Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pseudomyopia
#16
Anecdotally, I've watched this kind of process for years (other people's experience with Bates, or other methods of natural vision improvement).

Anecdotally, I have a strong hunch that Bates method can well be used to help relieve accommodative spam (a/k/a pseudomyopia).

Anecdotally, I've seen lots of stories of people who relieved a diopter (+/-) of pseudomyopia, then plateaued.  Months of further diligence yielded no further improvement.

What I would love to see is somebody working with an optometrist before and during their efforts to quantify and document their progress in terms of:
  • Accommodative amplitudes
  • Near point of focus
  • Visual acuity
  • Manifest refraction
  • Cycloplegic refraction [note: referred to by one poster as "Deadens the eye.  Not fair."  Plenty fair, actually.  It's how the line between accommodative and axial-length myopia is drawn."
    • Other measures of accommodative and binocular function[/list:u]

      I promise you that most people just exploring their options would want to understand their potential for reducing refractive error (eg, myopia).  If they are found to have a 2.00d accommodative component (ie, tonic accommodation) and 3.00d of axial-length myopia, and if it's found that the former can be 'treated,' but the latter has not been shown to resolve with current (non-pharmacological) interventions, then it would help them to have a good understanding of possible outcomes.

      It would also help by facilitating side-by-side comparisons of the various natural vision improvement methods currently available.

      I find that--in this sense, and others--this pathological fear-mongering (in regards to eye doctors) by some in the "community" thwarts any opportunities to prove the concept.  In some cases (to be clear: NOT you, David), I believe that's exactly why the fear-mongering continues. 

      If nobody's allowed to measure and document, then nobody can INvalidate the method.

      I've never seen any evidence that anybody's ever changed their axial-length through vision therapy.  I've been looking at it for quite some time.
Reply
#17
NoBones,

You didn't address what I said my previous post, which is I think what the important points are.

I have to wonder what you've been looking at, if you haven't found any evidence of people reducing their myopia, but I've heard that before, and in the past such research has shown to consist mainly of just searching PubMed. So you've contacted multiple Bates teachers to see what kind of records they keep, right? And you've taken lessons yourself, right? Because those would be my first steps, if It were going to research something. Not that they'll be willing to undermine their clients' privacy to have some guy pester their clients who doesn't believe that they got much benefit from the method, but it's at least the first step.

It's true that it's generally much easier for people with only a small amount of myopia to recover, especially if it's only been in place for a short time. But then often I hear from people who have improved their vision a little bit by almost any method conceivable, sometimes not the Bates method at all, and sometimes just by not wearing glasses for a couple weeks. It's a subtle process, and virtually nobody does it correctly at first, particularly on their own, because if they picked up on how to use their eyes correctly with any quickness at all, they wouldn't have their chronic vision problems to begin with.

I remember hearing from one guy who claimed to have "tried Bates" and hit a brick wall, and decided that was as far as he could possibly go. I asked them to describe the Bates method and what exactly they did, and it turned out he had very little understanding of what approach to take, and he continually refused to describe his process in detail. From what he did say, I got the sense that his own understanding of the approach was pretty screwed up.

I've heard from others who have been at it for years and don't seem to have had much improvement, and they don't seem to have much idea what they're doing either. Sometimes they actually have an idea that they're trying to strengthen their eyes, which causes more strain, and sometimes they have an idea that they should relax their eyes but think the only way to do it is by by some method like palming that may have given them no results in the past, or they have the idea that they're practicing the Bates method mainly by virtue of not wearing their glasses.

It's not a simple process for most people by any means. People can hold onto chronic tension for years, or their whole lives, as any massage therapist can tell you, and not even be aware of it or know how to relieve it. If it can be relieved very easily and permanently, it was never very chronic. Most people are also used to approaching everything in their life in the same basic ways: finding a way to produce effort in order to produce results, or trying to conquer a subject by understanding it intellectually. Neither way works with the Bates method, and yet people try both those approaches for years and wonder why they aren't getting results. It's a tricky process that has to involve a dramatic change in how a person goes about everything they do, because the way they hold their eyes is a very basic part of their deepest habits and sense of self.

When people look for evidence, I suggest that the best way to do so is to see a Bates teacher and learn to use the method on themselves. But critics are unwilling to do that.

