That subject line isn't mean to be negative or critical.
I just thought it would be useful if every one declared their current state of vision and how long they have been using the Bates methods and actually how much improvement they have seen.
It is great to get advice from fellow Bates devotees - but how valid is it? If people here have corrected their vision totally in say five, six or seven months and are giving advice then that is cool. If people haven't actually had any success or improvement and are advising newbies like me then thats not so cool.
Experience and improvement credentials would be very helpful!
Subject: Vision clearing versus vision "improvement".
Vobes> I just thought it would be useful if every one declared their current state of vision and how long they have been using the Bates methods and actually how much improvement they have seen.
Otis> Excellent suggestion!
Otis> What I suggest, to encourage this work is that the person
who is working on vision-clearing read and report his
IVAC Snellen. (As opposed going to a majority-opinion
OD who has no interest in any of this.)
Otis> I think we can all be objective in reading and reporting
our Snellens (assuming you can read the 20/70 or better line).
Otis> In reading your Snellen, I also suggest that we
standardize on the idea that reading 1/2 the letters
correctly passes the line.
Otis> Thus we will not be reporting "refractions" that
can be in serious error, or measured under bad conditions,
but what YOU OBJECTIVELY SEE.
Question: What other posters think of this method
of reporting vision improvement (or clearing)?
Good idea?
Bad idea?
And why?
Just click here:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html">http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html</a><!-- m -->
Given that everyone here is volunteering their advice for free, you won't get many offerings of credentials. One way to help determine someone's experience is by clicking on their name and click "read the last posts of this person" to see all their posts. Some people, including myself and a couple of Bates teachers here, and some other members, get enough flack already from friends, family, and customers who don't believe them that they won't necessarily want to jump in and defend themselves when someone asks the "who has had improvement?" question for millionth time, unless they're asked directly. No offense - just FYI.
I've considered making some sort of register where people can note how their vision was in the beginning and currently, but vision problems are so varied and can require so much explanation in terms of the quirks and what was improved that the Success Stories forum is I feel the best solution.
David
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
My question was not a criticism. I am sure we all get people on our backs all the time for various endevours we try - I sure do.
As a new comer to the site it is helpful to know if the people offering the advice have actually had any (and by what degree) success with the Bates method.It would help all our confidences, would it not?
In general I check the facts myself concerning the eye's
behavior -- before I check a person's statement
about vision-clearing.
Certainly, it is a slow process.
Also there are methods beyond Bates that have been
used to clear vision.
I believe you should check your Snellen BEFORE you
start with the vision-clearing efforts, and in the
final analysis, should personally verify that
you pass t Snellen when you are successful.
I know of people who have PERSONALLY done
this, and I know there technical competence is
such that I have no doubt that they always
pass the DMV requirements.
But vision-clearing is like a diet. I know
that weight loss is possible (Law of physics.)
But that is science (which Bates supported) but
NOT Human Nature.
What is the difference? (For weight loss -- as
an analogy?)
Both are very slow.
Once you know your Snellen by checking it, you do not
have to look at it.
For weight, once you know your starting point -- you
do not have to check.
Then the tough issue. You must be consistent (in doing Bates),
and weight-loss, engage in semi starvation. You must
be prepared for the long haul.
So the real issue is this. Does a "Diet" fail? Does
Bates "fail"?
I think not.
But the real issue is longterm work with palming,
and these other preventive measures, and the
willingness to trust yourself to be consistent in doing
them.
Then, if you are persistent, you should see your
vision clear in several months -- by checking
your own Snellen.
Because these efforts are self directed, they can
never be "reduced" to a "medical" study, and so
there has been no "organized" effort to prevent as such.
But you are correct. No one on this site has reported:
otis Wrote:But you are correct. No one on this site has reported:
1. Their starting snellen at say 20/70, and
2. Their ending snellen at say 20/40 or better.
I have no explanation as to why not.
That's not true at all. At least a few, and maybe several, posters have reported this much improvement or better, and recovery from other problems like strabismus, presbyopia and cataracts, in the Success Stories and elsewhere. I've done so myself a few times now when other posters have asked.
