks end up with so many eye problems - doubt from being tied down to books in the Yale library. When Bates worked in the schools, the statistics for the percentage of students with refractive errors were right up there. Today the level of scrutiny for every little sneeze is off the charts. Back then they didn't have anything like the level of health care there is now. We have now a Vision Express on every corner. We treat for every little hair out of place. Back then, you coped with all sorts of conditions. We have no way of knowing how many conditions went untreated, undiagnosed, off the statistical grid.
Where would you even begin to compare?? It's hardly the first time someone has tried to make this line of argument on vision forums to discourage people from practicing Bates. But like others, they provided nothing substantial, no proof or evidence. There is as great a need for Bates today as there was back then - if not more, as there are just so many more people. More people, more eye problems -
I was reading somewhere that there is a tribe, maybe in old days or still exists today. Primitive way of life, living on the land.
When a young person has unclear vision they are banned from the tribe. They have to go out and live in the wild on their own. No glasses, no visual aids.
This has the effect of forcing the person to use their vision correct, 'to survive'.
Their vision returns to clear and they are allowed back into the group.
This may have been in Ethel Beswick's book. Just finished 2nd reading. Lot good stuff. A few things I disagree with but most of it is great.
I like the way she describes looking at parts, details of objects, moving from object to object, distance to distance.
On the discussion about ciliary and axial myopia;
The Bates method relaxes and returns to normal function all the eye muscles; outer oblique, recti and inner ciliary-lens, iris... The eye and lens return to normal shape and function. Refraction of light rays improves to normal.
The Bates method also relaxes the mind, neck, body. Improves brain function with the eyes. This also has a major impact on the vision. Ciliary and Axial myopia and presbyopia, astigmatism... are cured by the Bates Method.
Modern doctors have discovered that accommodation of the lens, as it changes shape causes the eye to lengthen a bit. Bates stated the eye itself lengthens. Seems that all of this works together. So, no matter what type of eye-vision condition; using the eyes naturally with Dr. Bates Method, avoiding glasses will bring clear vision.
Stop insinuating that a woman or writer of Natural Vision books (me) owns this group. I am just a group member posting on the Forum like everyone else.
Nancy Wrote:Nick, I believe you're well-intentioned. To me the "difference" between ciliary and axial myopia is a matter of degree, and you're making an artificial distinction. I feel like I'm hearing a medical professional invent new terms for degrees of the same thing, so he can prescribe different drugs for them. Oh, you don't have an ulcer YET, you have a pre-ulcer. You have GERD! We have to treat it right away with my method so you don't get an ulcer! Your axial myopia is just a more severe more entrenched case of your ciliary myopia.
I stand by Bates and his techniques. Since I got strong glasses at age 5 which got stronger every year, and wore them for decades, I haven't reduced my myopia totally yet. Someone with a very mild case might be out of glasses completely in a year or less. I need to do more palming, more Long Swings, more sunning, spend more time with the eye chart, more consistently than someone with a mild case of myopia, in order to continue to improve. Bates is not wrong, or outdated, to me. Yet again people are mis-reading him and mis-understanding him, then saying his method doesn't work.
I'm glad the print pushing is giving you results. This may be Bates too, you know. He says when the eye chart you're using for distance practice gets too easy because it's too close now, move it back. I like your enthusiasm and that you want to share what you've learned. I don't like that you're calling Bates outdated without fully understanding his method.
ready to do this bates method thing! i've discovered this method a few years back and dabbled with it a little and 