What else... The cycloplegic refraction issue. You assume that:

1. by paralyzing one part of the eye, the rest will continue to function normally
2. by introducing chemicals into the  the eye, the visual system will continue to function normally
3. the chemicals introduced will have no effect on the smooth portion of the extraocular muscles, even though the chemicals can easily work their way back
4. Introducing foreign chemicals does not upset the delicate balance that someone who has recently improved their vision has

That doesn't sound too fair to me.

All these types of things are specifically designed to try to prove that the Bates method doesn't work, by using optometrists' own theories and assumptions that lead to testing procedures that will alter the results. I have yet to see a critic actually try to prove that the Bates method does work, if they're so interested in studying it.

I could just go on and on and on and on about this, as I've written about it countless times, but I'm going to stop here.

David
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Reply
#18
NoBones Wrote:The ciliary body is the mechanism by which accommodation occurs.  As a muscle, the ciliary must contract and relax in order to change the shape of the lens.  As a muscle, it is subject to fatigue and/or cramping.

As a muscle, it is also subject to abnormal enlargement "hypertrophy" when stressed frequently and for prolonged periods.  I understand that MRI's have shown this "ciliary hypertonicity" quite clearly.

Think of a charley horse in your thighs.  It's a cramp.  You use heat (and, possibly, massage) and work it out.  All better.

The ciliary body responds similarly.  The more hypertrophy that gets built up, the higher the likelihood of this cramp setting in, and the greater the difficulty of relieving it.  Cycloplegic drops can be used to relieve it, but they seem to have side effects of their own.

Periocular warming and taking frequent breaks from reading and near work also seem to help in preventing and relieving these accommodative stresses.

That seems to be why--when researchers sutured a -3d lens on monkeys with normal eyesight, their eyesight didn't change over time as long as they removed the lenses for a couple of hours each day.

I've also never seen any evidence that pseudomyopia (accommodative spasm, in this case) changes the shape/length of the eye long-term.

In my case, without my glasses, the blur from my astigmatism causes accommodative stress.  My eyes tire quickly.  As I said, that corn sock thing works well for me.

Magic?  No.

According to Bates, the cilliary body and the lens have little to do with accommodation.  This is the ONE MAIN FACT that is the foundation of the whole Bates method.  If you go on the Hemholtz theory, you may as well ignore the Bates method.  Unfortunately a bunch of people on this forum still believe the Hemholtz theory; I think they are wasting their time with the Bates method.
Staring far for 10 seconds every 10 minutes doing computer work, what a load of bull.  I hate being interrupted from my computer work, which means that I will never improve my eyesight.....yet I have....How do you explain that with your ciliary body and accommodation?  I never put a sock on my face either.

All I need to settle the accommodation theories straight is a retinoscope and a bottle of atropine.  Unfortunately proof is not proof in the field of optometry.  Only proof with profit is the real proof.  (pardon me Big Grin)

Paul

PS: I'm not bashing your the corn sock method.  If it works for you, great... If you've seen significant improvement, please let us know.  In that case I'm serious when I say I would give it a shot too.
Reply
#19
[url=http://Dear David,

Subject: Majority-opinion studies -- and their consequence

Otis> I strongly support the concept that an effort should be
made by second-opinion people to PREVENT entry into
myopia. 

Otis> I support the concept that these people be given
a trial-lens kit, a Snellen, and support from parents
and child to conduct this work

Otis> But to this very day -- this effort has always
been blocked by the majority-opinion ODs and MDs.
I think this is just wrong. 

Otis> I believe there was only one study run
by Majority-opinion ODs -- not to prove and
support Bates-prevention, but rather to
DESTROY the concept of Bates prevention.
That way, these majority-opinion people could
say, "...see, we used Bates and it does not work".


David>  I have to wonder what you've been looking at, if you haven't found any evidence of people reducing their myopia, but I've heard that before, and in the past such research has shown to consist mainly of just searching PubMed. So you've contacted multiple Bates teachers to see what kind of records they keep, right? And you've taken lessons yourself, right? Because those would be my first steps, if It were going to research something. Not that they'll be willing to undermine their clients' privacy to have some guy pester their clients who doesn't believe that they got much benefit from the method, but it's at least the first step.

