Core 2 of 3: Post-refractive surgery and Bates method
People who've had LASIK or other refractive surgeries or even cataract surgery can still succeed with Bates method while both relaxing the eye muscles and creating a mental imprint without adverse effects, given one condition I will cover later on.
Here's why: The tendency of the brain to do its own interpretation of how we see has been proven through scientific research, based on the understanding that an infant's image projected on the retina is upside-down (like a camera) shortly after birth and gets flipped right way up by the brain. The research done used trick lens that flipped the world upside down for the subject, and after 3 days of wearing the lens, the brain flipped the world back right way up despite years of ingrained habit. Then the lens were discarded, and the world appeared as if it had been turned on its head. The brain did eventually flip the world's image back in 1-1/2 days to where it initially had been without the lens.
Regarding glasses, my understanding is that glasses bend the light rays, making images appear smaller or larger. That's why the brain gets confused by glasses, similar to the experiment where trick glasses flipped the world upside-down and the brain re-aligned the world back correct way up in three days. So it makes sense that if the brain has the ability to change perception so quickly (three days), it can do the same for viewing the world as smaller or larger since both perceptions (upside-down or smaller/larger) have to do with bent light rays.
Here you have an experiment done with bent light rays showing that regardless of how the eye perceives something, a mental imprint put on the brain can regulate how you see regardless of eyeball shape or lens interpretation of the world (bending of light rays).
For post-cataract surgery patients, this is regardless of how the artifical, intraocular lens acts as contact lens, because the intraocular lens bend light rays just like contact lens. It would be similar to an additional layer of tears when we have these fake 'watery eyes' clear flashes.
LASIK changes cornea's curvative, which is similar to what the eye muscles would do to the cornea if pressure were applied on the eyeball via the sclera to force the vitreous forward and press it against the posterior surface of the lens. But the "mind's eye" can override changes in curvative or bending of light rays.
The only problem I'm not sure about is what happens if the eye muscles relax, causing the corneal curvative to alter. If the lens curvative were to be altered somehow, the flap can come loose. It is unknown if the flap ever heals, and surgeons have reported being able to lift flaps as long as 13 years post-op.
Also, most complications associated with LASIK are flap-related.
However, now that I think about it again, people's eyes keep changing after LASIK for either myopia or hyperopia as they age. Both cause different corneal curvative--flat or steep--so the flap is being affected in pretty much the same way as if the eye muscles relaxed and changed the lens curvative one way or another. (note: I am not 100% sure about this. What I tried to do was to visualize the eyeball changing via axial elongation and think of how it affects the corneal curvative and the flap)
What would you think if the eyeball were to become more "normal spherical-shaped" rather than more "ellipsoid-like"--how would this affect the corneal flap? If pretty much the same way, then it's a safe bet to say that Bates Method should not have adverse effects on post-refractive surgery and post-cataract surgery patients.
Remember the experiment I showed earlier that revealed how an mental imprint on the brain can regulate how you see regardless of eyeball shape or lens interpretation (bending of light rays)? Did you agree or disagree?
Conclusion: If you agreed, then it can be agreed upon that the Bates Method seems capable of regulating a person's eyesight post-refractive surgery. Mental imprints obviously can regulate the bending of light rays.
Perhaps it is that we aren't giving the brain enough credit. But the question of the corneal flap is still up in the air.
I very much agree on your concern with the strength of a lasik flap.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crstoday.com/PDF%20Articles/1005/CRST1005_F3_Trattler.html">http://www.crstoday.com/PDF%20Articles/ ... ttler.html</a><!-- m -->
"The actual reduction in corneal strength due to LASIK was recently determined in a study of 21 cadaver eyes at Emory University in Atlanta.4 The researchers found that the adhesive strength of the LASIK flap was only 2.4% (̱̉1.2%) compared with the normal interlamellar strength of a virgin cornea. In other words, the strength of the wound between the flap and the underlying stromal bed is reduced by 97.6% suggesting that the LASIK flap contributes little to the overall strength of the cornea after LASIK."
I think that the mind has a profound effect on vision, and the trick glasses study proves it, but there are certainly other factors. If it was only the mind, a pair of plus lenses for us myopes would restore our eyes in comparable time to the trick glasses flipping the world.
This is quite something (to me at least), what I just came up with. Maybe this is correct, maybe not, but look at this...
