Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Farsightedness
#46
Dear Bifocal,

I believe you have the best of both worlds!

VERY SLIGHT nearsightedness, (which at your age is ideal),
and the ability to read "close" as you wish.

And you are a success as I wish we all could be.

Congratulations!

Otis
Reply
#47
The minus .05 lense information is wrong, it should read minus .50
Reply
#48
Hello, dear Bifocal,

Congratulations on your success, but I do not want to sacrifice my fine distance sight on the altar of my near-vision. I have read all the posts in this topic and I am definitely not interested in experimenting with minus lenses. I do not think I need to become hyperopic in order to cure my presbyopia.

Relying entirely on Dr. Bates, I am daily making progress in clearing my near-vision. My goals are (1) recovery of my previously excellent near-vision howeoever long it takes; and (2) integrating Bates Method into my philosophy, so as to not only recover my near-vision but, concomitantly, improve my life in every way.

I do not feel I need to hasten the outcome of my Bates Method practice. I am recognizing pre-existing traits in myself that contributed to the strain that caused my vision problem. Also, I am discerning the altogether unwelcome and previously uncharacteristic presbyopic personality distortions acquired as result of wearing glasses. In other words, I am practicing Bates Method to clear my vision in the truest sense of the word.

Now that I have learned basically how, with eyes closed and open, to imagine swinging an “o� (for instance), the accommodative power of my eyes is increasing almost exponentially. I am able to hold clear longer and read even mouse-type under good indoor lighting. My near-vision in sunlight continues to be clear and in every way my vision is improving.

I could not be more pleased with my progress in clearing my near-vision and much more, thanks to the Bates Method “imagination cure�.

(When I first saw the term “diamond type� I wondered what in the world could Dr. Bates mean. During  my 25 years a typographer, I had never heard that expression. Maybe “diamond-type� was the term in Dr. Bates’ day for what I  knew as “mouse-type�, i.e., type sized 6pts or smaller.  In my day, when we examined “mouse-type� for quality-control, we always used an 8x-power magnification lens called a “loop�. Perhaps “mouse-type� was called “diamond-type� because  diamond-cutters traditionally use a similar magnification device in their work. On the other hand, since clarity is the hallmark of a diamond, and reading “diamond type� helps you to clear your near-vision, maybe Dr. Bates just coined the term “diamond-type�.)

Warm regards, Catherine
Reply
#49
Hello Catherine,
Regarding diamond type, Dr Bates mentions it a lot in his 1920 book, and he printed a sample of it on page 195.  You'll see it is smaller than font size 6.  In Times New Roman the font size is 4.
Diamond is listed as a printing type on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sizes.com/tools/type.htm">http://www.sizes.com/tools/type.htm</a><!-- m -->
That's all I know about it  Smile
Regards,
Esther
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.visionsofjoy.org">http://www.visionsofjoy.org</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#50
Hello, dear Esther,

Ah, so Diamond was one but not the teensy-tiniest of 19th century fonts typecast in hot-metal. Thanks for the link to the very cool hot-type history page. Now I know.

Warm regards, Catherine
Reply
#51
But there is one thing I still don't understand.

What is fine print?
Reply
#52
I think that's a general term used to describe very small print.  As opposed to large print.
Reply
#53
Hi,

I think I am going to try the minus glasses approach, maybe go with -1 and see but I just want to check that if it succeeds or fails, it won't cause any longterm damage to my eyes e.g. cataract/glaucoma or any other eye problems?

Thanks

Farsighted
Reply
#54
Dear Farsighted,

Subject: Majority-opinion ODs using "scare tatics" on you.

As most here know, the ODs simply want "milch cows" in off
the street -- so they can impress them with a plus or minus lens.

They then imply that a "minus" for nearsightedness, is "perfectly
safe". I learned the hard way how false that statement is.

I was also told that if you "follow" Bates you will "detroy" your
vision, by "sun gazing", and other of his methods.

That typically scares the hell out of a patient, and convinces
him that the great "conventional" doctor is correct, and
Bates is an idiot. These scare tatics are truly effective
in an office against a person. No doubt about it.

So when the question of "harm" comes up, I would remind
you that Bates was correct about the danger of an
over-prescribed minus lens worn all the time.

I understand that you have been wearing a "plus" for
some time -- and now your refractive STATE is positive
to a considerable degree.

Quote:I think I am going to try the minus glasses approach, maybe go with -1 and see but I just want to check that if it succeeds or fails, it won't cause any longterm damage to my eyes e.g. cataract/glaucoma or any other eye problems?