Like I said, if you need to decide whether someone's advice is worth taking, take a look at their past posts by clicking on their profile, and find out how much improvement they've reported so far. If they haven't said, ask them individually.
David
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
I have no doubt that you are making true statement, but then
why don't ODs offer preventive services --as you are doing?
Or more importantly, do ODs help their children with these
preventive methods, or do they just put their
kids into a strong minus lens, when they are
at 20/30?
For example:
From: A Majority-opinion OD
Otis> This is how you should ALWAYS be informed
of the preventive second-opinion.
Otis> I take Bates as the second-opinion,
and the person has the right to consider the
use of Bates. The person has a right to KNOW about prevention at
the 20/70 level, when it would have the best probability of success.
OD> of course everyone has the right to know about Bates,
sunning, and whatever else is out there. no one is preventing anyone
from knowing about alternative ideas that people have proposed. what
we DO have a problem with is someone claiming that these methods
actually work, or that they are even therapeutically "in the ballpark"
to using standard refractive optical vision correction.
[It should be clear that wise use of Bates and other methods, at the 20/70
level -- for a child -- does not require the use of a "corrective" lens.
It does require that the child and parent verify that his
Snellen clears to a reasonable level. Since this DOES require
a lot of work, it follows that a majority-opinion OD can never
"prescribe it", and that the parent and child must learn
about is from i-blindness. Further, a child at 20/70, can
function with no minus lens. From the long history of
a child in school, his vision will not STAY at 20/70 if no
preventive actions are taken. OSB]
OD> the facts are clear -- NOTHING ELSE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO WORK,
[With due respect, this is a false statement. If he means, nothing
is proven to work IN FIVE MINUTES, under HIS control -- he
would be correct. But that is not the argument. The real trust
is that is the PARENTS are empowered, then vision is at
least REASONABLE at that point. OSB]
OD> ...AND MOST OF WHAT YOU PROPOSE AS "SECOND OPINION" HAS BEEN
CLEARLY DISPROVEN IN MUTIPLE SCIENTIFIC TRIALS.
[This is false also, as David points out. It is clear that some people have
been successful with Bates, and some have not. But that is
why Bates must be considered the scientific second-opinion. What
this OD is stating is his BELIEF, not the scientific facts. OSB]
OD> and you know we have all the citations and
publications to prove that.
[I think that David of imagination-blindness has done so, to
the satisfaction of people posting here. OSB]
Of greater importance is to ask the question, "...what do
OTHER optometrists think of prevention, say from the
20/70 level -- let us be reasonable." And of even
greater importance, what do they do with and
for their own children.
I mean, do some ODs have their children practice Bates,
and to their children keep their God given 20/20
through the school years, when the minus-lens
kids get stair-case myopia from the minus?
I don't think optometrists are to blame at all. They may be largely misinformed through their education in optometry school, but they're just doing what they know how to do. That's why we just have to take responsibility for our own health. It's pointless and irresponsible to go around blaming doctors for our own problems. If a kid doesn't strain his eyes to begin with, he usually wouldn't be given glasses, so it's his own fault. Even parents aren't really to blame, as they're just doing what they know how to do as well.
It's just a general fault in our society as a whole, that puts eye doctors and medical doctors on pedestals and teaches the public that millions of things can go wrong with their body and only the doctor can fix them. But thanks to the internet, people are wising up to the fact there are other routes to take than to the doctor's office. It isn't necessary to bother doctors to fix every little problem we have.
David
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
I certainly recognize (and would have taken responsibility) for
myself and my eyes -- if ONLY I had been given
accurate information about the eye's behavior,
and the Bates-preventive methods.
I think that these majority-opinion ODs are in too much
of a "hurry", and never take any time for these
explanations, and the support (empowerment) that
must be supplied to parent and child.
What I do suggest to these majority-opinion ODs
is that they come down from their "high horse", and
give some responsibility back to parent and child.