Otis>  As both of use know, there are people who check their Snellen at
say 20/70, and by diligent work, SLOWLY clear it to 20/60, then
20/50, then 20/40, then 20/30, and finally 20/20.

Otis> But they are FORCED to do this themselves because:

1.  The work is hard.

2.  The work requires consider "will" to do it and

3.  Most people do not value their distant vision -- to
make the effort to keep their distant vision clear
through the school years.

Otis> Both of use know of people who have done this
vision clearing (by various second-opinion methods).

Otis> For the person who does this, passes the DMV
(under his DMV verification), there is no longer any
question about it.

Otis>  So that type of success simply takes the issue
out of "medicine" and places true responsibility
into the person himself.

Otis>  But I still say that this work can be better organized, if
you keep the majority-opinon people away from this
type of study.  A SUCCESSFUL study would show the
true failure of the minus lens as a "solution".

Just one man's opinion.

Otis]
Dear David,

Subject: Majority-opinion studies -- and their consequence

Otis> I strongly support the concept that an effort should be
made by second-opinion people to PREVENT entry into
myopia. 

Otis> I support the concept that these people be given
a trial-lens kit, a Snellen, and support from parents
and child to conduct this work

Otis> But to this very day -- this effort has always
been blocked by the majority-opinion ODs and MDs.
I think this is just wrong. 

Otis> I believe there was only one study run
by Majority-opinion ODs -- not to prove and
support Bates-prevention, but rather to
DESTROY the concept of Bates prevention.
That way, these majority-opinion people could
say, "...see, we used Bates and it does not work".


David>  I have to wonder what you've been looking at, if you haven't found any evidence of people reducing their myopia, but I've heard that before, and in the past such research has shown to consist mainly of just searching PubMed. So you've contacted multiple Bates teachers to see what kind of records they keep, right? And you've taken lessons yourself, right? Because those would be my first steps, if It were going to research something. Not that they'll be willing to undermine their clients' privacy to have some guy pester their clients who doesn't believe that they got much benefit from the method, but it's at least the first step.

Otis>  As both of use know, there are people who check their Snellen at
say 20/70, and by diligent work, SLOWLY clear it to 20/60, then
20/50, then 20/40, then 20/30, and finally 20/20.

Otis> But they are FORCED to do this themselves because:

1.  The work is hard.

2.  The work requires consider "will" to do it and

3.  Most people do not value their distant vision -- to
make the effort to keep their distant vision clear
through the school years.

Otis> Both of use know of people who have done this
vision clearing (by various second-opinion methods).

Otis> For the person who does this, passes the DMV
(under his DMV verification), there is no longer any
question about it.

Otis>  So that type of success simply takes the issue
out of "medicine" and places true responsibility
into the person himself.

Otis>  But I still say that this work can be better organized, if
you keep the majority-opinon people away from this
type of study.  A SUCCESSFUL study would show the
true failure of the minus lens as a "solution".

Just one man's opinion.

Otis[/url]
Reply
#20
There's a whole lot of misquoting going on here, and a whole lot of conspiracy theory proliferation.

Where to start.

David, I seem to recall saying something more like

Quote:Anecdotally, I've seen lots of stories of people who relieved a diopter (+/-) of pseudomyopia, then plateaued.  Months of further diligence yielded no further improvement.

Paul, so much research has been done since 1910.  MRI, Ultrasound, and other imaging techniques have localized the mechanism for accommodation.  Where the evidence leads you is a matter of personal choice.  Ex: why does an accommodating intraocular lens restore accommodative amplitudes in a presbyope?

Otis, I don't see where any optometrist or ophthalmologist is trying to "block" anything.  Can you enlighten me, please?  I've certainly heard many claims about what does work and what does not work, but there's a world of difference between not advocating something and blocking it, no?
Reply
#21
Dear Neil Brooks,

I stated that I would not respond to you -- because
of the "flame-war" issue.

I will respond to all others, however.

Otis
Reply
#22
First, my name isn't Neil Brooks, but ... you are free to call me anything that you wish.

Second, whether or not you have chosen to answer the question is, clearly, your decision.  We may take it as a "rhetorical question" and let others decide its merits for themselves.

Thanks.
Reply
#23
You have no "Real name", and you prefer
to post under and obviously false name.

