Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Farsightedness
#31
Dear "J" and Bifocal,

Subject:  Basic Science for the effect of a lens on the eye's
refractive STATE.

As I stated before, the theory-of-the-eye maintains that
your refractive STATE is either negative (you are myopic) or
positive (you are hyperopic).  Thus all eyes are one
or the other.

With respect to PROVING that the eye is "dynamic" in the
sense you can get it to move from positive to negative, then
you run a scientific experiment and confirm this "change" from
the forced wearing of a minus lens on the primate eye.  (Why
bother on humans -- you can get the scientific proof form
primates.)

If you take a population of normal primates, and place a -3 diopter
lens on 1/2 of them, then in about one year, the refractive STATE
of the -3 diopter group will change by greater-than -2 diopter in one year.

This is pure science.  The experiment will always turn out this way.  Thus Bates statement that if you are 20/70 and wear a full-strength minus, your refractive state will go down and your Snellen (naked eye) will go to 20/200.

This is what I mean when I say that science confirms Bates predictions and statements.

DESIRE FOR INTENTIONAL CHANGE -- FOR "J"

I would suggest a weaker lens, say -2 diopters.  You can get this from zennioptical for about $20.  I would also suggest glasses, since you have never worn a "contact" before.  (I ALWAYS had problems with contacts.)

You take complete responsibility for your actions.  I would also suggest you read your Snellen -- just to establish your starting point of 20/40 or better.

If you wish to go "down" from 3/4 diopters to -1/2 diopters, then as you wear the minus, you can verify that change in refractive STATE youself -- which is the best way.

In fact, if it were me, I would STOP when my refractive STATE is zero.  That way you have the best of both "worlds". 

You will have vision better-than 20/40, and near vision as good as anyone.  And you can maintain this STATUS for your eyes till age 50 or so.

You will always pass the DMV, and will not be "technically" nearsighted or "farsighted". 

In fact you will never need glasses at all (except for the minus if your refractive STATE moves positive again.)

That is what is possible, and the scientific basis for it.

YOUR DESIRED CHANGE IN REFRACTIVE STATE

Please understand the following:

The total power of your eyes is 60 diotpers.

You desire a "change" in refractive status of
about -6/10 diopter.

Thus your eyes must change their absolute
power by 1 percent of the total power.

This is very reasonable.  Provided you determine
to "do it yourself", I am confident you can
accomplish this change in about three to four
months.  Further, the "cost" is almost nothing.
You have a "Snellen".  And the cost of some
"test" plus lenses would be about $20 to $40 -- far
less than a "contact lens".

The next step is for you to confirm your Snellen.

You can find three Snellens on my site:

<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.myopiafree.com">http://www.myopiafree.com</a><!-- w -->

to check on your monitor.

Easy as pie.


Best,

Otis
Reply
#32
Since getting the two pair of glasses from Zenni optical in mid August, I have been wearing the minus 4.00, and not worn the strong astigmatic glasses that I had gotten from the optometrist. I now have snellen 20/20 with these glasses, and can not see clearly with the astigmatic glasses, so I have overcome the astigmatism. I have also increased my reading distance with the  minus 4 glasses from 9 inches to 15 inches. At first I thought that I could use the minus 2 glasses for reading, but there is a lot of blur, so I use the minus 4, and work on pushing the distance back. My uncorrected snellen is 20/300 each eye most days, but has been 20/200 on ocasion. I think that I will next start wearing a pair of minus 3,full time, and see how that goes.
Reply
#33
Bifocal Wrote:Since getting the two pair of glasses from Zenni optical in mid August, I have been wearing the minus 4.00, and not worn the strong astigmatic glasses that I had gotten from the optometrist. I now have snellen 20/20 with these glasses, and can not see clearly with the astigmatic glasses, so I have overcome the astigmatism. I have also increased my reading distance with the  minus 4 glasses from 9 inches to 15 inches. At first I thought that I could use the minus 2 glasses for reading, but there is a lot of blur, so I use the minus 4, and work on pushing the distance back. My uncorrected snellen is 20/300 each eye most days, but has been 20/200 on ocasion. I think that I will next start wearing a pair of minus 3,full time, and see how that goes.

It's great to read about someone's success using reduced prescription glasses, that would certainly be encouraging for people who's vision is too blurry to be able to function in their lifestyle.