This cuts to the heart of many core riddles at once: problems with bent light rays, how brain addresses vision, exact causes of strain from glasses, equilibrium between bent light rays and healthy eye habits, etc. A few breakthroughs in science may even be contained right here in this post. I hope I'm not wrong about any of this.
Quote:If it was only the mind, a pair of plus lenses for us myopes would restore our eyes in comparable time to the trick glasses flipping the world.
Urban,
You are correct, and I have figured out why. Here's my understanding now:
"If you were to put on trick lenses and wait 3 days until your vision is 'corrected' by the brain, then you take off the glasses--you do not have a 'corrected world', because the brain still regards the world as being correct way up via glasses. The brain has transferred its 'mold/imprint' to the glasses, overpowering the bending of light rays. Glasses do nothing to change the brain's mold in this case since this type of mold doesn't get better or worse like refractive errors. It simply is a position function. Why do I say this? I wish I'd thought of this earlier. But we know where the ground is and where up is without benefit of sight, so the brain finds it easy to correct an upside-down image. The powerful sense of touch is doing much of the work even with our eyes closed. How many steps a day do you take? How many times do you move your arm up and down or see people move in different ways or move to and away from you? Probably up to 500,000 times a day when every slight movement is considered. Movement is involved here in virtually everything you do and see.
Now what about minus or plus glasses? They still bend the light rays but the sense of touch and perception of movement all of a sudden are not so involved anymore. The lenses make the world appear larger or smaller and more sharp... but for the brain to transfer/process the 'visual acuity mold' from the brain to the glasses takes much longer, even years, due to a much weaker perception involvement, both through touch and movement. Straining by various means causes accelerated deterioration of eyesight during this time period. My point is this: the brain has many different ways of telling something's moving, where it is coming from, but a very limited way of knowing the acuity or actual size of an object. Does this make sense? If something moves across your field of vision and hits you on the right side, you feel it on your right side and your brain tells you automatically the object should be on the right side of your visual field. The brain's mold in this instance regulates itself accordingly. Perhaps it shouldn't even be called 'mold' at all. It simply is done.
Is there a way for the brain to easily know how sharp an object in the distance should appear through touch or the visual perception of movement? You are helpless in that sense. This is not easy to explain, but it makes perfect sense to me. You have no way to self-regulate your distance vision simply by looking at a distant object unless you do it in your own mind consciously. This is completely different from self-regulating something that moves and touches you somewhere (position function), which is pretty obvious to the brain. The brain finds it automatic to interpret an object's position/movement, but not automatic to interpret visual acuity in the distance (for myopes). Get it???
Metaphorically speaking, there is no real mold involved in the trick lenses example. It simply is done. Presto! 3 days, that's it!
Plus and minus glasses are another matter entirely. The lenses do bend light rays, similar to trick lenses, but how the brain reacts is different. It will slowly but not quickly transfer its 'mold' of distance acuity. This is a much slower process since it does not have to do with movement or image position, which is repeated bombardment regardless of visual acuity on the lenses. Allow me to illustrate. Your average vision is 20/100. You have lenses that correct your vision to 20/20, but do you get repeated bombardments of 20/100 automatically every time you look through the lenses. No way. You do get repeated bombardments of movement connected with image position, but no repeated bombardments of 20/100!
So your vision will not really revert back to 20/100 right away because of this. It ends up being a very slow process. Now suppose you have overcorrected glasses of 20/15. The more overcorrected the lenses, the greater the changes in size and depth perception, which feel awkward and cause strain on the mind. Rephrased another way, your mind is confused by overcorrected light rays that cause a feeling of imbalance in the mind. In addition, the lenses by themselves could be a pessisum, causing further strain.
For me, it boils down to this... all that glasses really do is to bend the light rays and confuse the brain; but prescribing plus for myopes and minus for hyperopes instead of 20/20 glasses can effectively reduce strain caused by bent light rays by making the lenses much weaker and closer to the natural state of the eye. At the closest to the natural state of the eye, you'd have a plano lenses (direct light rays). The lesser light rays are bent, the lesser the harmful effects (size/depth) caused by confusing light rays, and the more the eyes have a chance to rehabilitate. It has to do with how good the eye habits are, which counteracts the degree of bent light rays. This is an equilbrium process.
This means there is a level where one can surpass the other, resulting in degrees of visual gain, stability, or loss.
The weaker the glasses, the more quickly the eyes can accelerate recovery because there is a level where eye habits start to pass over the degree of bent light rays. Conclusion: all glasses are harmful since the slightest bending of light rays distorts size/depth, but good eye habits can counteract the bent light rays from glasses and improve, maintain, or worsen visual acuity given the degree of proportional strain."