But I have promised David, that I will not
respond to you. 

Otis
Reply
#24
Quote:Paul, so much research has been done since 1910.  MRI, Ultrasound, and other imaging techniques have localized the mechanism for accommodation.  Where the evidence leads you is a matter of personal choice.  Ex: why does an accommodating intraocular lens restore accommodative amplitudes in a presbyope?

Perhaps high-resolution dynamic ultrasound suggested the agent of accommodation.  I do not know enough about biomicroscopy to dispute it.  However, if you so strongly believe that Bates was wrong and that the ciliary muscle cramping causes the loss of far sight, then I have one question....why are you here?  It just seems that you just had this rage built up against Bates that you just had to vent it on some Bates method forum.

I have not known a single person improve their eyesight considerably by re-toning the ciliary body.  If you think that you can do that, please do.  Come back and share the experiences with us if it worked, or let us know it it failed.  You are trying to aggressively convince us of something that you have absolutely no proof of.  It seems that you are trying to say "You idiots!!! this is how you do it".  If you are so sure that putting a sock on your face and frequently breaking your concentration on your work by looking out the window will cure your eyes then why don't you do that and clear your eyesight to perfect.  I'm not making fun of you, but I think instead of trying to convince us you should try it yourself and let us know how it worked out.

Your approach isn't new, Bates mentioned in his book of an individual who tried to cure myopia by creating devices to keep the children's heads back while reading and writing.  This was supposedly aimed at reducing the stress on the ciliary muscle.  He said that this had very limited success, and despite common belief that this is so, I have not seen anyone improve their eyes this way.  I support the Bates method because he made it cure myopia, and I believe that.  I also believe many accounts of individuals improving their eyes both on these forums, people in my personal life, as well as the internet (latter isn't very reliable, I know).

I for one will never try to convince the person of a method that hasn't helped me.  I may suggest it in hopes it may help the person, but I won't actively attempt to change their mind. 

---------------------------------------

NoBones, Seriously dude, I'm growing tired of your crap.  You are just flooding the forums with offensive useless, conflict-seeking statements, most of which are directed at otis.  You seem to seek allegiance with anyone who opposes Otis, and make enemies of anyone who opposes your beliefs.  If you are seeking a war, you can do so using the private messaging system on this forum or e-mail.  I don't give a rat's ass about what you think about otis, I'm not trying to support him, but I think you are more offensive to him than he is to you.  He stopped replying to your posts in an effort to control your aggressiveness, but you are taking advantage of it and taunting him.  I agree some of Otis' comments are not related to the Bates method, and perhaps he doesn't believe the method will work, but it gives us no right to attack him like you do in almost every thread.

You need to grow up because you are acting very immaturely.  Your attitude and ego have greatly surpassed your reason.

If you are interested in discussing some vision improvement Bates-related topics in hopes to better understand the Bates method and perhaps even improve your eyesight, you are welcome here.  If you're here to aggressively throw out stupid statements in hope to raise armies against otis, you have no place here.  I've been on this forum long enough to understand what it's about, and about 90% of your posts provide no reasonable content, but aimed at pissing off one person or another. 

If you want to debate Otis, you can respectfully ask him by e-mail or private messaging - if he is willing.  I'm getting tired of reading your attacks on otis, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Reply
#25
You're a really special person, Paul.

When I saw where you were headed -- at about line two -- I stopped reading.

Thanks, though.
Reply
#26
wow, you are a very evil, insulting, self-centered man.  You didn't even try to solve any disputes you have arisen, but made them worse.  Thanks for your giant insult towards me. 

I hope you feel like a bigger man now, and your life is happier than before you made that post.  It didn't cost me much.

Best Regards,
Paul
Reply
#27
I exercised restraint, not lashing out at you at all.

You exercised none.

I'm good with my position.  If you are with yours, too, then that's groovy.
Reply
#28
To NoBones,

I exercise my good judgment.  I do not talk to persons
who have no name at all -- and present themselves
as "experts".

The others reading this will understand that I
will fully respond to their questions -- but never
to you.

Otis
Reply

5 TIPS TO IMPROVE YOUR VISION IMMEDIATELY!

Quickly prove to yourself that vision improvement is possible, with this free PDF download.

Download Now