Are you saying that you are reading from 15" without the glasses? I would think that is somewhat better than 20/200 and certainly better than 20/300. Reading is a good opportunity to practise central fixation. Although you may find yourself having trouble paying attention to what you're reading while trying to centralise, reading is also something that is easy to "diffuse" and that habit needs to be unlearned.
Reply
#34
  I have been working with a friend to reverse her farsightedness who has been wearing glasses for farsightedness since age 35, and is now 60.
  She was first prescribed plus glasses,for full time wear, which we are guessing to be +1.00, when in high school,because she was getting headaches. She thought they seemed so strong, so only wore them a few times, and then put them away.
  Then at age 35 began to have difficulty reading,and was given plus glasses with an astigmatism correction. She wore these for all near work, and they got progressively stronger, and at age 45 they became bifocals, for full time wear. These continued to get stronger until the last prescription of, Rt.+2.25 with -1.00 cyl., and Lt. +2.50 with -1.50 cyl., and an additional +2.50 bifocal for near work. Distance vision with out the glasses was Rt.20/200, and Lt. 20/300. and near vision was off the chart.
  Three months ago, she discontinued using these glasses, and wore -1.00 lense glasses. She wore them for all near, and distant,from the time she got up, until she went to bed. At first they took an hour or more to see clearly thru, in the morning, but each day got easier. Also at first reading thru them was difficult, and she had to hold reading material about 8 inches from her eyes to read. She worked on pushing the reading material farther away for about a month, until it was 12 inches that she could see clearly. At this point her distant vision with out the glasses went to 20/40, and she now only wears them for near, as near vision is 20/80 near chart, without them, and 20/30 near chart with them. She has been working for two months now to push the reading material farther back, in hopes of being able to do away with the glasses, and hoping that the distant vision will improve beyond 20/40.
  She says, and I concur that after the farsighted eye gets used to the minus lenses, which isn't easy, that vision is so much sharper than it ever was with plus lenses. We both believe that this is due to the fact that the minus lense acts as a stimulant to the weak muscles in the farsighted eye. Also it most likely reduces the astigmatism.
  I feel that she is correct in discontinuing wearing the glasses for distant . In my case I wore them too much and am still working to reverse that.
  I am now wearing -1.00 and have 20/80 without and 20/40 with them. And as in her case also really need them for near.
Reply
#35
Dear Bifocal,

It is easier to get the eye's refractive state to move "negative"
as per your friend's efforts -- that it is to get it to move "positive".

But your suggestions and support are the right thing to
do in my opinion.

Good luck,

Otis
Reply
#36
  An update since Oct.
    My friend, and I are continuing to work on reversing farsightedness. She is doing very well. Her distant vision is better than 20/20 with no glasses. She is still wearing the minus 1 glasses for reading, and seems to need them, as her near snellen is 20/30 with them, and 20/50 without.
  I also am wearing minus 1, but still wear them almost constantly, as my distance snellen is 20/80 without them, and 20/15 with. My near snellen is 20/80 without them, and 20/40 with them. If I wear minus 2, I have 20/20 near, but my distance stays at 20/15. If I wear the minus 2 very long my uncorrected distance becomes 20/200 for a few days until I wear the minus 1 again. If I didn't have a lot of near work, I could most likely go without the glasses. But without them near is very blurred, and my eyes tire without the stimulation of the glasses. I tried plus 1 glasses, and couldn't focus.  My reading distance with the minus 1 glasses is 10 inches, and my friends is 15 inches with minus 1. We are trying to push the near work farther away, and she is doing better than I. She seems to think that if she can read at 20 inches, with the glasses, that she will be able to do without them compleatly. So, if that is the case, I have  long way to go yet.
Reply
#37
Dear Bifocal,

I guess some of these issues becomes a matter of
a personal "goal" -- and the means to achieve that goal.

I can only speak for myself.  But if I were at 20/80, and
set a "goal" it would be to pass the DMV level test,
i.e., 20/40 or better naked-eye vision.  My near
vision would not be a concern.

Some of this does depend on your age.  If you
are 20 years old, with 20/80 then you could
clear your distance and keep you "near".

But it sounds like you have execellent progress here.

Some more commentary:



  An update since Oct.

    My friend, and I are continuing to work on reversing farsightedness. She is doing very well. Her distant vision is better than 20/20 with no glasses.

She is still wearing the minus 1 glasses for reading, and seems to need them, as her near snellen is 20/30 with them, and 20/50 without.

Otis>  That is interesting to me.  If I had 20/20 naked eye
distance -- I would think that great.  What is "different" is
that she sees more clearly with a minus on close objects.


  I also am wearing minus 1, but still wear them almost constantly, as my distance snellen is 20/80 without them, and 20/15 with.