Is all of what is mentioned above true or false?
If true, then in response to your statement, this explains why a pair of plus lenses aren't the same as trick lenses in the rate at which the brain changes how we see. Plus lenses in the sense of improving acuity is 'static' compared to trick lenses which perceives 'dynamic' things like touch and movement to correct the positional view of the world...this changes my viewpoint from earlier regarding the bent light ray influence being similar in both lenses situations. Fortunately for us, this means vision improvement is not a matter of oppositions or correcting natural vision through bent light rays, but it is a matter of getting as close to direct light ray state as possible and using good eye habits to overcome the bent light rays of any lenses, and also a matter in which 'no glasses' is the optimal condition for eyesight recovery. This kills off glasses entirely when thinking of vision improvement except as a necessity in addressing functionality in society, such as driving, school, and work. All glasses are bad because of how their bent light rays alter size/depth perception.
From this, it's not so difficult to see the underlying role of the Bates Method. The method teaches how to view the world without straining. Bent light rays (glasses) make us strain no matter what, even if it's not readily noticeable. Glasses make vision steadily worse because of this strain--that is, unless the person has excellent eye habits that counteract the strain. Then perhaps vision will not worsen, but the stronger the glasses are, the harder it becomes to counteract to prevent vision from deteriorating.
Relaxation and visualization can be used to address the mind directly to change the brain's 'visual acuity mold'. Unlike the trick lenses experiment in which the modification takes three days to correct automatically, glasses that address refractive errors do not reverse back to the original visual acuity state upon wearing them because there is nothing to even once bombard our field of vision to change refractive error for our average vision with the glasses off - except strain. To rephrase this clearly, reversing to average vision acuity while wearing glasses wouldn't make any sense without bombarding of 20/100 (while wearing glasses) as I stated earlier, which is impossible unless you strain. Glasses cannot address the 'visual acuity mold' of the brain due to lack of bombarding, but we can directly address it through consciously producing mental imprints (visualization).
Now one thing is still perfectly clear: the mind can overpower crystalline lens refractive errors simply by visualization, as is evident by clear flashes.
Back to the subject of post-refractive patients practicing Bates Method, this gives me a new concern about bent light rays from lenses, since they change size/depth perception and the method probably cannot correct size/depth perception caused by "distorting bent light rays". The crystalline lens are different and addressable by Bates Method because the natural lens causes no distortion in size/depth (I'm just stating all this to let you know I considered this, even though I figured it's going to be fine). People who've had cataract surgery have intraocular lenses put into their cornea. Now, on another tangent, think about this... the further lenses (considering glasses at nose level and contacts only) are from your eyes, the more size/depth distortion caused, correct? The prescription for glasses are different from contacts, correct? I've worn glasses before and the depth perception was much different from contacts. Depth perception was so much better with contact lenses. Now, think about this-- we have a natural lens--the crystalline lens--and our space/depth perception is not distorted by it. Since the intraocular lens in a cataract patient is put into the cornea, it shouldn't make a real difference either... also, LASIK doesn't involve putting an artifical lenses in the cornea, and even if it were to under any circumstance, it shouldn't make a difference either. Conclusion: it seems Bates Method can be used for post-refractive surgery patients successfully, without complications in vision other than possible flap complications.
The only problem still remains: the corneal flap. Does anyone know the answer to the corneal flap question? If anyone does, please step forward and say something... this could solve the mystery. Here it is again:
What would you think if the eyeball were to become more "normal spherical-shaped" rather than more "ellipsoid-like"--how would this affect the corneal flap?
In other words, how will relaxing the eyeball to a more spherical shape change the corneal curvative as opposed to if the eyeball kept getting more ellipsoid-like? How would this affect the corneal flap differently? Will there be more adverse effects on the flap through having a more spherical eyeball shape than more ellipsoid-like shape?
The very last question (out of them all) is what I really need to know, because if there are no extra adverse effects, then I see no reason why post-refractive patients shouldn't give Bates Method a try. Guys, I'm solving a riddle that no one else in the world seems to have solved and I'm this close. I need your help.
Urban and others, can you also tell me what else I may not be aware of that might be a problem in post-refractive patients trying Bates Method, other than the corneal flap?
