I posted a few messages further down this post and Otis was helping me but I am interested in how you were farsighted and by wearing minus glasses eventually became shortsighted.
I am farsighted and have been all my life. My current prescription is LE+2.25 and RE+2.75. My RE is lazy and without correction, it is closer to my nose and does not look straight. I hate wearing strong plus glasses so I have worn contact lenses since my teens (I am now 25). However, I did buy a pair of glasses on line with a reduced prescription (LE+1.00, RE+1.25) and wear them in the mornings and evening when I don't have my contacts in. I have no restrictions on my drivers license and can see fine without lenses but I couldn't go into town or whatever without correction because as I mentioned my eye looks crooked unless I wear contacts or glasses on the eye and don't want people looking at me like I had 2 heads !!!
I would love to improve my farsightedness and to even become physically shortsighted. Do you think either of these might be a possibility using minus glasses, which I could order online? What prescription would you suggest for me to wear full-time?
If you are very serious about "reducing" your current
refractive STATE (move negative), and are prepared
to wear a minus lens -- then here is how
you do it. Click:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php">http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php</a><!-- m -->
And you will find glasses for $9, with about $5 shipping.
This will allow you to use the lenses at low cost to you.
(I make this statement as an engineer. I am not
"medical".)
When you order, just type in -1 diopter spherical.
Ignore the astigmatic part (or put in 0.0).
Also, you will have no "add".
If you decide to do this -- let me know.
Success depends on your age. If I remember
correctly it is about 27 years.
If you decide to do this, I would suggest checking
your Snellen, and also checking your refractive
STATE using your Snellen -- so you can
actually "see" the change in your
refractive STATE as your eyes respond to
that -1 diopter lens.
Let me know if you are willing to buy
that low cost -1 diopter glasses.
Otis: snellen shmellen....who cares, a refractive error is a refractive error.
Bifocal, I think you should look into the Bates method a bit more. The opposing lens will create considerable blur while you wear it, and the progress will most likely not be permanent because it doesn't correct the strain that caused imperfect sight in the first place. Also, according to my experience as well as experience of many others, it offers only slight relief to refractive errors. It is most effective in corrective refractive errors if you are + or - 0.5 or better; even then, people have trouble. Plus, even if it works, you'll have to keep using the minus to maintain your "improvement" because the uncorrected strain will quickly revert you back to your previous state.
Bates has written about the convergent squint (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/ch21.html">http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/ch21.html</a><!-- m -->) as well as hypermetropia. Both are caused by underlying strain. If you relax the strain, you will correct both conditions. If you can't feel the strain to relax, then try some of the methods he suggests to help you feel and relax the strain..i.e. palming, swinging etc...
I'll answer your post to avoid confusing newcommers:
otis Wrote:Otis> I think it is important. If you are attempting to
clear your vision from 20/70 to normal -- how exactly
are you going to determine if you are successful???
Trust me, when eyesight clears, you notice it... If you believed or tried the Bates method, you'd know.
Quote:Otis> It seems to me that is Bates was correct about
vision clearing (as he said from 20/70), the
person would be VERY INTERESTED in avoiding
the minus (again as Bates SUGGESTED).
Incorrect. Bates said to DISCARD YOUR GLASSES!!! He didn't say "try not to use your glasses", he didn't say "use the minus lens if you are fasighted, or plus lens when nearsighted" he said DISCARD YOUR GLASSES. Just look at the title of his book: "Perfect eyesight WITHOUT GLASSES".... no, it's not "Perfect eyesight with a plus lens" Using another lens to solve your problem isn't the Bates method. Please don't distort this idea. I'm not saying the minus lens doesn't work ,or you shouldn't do it...I'm saying it's not part of the Bates method.
Quote:1. Clear his vision -- if he does not verify his
results by using Bates?
Snellen should be the least of your worries when working with the Bates method. I understand that your eyesight is tested through your life, which is why Bates recommended performing his techniques on an eyechart. The idea is that eyechart produces worry, which inevitably leads to strain, which further leads to an inaccurate visual test. If you practice his techniques on the eyechart, you learn to become comfortable with it, and it would be an "optimum", or an object that does not produce strain, and the letters will clear up. I have known many people who see perfectly and can read at any distance, but their vision considerably declines once they glance at the eyechart, as they associate it with disappointment having been nearsighted in the past. Similarily, there are those who can read 20/15 on the eye chart, but have serious trouble reading at a distance.
To directly answer your question: How does he know his vision has cleared? Maybe his vision would be clearer ?
Subject: Verification that the eye's refractive STATE
will move in a negative direction.
Obviously "perfect" proof can not exist. But
when you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye,
the eye will change as follows:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html">http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html</a><!-- m -->
There is every reason to expect your refractive status
will change in the same manner, if you choose
to wear that minus lens to "reduce" your
farsightedness.
Ok guys, should I then progress and try using a -1 pair of glasses or should I go a bit stronger? Although it won't improve my lazy-ish eye??....Will I eventually turn shortsighted full-time? Thank you.
Forget about the stupid minus lens! It will bring you nowhere!
It is like Paul said, the minus is really not a good cure, because you have to keep wearing it. And the improper use of the eyes will always remain until you learn to correct them.
Kazekage, relax, there is no need to become aggressive ! I just note how it worked for Bifocal and was interested in his methods and that is why the original post was for his attention.
Kaze didn't seem aggressive. Otis is more aggressive than anyone here.
Furthermore, you can't post a question on the minus lens in the Bates forum and not expect anyone to advise you against it.
If you have a question for Bifocal, why don't you PM him then? I think the forum will send him a notification e-mail.
As far as I remember, Bifocal used the minus lens in conjunction with the Bates method, so it's difficult to say what has helped him.
Keep in mind: Otis hasn't cured his eyesight, and does not believe in the Bates method. You can try the minus, in which case you should PM Otis because this is a discussion is only on the Bates method. If you find out the minus lens remedy doesn't work for you and you'd like to invest in the cure via Bates method, let us know and we'll be glad to assist you.
You are going to get this advice, where one person
will ATTEMPT to contradict the other.
I depend on YOUR wisdom to sort this out.
You asked some very basic questions.
But look at the "picture" of the eye's response
to a -3 diopter lens. At least that is a starting-point.
Far> Ok guys, should I then progress and try using a -1 pair of glasses or should I go a bit stronger?
Otis> I think this will take some time to get used to. I would
start with the weak -1 diopter minus. You will find
out whether you can tolerate it. I think that is all
you could "take" at first. The cost is low, $10 -- so
you have not lost much money.
Far> Although it won't improve my lazy-ish eye??
Otis> Since I have that "problem", I would say
that no one can promice anything like that. I
do say that Bates methods are best for controlling
eye-turn.
Far> ..Will I eventually turn shortsighted full-time?
Otis> You are "farsighted" by +2.5 diopters. I will
explain how to measure this -- for yourself.
Otis> As the eye responds to that minus,
the refractive STATE will move towards zero.
(Your goal). Only if you kept wearing the minus
AFTER you hit zero, would be become "nearsighted".
And you are a long way from that point.
Otis> We are ALL HERE TO HELP YOU. Even
if the methods we advocate conflict slightly.
