Now that I've been educating myself more and more on the optics and behavior of the eye, and reading through Bates' writings, I've noticed in particular a close-to-home case of a strong minus being used to deteriorate vision rapidly from 20/70 to 20/200.
Just recently I had a talk with my grandfather, who is 86, and he mentioned that around August he noticed he had problems seeing. He reluctantly went to get Rx minus glasses, and his vision steadily deteriorated about -0.5 diopters a month, having to go back and get new glasses at the end of every month. He eventually got LASIK surgery and is seeing 20/20 again, but I do feel that this is a case that could have been preventable. Every time I would talk to him, he would be complaining how he needs a new minus Rx for his eyesight. I'm only realizing this now after going through all of the literature, but I just wanted to point out a real-life case where I have observed vision deteriorate drastically over a few short months (not even half a year).
The prospect of naturally restoring your vision will be long and arduous, but I would recommend letting everyone you know that minus lenses further help to deteriorate vision. I have a few friends who are completely skeptical and laugh at me for starting this, regarding it as "voodoo magic," but soon enough (hopefully) I will have improved my vision enough to SHOW them that these methods work. Many of the skeptical people I know BELIEVE that there is no other way to get back clear vision except for LASIK and RK. I only feel that it's their right to know---given the choice when I first got glasses, as dorky as it would have seemed I would have tried preventative methods as opposed to succumbing to a minus lens.
Back to my grandfather---we all thought it was old age that caused his vision to deteriorate so quickly, but now I can say with confidence that it was simply his minus lenses.
It is to the majority-opinion OD's advantage to make a joke
of ALL SECOND-OPINION methods, be they
Bates, or plus.
It takes a "strong will" to buck your friend's opinions,
and do something that is "different".
Plus-prevention is an intrusion in your life -- that is
for certain. It is for your own personal benefit. But
it does take long-term resolve -- and only YOU
can be the judge of that issue.
I would agree that some succeed -- and some do not.
But that is just normal.
Shortly, I will post what I believe is the most accurate
assessments of plus-prevention that I have seen -- by
Dr. C. Prentice.
What he said is that it is possible to clear vision
from -1.25 diopters (20/70 estimated) to 20/20,
but the PERSON WILL NOT DO IT -- because
it is tedious.
So this issue is not "have some people been
successful in clearing their vision", but rather
you can NEVER prescribe it -- because the public
HATES the concept.
I accept THAT is the reason why it is not used,
but I do say that there is no SCIENTIFIC objection to it.
If David will allow, I will post Prentice's statement
for your understanding on this thread -- and
we can discuss issue of the difficulty of plus-prevention.