One of the major problems with refractive surgery is the symptoms of dry eyes. There are different causes for this, one of them being severed nerve endings in the eye prevent the brain from knowing when the eye needs more tears produced. The other is that the physical shape of the eye is changed. Normally, the cornea bulges out a little from the otherwise (usually) spherical eye. After refractive surgery, that bulge is greatly lessened, because tissue has been removed. Sometimes this causes problems because this new shape is less conductive to keeping the tears on the eyes.
In a similar effect, say the eye was over elongated... Then that would mean the eye should bulge out to the front and to the back. This bulging should pronounce the curvature of the cornea, however if you were to remove the bulge I would say there is a possibility that the curvature of the cornea would reduce and possibly bring more dry eye problems.
Keep in mind, the part about the eye elongation-cornea curvature is pure speculation on my part, but it does seem probable.
I was thinking some more on this and I came up with another concern of mixing Bates and Refractive eye surgery.
I'm not as partial as Dave is to this idea, but I could believe it works. Dave was telling me that it is indeed possible to increase visual accuity (without glasses), while still wearing your origional full perscription the whole time, through proper vision habits. In the same manner, I could forsee a refractive surgery patient eventually reversing their perscription if they fully relaxed their eyes.
Say if they started out at -5 diopters. After surgery say they're -1 and are unhappy. If they wanted to change their perscription to 0, its very possible they could become hyperoptic through continued Bate's method application.
Whether a myopic person who's had laser surgery would become hyperopic as a result of the Bates method is a question of how the eye would adapt after being artificially modified (and damaged). So it depends on how intelligent you see the body as being. The way I see it, a person's body is always finding ways to deal with issues beyond the body's basic structure and function. Broken bones, sunburns, undigestable foods, and other types of abuse or neglect. I remember a paraplegic on TV who learned to use his feet as his hands. His feet had to make a huge change. My guess would be that a myopic person who's had laser surgery might become hyperopic for brief periods during the Bates method, but that his body would quickly realize that the standard muscular action to deal with blur isn't working, and it will find the next best thing to do.
The body is only given enough freedom to act in this way when a person's mind isn't forcing something, whether consciously or by chronic muscular tension. Otherwise it's like mailing a letter for the post office to take care of while you yet refuse to let go of the letter yourself.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
I've read that normally after LASIK, dry eye is usually temporary. Is this correct? It seems that most patients adjust to the new corneal shape, producing more tears over time. What concerns me are two things: 1) the corneal flap, and 2) the severed nerve endings you speak of. I'm worried whether any permanent damage could be done to either by relaxing the eyeball to a "more spherical shape." We have to consider the pros against the cons. The thing is, post-refractive surgery patients will inevitably grow older and possibly start wearing thick glasses and even bifocals in the long run. Then you look back and think, would've it been better had they taken the gamble with the Bates Method so they could maintain excellent vision all their lives? As we know, vision is often associated with quality of life.
One thing they could do is to see if the method has any negative physical effect before deciding to call it quits. There's a chance the body could still heal itself as it goes along. For example, if dry eyes reappear due to a reduced bulge (for myopes), perhaps the eye will readjust and produce more tears eventually. The Bates Method teaches a few things that encourage relaxation, and relaxation brings many benefits with it. Could one of the benefits include extra tear production? Just throwing ideas around. Apparently, the problem still exists of whether any permanent damage could be done to the corneal flap or the severed nerve endings.
[snip]
I happened to recently think of a ratio-relationship between good eye habits and bent light rays. This means the lesser the strength of lenses, the less strain produced. Good eye habits can either be very good or slightly good, and depending on how good your eye habits are, you have a better chance of overcoming the strain and either maintaining or improving your eyesight. We must keep in mind that psychological factors can contribute in favor to either side of the ratio-relationship. For example, negative thoughts will create more strain to overcome along with the strength of the lenses. It will then take a higher degree of good eye habits to keep up or overcome the strain. Does this make any sense?
[snip]
Here's an interesting experiment: Imagine a very blurred, nebulous image (blob) without any obvious details whatever and see if your mind worsens your vision in a second from like 20/40 to 20/200. Do you believe the mind will also give us "negative clear flashes" if we persisted in visualizing a very blurred image? Will it work or not? Honestly, I'm too chicken to attempt this. Why don't you be my guest.
[snip]
Dave Wrote:The body is only given enough freedom to act in this way when a person's mind isn't forcing something, whether consciously or by chronic muscular tension. Otherwise it's like mailing a letter for the post office to take care of while you yet refuse to let go of the letter yourself.