You will have to be your own "judge" about this issue. If this
is your concern, then DO NOT DO ANYTHING.

Do not take off "half-cocked". Do your research -- and then
when you decide it is safe -- do what you think is necessary.

I personally think the easier choice is simply to not wear your
current plus lens -- unless absolutly necessary.

You distant vision is good, i.e., would pass the DMV test
on your IVAC Snellen.

And I think your near vision at 20 inches is good also.

Your refractive STATE is about +2 diopters -- which is
in fact in the normal range.

Best,

Otis
Reply
#55
I understand how Bates did not agree with minus lenses, but for me, being farsighted, I want to see if I can reverse some of the farsightedness as it seems to have worked somewhat for Bifocal but could it be possible I could do damage to my eyes i.e. blindness or anything like that? Don't want to become blind, that's for sure !
Reply
#56
Farsighted Wrote:I understand how Bates did not agree with minus lenses, but for me, being farsighted, I want to see if I can reverse some of the farsightedness as it seems to have worked somewhat for Bifocal but could it be possible I could do damage to my eyes i.e. blindness or anything like that? Don't want to become blind, that's for sure !

Why not just stick with the Bates method? The title of his book is 'Perfect Sight Without Glasses'. I'm certain that more people have been cured by the treatment without glasses than by any treatment involving glasses.

I doubt that you could to do any long-term damage to your eyes by wearing minus lenses alone, certainly not blindness or anything like that. As for cataract and glaucoma - if your method succeeds then it would be impossible since you have eliminated your eyestrain (it's impossible to have those eye diseases without strain); if your method fails then maybe, but it's very unlikely unless you already have those conditions.

However, keep in mind that it has been discovered that spectacles are, to some extent, an injury to the eyes.

Good luck in whatever you decide to do!
Reply
#57
Dear Farsighted,

Subject: "Risks" for your own personal benifit.

I am an engineer, and also a private pilot. There are some who are afraid of
the "risks" of flying. I have owned and flown an experimental aircraft. Were
their risks -- to my life. Yes! I enjoyed flying and did everthing to
mitigate those risks -- by doing my own checking as much as possible.

I personally would judge you take no risks from wearing a -1 diopter lens -- if
your goal is to change your refractive STATE from its current +2.5 diotpers
to +1 diopter. Depending on your age -- that is a reasonable, goal.

Quote:I understand how Bates did not agree with minus lenses, but for me, being farsighted, I want to see if I can reverse some of the farsightedness as it seems to have worked somewhat for Bifocal but could it be possible I could do damage to my eyes i.e. blindness or anything like that? Don't want to become blind, that's for sure !

The only "risk" I am aware of, would be that your refractive STATE will stay at +2.5 diopters.

I would suggest that you teach yourself how to measure your refractive STATE using your IVAC Snellen,
and some plus lenses.

That way you do not have to go to an OD to make the measurement. Further you will
TRUST the result if you make the measurement yourself.

You situation is obviously the REVERSE of a person who has a refractive STATE of
-1.0 diopter, and wishes to move towards 0 to + 1 dipoters.

But I think you could do it -- but make all the measurements yourself.

Otis
Reply
#58
Dear Farsightedness,

Don't forget Bates.

I would also add that you should INCLUDE the Bates methods,
and get support from David and imagination-blindness posters
as you work to reduce your "farsightedness".

I have had a long discussion with David DeAngles about these
issues. In his case he had a negative refractive STATE (slight
nearsightedness), and using a COMBINATION of Bates
and a plus lens -- cleared his vision back to normal.

He attributes his success to Bates methods (of his own
design), and the fact that he monitored his Snellen,
to confirm his success.

In you case, your Snellen is good, and you simply wish
to change your refractive STATE in a negative direction.

I think that wise -- but you will have to over-come your
self-doubts about doing it systematically.

There is no "Royal Road" to vision-clearing by any method.

Personal commitment and resolve are necessary for
success.

Otis
Reply
#59
I would try Bates, but I think he was more into curing myopia as opposed to Hyperopia. Thanks all.
Reply
#60
Farsighted Wrote:I would try Bates, but I think he was more into curing myopia as opposed to Hyperopia. Thanks all.

What gave you that idea?
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Reply

TEST YOUR VISION AT HOME!
- Free Eye Chart PDFs

  • 20 ft, 10 ft, and Near Vision Charts
  • Letters Calibrated to Correct Printed Size
Download Now