Otis> What is your goal?  To clear your distant vision
from 20/80 to 20/40?  If a -1 clears your Snellen to
20/15, then you are over-prescribed. 

My near snellen is 20/80 without them, and 20/40 with them. If I wear minus 2, I have 20/20 near, but my distance stays at 20/15.

Otis> That is again "different" than I would expect. 

If I wear the minus 2 very long my uncorrected distance becomes 20/200 for a few days until I wear the minus 1 again.

Otis> That is indeed what Dr. Bates said about a strong minus.

If I didn't have a lot of near work, I could most likely go without the glasses.

Otis>  Again, that is "different".  But keep at it.  Let us know
of your success in clearing your naked-eye Snellen to
20/40 or better.

Best,

Otis
Reply
#38
Hello Otis,
    Thanks for your coments. Both of our goals are to not need glasses for far, or near.
    I think the reason we both have improved our distant vision, but require minus lenses for near, is that they are actually correcting some astigmatism.
    When we were both farsighted, we also both had a fair ammount of minus cylinder in our glasses.
Reply
#39
Hello everyone,

I was doing some research on the internet and stumbled upon this site and was very intrigued by it. Let me tell you something about myself. I am a 23 year old female and have been wearing glasses since I was 2 years old. My prescription is +4.5 and +5.5, right and left eye respectively. I was looking into the Bates method to improve my vision and browsing this site  but I can't find any concrete exercises or methods to follow to improve my farsightedness. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Reply
#40
Dear aavram,

With all due respect to you, but a 2 year-old should not
be put into a plus lens at that tender age.

Do you know why you were put into a plus lens?

One thing I would suggest would be to get
a weaker plus lens, maybe +3 diopters,
and if you can, try not using the plus for
distant objects if you can.

The other methods of Bates are excellent for
your current refractive STATE, this is where
I think the Bates methods are very powerful.

Best,

Otis
Reply
#41
Hello Otis,

Thank you for your prompt reply. Well what happened is that I had a strong case of chicken pox and a huge fever after which both my eyes crossed. I was in vision therapy until my eyes straightened and I was given a pair of glasses. I can tell you that my glasses back then were way stronger than what they are today. I had to patch my right eye since my left was the weakest one. My vision has only improved since then. Even three months ago my right eye went down by .5 which is not a lot but has been happening incrementally for some time now.
So you suggested getting a pair of +3 lenses. Are there any other suggestions. What other resources can I consult. I am trying to learn more about the Bates method, where should I start?

Thanks a lot.
Reply
#42
  An update on my situation.
  I returned to the optometrist for a six month check as she had requested.
  I told her that the strong astigmatic glasses that she had prescribed were probably no longer required, and that I had not been wearing them for a few months, but was working on improving my eyesight, and wearing minus 2.00 glasses. She didn't like the idea, and said that with my degree of astigmatism, that I should be wearing them.
  She then checked my uncorrected vision with an autorefractor, and acted surprised. Then she instilled the blurring drops, and placed the phoropter in front of me. After all was said and done, she declared that I no longer required an astigmatism correction, but was still moderately myopic with 20/300 in each eye. She said that I shoud be wearing minus 3.50 lenses for each eye, but admitted that I could see close to 20/20 with the minus 2.00. Then she wanted me to wear a weak bifocal, which I also declined. She seemed to POO-POO the idea of any vision improvement, and said that I would not be able to improve the myopia. She may be right about that as progress seems to have ended here.
  I then told that I had previously been farsighted, and showed her my old prescription for bifocals. That really flipped her out, and she said she had never heard of such a thing being done. She said ," Well  you are pretty nearsighted now, and that will not change,
Reply
#43
Congrats on killing off the astigmatism. Astigmatism tends to change quicker, but she's wrong about myopia too, of course.

Dave
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Reply
#44
Congrats, Bifocal!
Reply
#45
An update on myself, and my friend.
    I now have  20/40 distance vision in each eye, and 20/30 with both. My near is 20/20 in each , and 20/20 with both. I no longer wear the minus glasses, except on rare ocasion, after doing a lot of close work,if my distance vision gets blurred.
    My friend is totally glasses free, and has 20/20 in each eye for distance, and near.
    We both are able to read very fine print,in any lighting conditions.
    I believe that we have proven, that it is possible to totally reverse farsightedness by using controlled use of minus lenses.
    Catherine, if your progress is less than you are expecting, you may want to start out with a pair of minus .05 glasses, and follow the procedure of my friend.
Reply

Perfect Sight Without Glasses free download