Indeed. However, the Bates Method was designed to teach us how to "let go of the letter," to let go of muscular tension through palming, swinging and so on. The method can either be done correctly or incorrectly, so it depends on how well the individual understands the method. We know that the mind has demonstrated the ability to modify eyesight tremendously through clear flashes. To others who have never experienced clear flashes, this would seem impossible and they have just underestimated the mind's capabilities, as it has been the last few hundred years. In the same sense it seems possible that we who use Bates Method could very likely be underestimating the mind's capabilities to do the same for post-refractive surgery patients. To me, it seems suggestible that the mind can correct any change in refractive error. The problem seems to be possible physical damage coming from altering the eyeball shape due to corneal flap and severed nerve endings.
Urban Wrote:I was thinking some more on this and I came up with another concern of mixing Bates and Refractive eye surgery.
I'm not as partial as Dave is to this idea, but I could believe it works. Dave was telling me that it is indeed possible to increase visual accuity (without glasses), while still wearing your origional full perscription the whole time, through proper vision habits. In the same manner, I could forsee a refractive surgery patient eventually reversing their perscription if they fully relaxed their eyes.
Say if they started out at -5 diopters. After surgery say they're -1 and are unhappy. If they wanted to change their perscription to 0, its very possible they could become hyperoptic through continued Bate's method application.
I had the opportunity to talk with Dave on MSN. This problem no longer concerns me. I misinterpreted his information thinking he was implying these practicioners always wore these glasses, instead of as little as possible.
I think I can add an interesting angle to this topic. I had laser eye surgery (without the flap) about 5 years ago. I went from -4 to 0. I had been wearing glasses or contacts since I was about 10.
I noticed my eyes getting worse soon after surgery, as I was still as strained as I was pre-op. Now I am back to -1 and just started using Bates method. I am getting clear flashes and my average reading of the Snellen test card is getting better. I can't remember how I came across the method, but I always knew in my heart that it was possible to improve eyesight naturally. I have suffered from side effects of surgery, in particular my night vision is lots worse than it should be; I also have dry eyes but that might have always been the case.
I feel particularly bad as I have recommended surgery to others - I will not be doing that again. So is the conclusion that the mind, if relaxed, will compensate for the surgery? Since I starrted practising, my near vision (already very good) has not worsened, just my distance vision has improved.
Congrats! It takes a big person to assume responsibility for something like that and just do the best you can from here on out. I don't think you need to feel guilty about recommending LASIK. Anyone who may have followed your suggestion to do it needs to take responsibility for it themselves too.
It would be interesting to hear how it goes for you over time. While recovering my own vision I used to have sharp stinging sensations in what felt like my cornea, for just a moment at a time, and usually during clear flashes. So if that happens, you might first think it has something to do with the surgery, but it might not. I still don't know what it is, but other people have described it too.
And like how I suggested in my earlier post in this thread, the eyes may be able to adjust to post-LASIK conditions pretty well if you learn to use your eyes without strain. I figure everyone has slightly different sized eyes anyway, with slight differences in the muscles, etc., and yet more people have perfect vision than would be suggested if those differences really mattered, and people can also somehow recover even after long periods of myopia, which can be pretty hard on the eyes too.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Congrats! It takes a big person to assume responsibility for something like that and just do the best you can from here on out. I don't think you need to feel guilty about recommending LASIK. Anyone who may have followed your suggestion to do it needs to take responsibility for it themselves too.
It would be interesting to hear how it goes for you over time. While recovering my own vision I used to have sharp stinging sensations in what felt like my cornea, for just a moment at a time, and usually during clear flashes. So if that happens, you might first think it has something to do with the surgery, but it might not. I still don't know what it is, but other people have described it too.
And like how I suggested in my earlier post in this thread, the eyes may be able to adjust to post-LASIK conditions pretty well if you learn to use your eyes without strain. I figure everyone has slightly different sized eyes anyway, with slight differences in the muscles, etc., and yet more people have perfect vision than would be suggested if those differences really mattered, and people can also somehow recover even after long periods of myopia, which can be pretty hard on the eyes too.
Dave
I think that potential success for post-Lasik patients with Bates is just as likely as anyone else with the same prescription. Just think of everyone who has reduced their prescription with Bates, its the same thing with these people: They will just be reducing their prescription slightly to match up with the new "ideal" refractive state of their eyes.
I hope I was clear there, hard to express it fully. I'm just trying to imply that Lasik is like burning a pair of glasses onto your eyes. All the Lasik patients needs to do is recover enough to see well through their permanent "glasses".