But that means EDUCATION for both parties, if
preventive methods are ever to be introduced.
What I suggest to these majority-opinion ODs is that
they TAKE THE TIME, with a child at 20/60, and
not IMMEDIATELY prescribe a strong minus (I mean
what is the rush?).
Tell the parents what is measured, certainly.
But then tell the parents that he is to be paid
for his PROFESSIONAL TIME, and that there IS
AN ALTERNATIVE, and that it is wise to begin
these preventive methods NOW.
Then he should say, here are some internet links
that argue FOR prevention.
You have some time with your son. If you choose
to follow the Bates method -- I will help you.
If you prefer the ease of the minus lens, then
I will give that to your son NOW.
But I would think that scenario totally justified
by current research and the experience of Bates
and others.
Also please NEVER say, "...all doctors believe" something.
Because they do not.
The second-opinion ODs BELIEVE is prevention.
The above method could "clear the air", and
separate "prevention" (clear distant vision for life)
from the quick-fixers with a minus.
Otis,
The ODs I saw seemed very evil, but I don't blame them for the fact that I wasn't offered the Bates method when I got my first pair of lenses.
Let's face it, the Bates method is hard. It is very difficult to design a study, in which we select a random sample from the population. Chances are, those people are satisfied with wearing glasses and don't really care to spend time and effort to improve their eyes. Such study will FAIL. Choosing a non-random sample from the population and curing each of their eyesight detracts from the validity of the study.
The ODs won't offer something that hasn't been verified by a study. All their life they have been taught that myopia is incurable, and most wear the treacherous minus lens themselves. It would take some very drastic, popular, and easily verifiable study to convince them to start offering myopia relief.
Subject: Assigning complete responsibility to the person himself.
Re: Original posters remark, how "respectable" is this site.
Let me answer the original poster this way. I think you
are asking:
1. Is it realistic to clear your Snellen under YOUR control
using these second-opinion methods, and
2. What are the limits to vision clearing.
There are no good answer to either question. Some people
will work with these second-opinion methods, and SUCCEED,
while others will work very hard -- and see no results.
Is advocacy for prevention respectable -- I certainly
think so.
From my PERSONAL perspective, I try to limit "claims".
All claims might be 100 % correct. I accept that.
But the only "claim" that truly matters is what
the individual can accomplish himself. He will
have to sort out the "wheat" from the "chaff"
on this claims issue.
PAUL'S QUESTIONS and IMPLICATIONS:
Let me say this: I have friends in both optometry and
ophthalmology. We have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL. Why?
Because I think they have an impossible job, and
they are not in a real position to do anything about it.
Some, however are profoundly arrogant. And THAT
does cause incredible problems. I have posted
some of this arrogance, so you can judge it, and
its effect on you for yourself. They are never
"evil", but profoundly misguided. I will say
some more about the factors that DRIVE them
to both over-prescribe, and then "defend the
practice".
Paul> Otis,
The ODs I saw seemed very evil,
Otis> If they would open up their minds to the need
to "empower" the child and parent to understand
these subtle issues -- it would not be so bad.
but I don't blame them for the fact that I wasn't offered the Bates method when I got my first pair of lenses.
Otis> I do not "blame" them either. They are doing a very
simple job that works instantly -- and is truly impressive.
Very few people will EVER consider a preventive alternative.
I would like to PERSONALLY have heard about these
preventive alternatives WHEN I COULD HAVE DONE
SOMETHING EFFECTIVE ABOUT IT.
Otis> While each OD in his office can not take the
time to talk about it -- I think the National Eye Institute
should develop a more open mind about this subject.
But the N.E.I seems to only represent the interests
of the majority-opinion on this subtle preventive
issue. This is the reason why I support people
like Dave -- because NO ONE ELSE IS DOING
THIS WORK!
Let's face it, the Bates method is hard.
Otis> Yes, and these preventive methods are hard, and
depend almost exclusively on the person himself. This
virtually removes the subject from "strict medicine" control.
