Gradual or sudden recovery?

[marlon]

Just curious, have any of you who've made significant improvements experienced 'sudden clearing' (my own term)? By sudden i mean getting perfect vision without going through small gradual improvements. In other words, did your recovery went like this: -4 to -3.5 to -3 to -2.5 to -2.0 to -1.5 to -1.0 to -0.5 to perfect vision, or did it went like this -4 to perfect vision.

[Urban]

Aside from Bates' books I've never heard of a sudden recovery.

I've heard of "jumps" in smaller amounts say 0.5 diopters and I've heard of "quick" recovery over a shorter than normal time span (read sorris' post in success stories), but to go from -4 to perfect is being optimistic and frankly thinking like that would probably prevent it from happening.

[otis]

Dear Marlon,

Subject: SERIOUS over-prescription.

Re: Vision-clearing from -4 diopters.

I would caution anyone about expecting "rapid" clearing. But
it does happen -- however rare.

Here is an example where Dennis personally checked his
Snellen, and confirmed the success of his vision-clearing
work. :o

I personally think it is very wise to AVOID the minus lens
in the first place (as recommended by Dr. Bates) and
never allow youself to get down to -4 diopters.

Best,

Otis

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT VISION

Dennis Romich, July 21, 1992

My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis Brown discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the myopic eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens, and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much safer than any other method.

I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens was a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who have lost their near vision.

I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened, and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.

As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription lenses.

Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe. Since I have done it successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision restoration.

I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in both Engineering and Business Administration.

Dennis

[David]

marion,

Well for one thing, those numbers you're giving are in terms of diopters, a measurement of what prescription you need at the doctor's office to see clearly with. It says nothing about what you can see without glasses on the chart or elsewhere, which is much more meaningful than those numbers that don't actually have anything to do with how well you can see without glasses. It's issues like that that you have to understand better to understand what's possible in terms of sudden recoveries. A sudden temporary recovery of refractive errors happens constantly (nobody strains 100% of the time, but when they don't strain they mentally "turn off" their vision), and a sudden permanent one more likely on average for someone who hasn't had vision problems long and hasn't work glasses, but then no one person is an average.

Dave

[otis]

Dear David,

Subject: Measurement by Diopters or by Snellen?

I would like to say that we should standarize on YOUR Snellen. You can have 20/20 (as
per below) and some over-prescribing OD can put you into a -1 or -2 diopter minus lens.

We know from Dr. Bates how TRULY BAD THAT IS.

Dennis only became successful AFTER he began checking his own Snellen.

In fact I do not credit his "plus" with his success, but rather because he made
and effort, starting with reading his Snellen.

I think he was just lucky. And I think that he probably used Bates (but not
the way we are discussing it.)

I know that some people are honestly at 20/800 or so. But even here, I believe
that a person like that GOT down to that point because some over-prescribing
OD put him into an excessive minus -- when Bates SHOULD have been used.

Enjoy,

Otis



Re: Accuracy of Eye Charts

Question> How likely is it that someone with a mild myopia could read the 20/20
line on a Snellen eye chart?

DrJudy> Quite likely with up to about -1.00, especially in bright light or with
a bit of squinting. Various posters here and on other forums have
stated that they are able to see a blurry 20/20 without glasses despite
have refractive error in that range.

Otis> This is an admission of the over-prescription policy that Bates
objected to.