It is very difficult to design a study, in which we select a random sample from the population.
Otis> I do not think it is all THAT difficult. But I would suggest
that a group of people who can be EDUCATED about
these issues, and TAKE PERSONAL AND SCIENTIFIC
CONTROL might be both effective and successful.
But I think it would take a person like yourself, and
others like you to do this vision-clearing work
under YOUR control. I suggest a "flight school" where
the pilots would have the MAXIMUM motivation
to use these preventive measures under THEIR
CONTROL.
Chances are, those people are satisfied with wearing glasses and don't really care to spend time and effort to improve their eyes.
Otis> Selecting pilots entering a four year college would
eliminate all but the most motivated. I have
no problem doing that.
Such study will FAIL. Choosing a non-random sample from the population and curing each of their eyesight detracts from the validity of the study.
Otis> Again, given the pilots intelligence and motivation,
I think they personally could deal with that issue
in their own way.
The ODs won't offer something that hasn't been verified by a study.
Otis> That is the MAJORITY-OPINION ODs will not. But please
do not assume that all will not. The second-opinion
ODs will offer preventive methods -- provided you
will ACCEPT THEM. That is the fundamental change
that has now been started.
All their life they have been taught that myopia is incurable, and most wear the treacherous minus lens themselves.
Otis> This is the most important part. They use the
minus (over-prescribed) on THEIR OWN CHILDREN.
That is why I call them majority-opinion. It is
what a man does with his own child that counts
for everything. Just remember this -- the second-opinion
ODs are doing everything in their power to
help THEIR children avoid entry into a
negative refractive STATE. So you can
not "lump" all doctors together.
It would take some very drastic, popular, and easily verifiable study to convince them to start offering myopia relief.
Otis> Quite honestly? That is never going to happen, and
we both know it.
Otis> What will happen is that some second-opinion ODs
will help their own children avoid entry into myopia,
and will make the public aware of the method.
Otis> It will then be up to the parents and child
to make this critical either-or choice for prevention.
Most ODs don't believe the Bates' method. The ones that believe it hate to admit it even to themselves. The reason for this is because they have gone through years of rigorous studying and training to get where they are. The disbelievers think everything they have learned in common textbooks about eyes are true to the very letter (flawed or unflawed).
The ones who believe Bates... well, people dish out large amounts of their hard earned money throughout their lifetime to have their eyes tested and fitted with prescription glasses and contact lenses. None of them want to sabotage their careers by telling their "patients" that there is a free, healthy alternative to what they do, which potentially can cure every eye defect known and can restore natural vision without being burdened by glasses or contact lenses. They would much rather tell people that there is no alternative, that your eyes only get worse over time and your only hope is to slow down or prevent further loss of vision through their relatively expensive glasses or contacts.
Looking at it that way, it's pretty clear that whether they believe Bates or not, you will never see your scenario happen. Your best bet is to ignore them - it isn't worth wasting thoughts or emotions on the subject - and work on improving your own vision as Dave said.
Perhaps nations such as Singapore should drive such a study?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/413519/myopia_why_are_more_and_more_children.html">http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ldren.html</a><!-- m -->
"In Singapore, over 80% of 18 year-olds are myopic. And this ranks the country as having one of the highest rates of myopia in the world."
I believe this post proves that 'smallfish' is a bot or some other malfeasance - the post is a cut and paste from one of David's early posts. David should investigate and probably delete and ban 'smallfish'.
smallfish Wrote:They may be largely misinformed through their education in optometry school, but they're just doing what they know how to do. That's why we just have to take responsibility for our own health. It's pointless and irresponsible to go around blaming doctors for our own problems.
I don't like the new format. I'm old and don't like to have to learn new things that aren't any better than the old things and to my old mind look worse. But that's just me being curmudgeonly. I understand the need or desire to add advertisements, but why did the layout format have to change so much?
It's an example of what I like to call the 'Rube Goldbergization' of computer software. Dozens of dazzling changes that do nothing for the final product. Except force consumers to participate in the magic show.
