"That glasses must injure the eye is evident from the facts given in the preceding chapter. One cannot see through them unless one produces the degree of refractive error which they are designed to correct. But refractive errors, in the eye which is left to itself, are never constant. If one secures good vision by the aid of concave, or convex, or astigmatic lenses, therefore, it means that one is maintaining constantly a degree of refractive error which otherwise would not be maintained constantly. It is only to be expected that this should make the condition worse, and it is a matter of common experience that it does. After people once begin to wear glasses their strength, in most cases, has to be steadily increased in order to maintain the degree of visual acuity secured by the aid of the first pair."
William Bates in his book
One thing I don't understand - if the strain is maintrained, why does it make visual problems worse? I mean, if the strain is constant, why does it have to get worse. Can't it reman at the same level?
I've never worn glasses (although I'm myopic) and I don't know how it's like to wear glasses. I've always noticed though that people who wear glasses all the time look in extremely strained ways without them.
Why is the minus a problem -- and how do you PROVE IT?
Simple.
You can take a natural eye and MAKE IT NEARSIGHTED -- simply
by placing a strong minus on it.
The science might be difficult, but here is the way the
eye responds:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html">http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html</a><!-- m -->
This data was NOT available to Dr. Bates. But it would have
been no surprise to him.
The lens CAUSES myopia -- how can it be of any help to
FIX what it can CAUSE in the first place.
Bates is now RIGHT as a matter of objective science.
Only 30% of the myopes have eyesight worse than -5D. This shows that glasses do not continue to worsen vision in all. But one thing is certain - the longer you wear them the more difficult it is to restore lost vision.
Glasses are like crutches. If your limbs are weak the worst thing you can do is to start using crutches which only further weakens them. ( the situation is diferent if you are recovering from an accident) Glasses do the same thing, but for many people myopia stops progressing after a particular age.
Glasses are not a real burden on the normal eye because it is relaxed and it can adjust easily to unfavourable conditions. But they are bad on the slightly myopic eye because this myopic eye is not relaxed and is prone to further deterioration. They are very bad for high myopes who have completely lost central fixation already but the irony is that it is the high myopes who wear them all the time.
Ram Wrote:...They are very bad for high myopes who have completely lost central fixation already but the irony is that it is the high myopes who wear them all the time.
This is sadly true...
Well not all the time especially if the highly myopic has read bates book and starting to implement his method
Ram Wrote:Only 30% of the myopes have eyesight worse than -5D. This shows that glasses do not continue to worsen vision in all.
Sorry to step on your toes, but that's not what it means at all.
However, it may mean that 30% of the myopes began to experience their refractive error at a very early age. This, in fact, strengthens the theory that glasses worsen vision. Without physical damage to the eye or any timed genetic diseases, a person without glasses will almost never be able to gain -5D no matter how hard he strains. There are no published studies, but a survey of optometrists indicated that almost all of those who think twice before subscribing a minus lens noticed this as a fact.
Without glasses your eyesight can't get any worse than -2D (worst cases). You need glasses if you want to get -5D or worse.
1. Bates concept -- that the minus was bad for you, or
2. The "standard" concept (Donders-Helmholtz) that the minus
was GOOD for you.
But that was 80 years ago. What has happend since then?
Final scientific proof.
While you can not do this on human-primates -- you can do it
on monkey primtes.
Just take a population of norma primates and place a un-wanted -3 diopter
lens on 1/2 of them?
What happens -- in science.
The 1/2 will have their eyes CHANGE by -2.5 diopters in less than six months.
This is a more powerfui statement that ANYTHING Bates said. Further it is indeed
EXACT SCIENCE.
So yes, for a 5 minute "jolt" of very sharp vision -- get an over-prescribed minus.
But that OD thinks that he is perfect, and that "jolt" that he supplies does not
cause any "adaptation" -- at all.
I know that they intend no "exacerbation" -- but science (and Bates) said otherwise.
Some people are apologic for Bates -- that he was "not-science". But that it just
the majority-opinion "takling".
So, get a Snellen, read it (know the REQUIRED Visaul Standard) and pass it.
This is the strength if I-Blindness -- you can lear from science.
otis Wrote:Just take a population of norma primates and place a un-wanted -3 diopter
lens on 1/2 of them?
What happens -- in science.
The 1/2 will have their eyes CHANGE by -2.5 diopters in less than six months.
Do you have a reference for this? I remember an experiment involving monkeys, but it had to do with tying them to a chair with a hood over their head for 6 months.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Here is the "missing" scientific proof -- that Dr. Bates needed
80 years ago.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html">http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html</a><!-- m -->
This is far better that most "primate" tests.
The reason is this. The took two IDENTICAL EYES, and
placed a -3 diopter on one of the eyes.
The other eye had no lens.
The result of doing this is that the accommodation-system will
change by +3 diopters (equal an opposite).
If the "conventional" theory was correct (that a minus is safe) the
there would be no change.
But what happened is that the -3 diopter eye changed by -2.5 diopters.
That is true science. Simple, clear and to the point.
Bates was indeed correct about the danger of the minus.
That is why I support the concept that objection to the minus -- is the
second-opinion.
Thus ANYTHING you do to help with this -- helps everyone here.
Ram Wrote:Only 30% of the myopes have eyesight worse than -5D. This shows that glasses do not continue to worsen vision in all.
Sorry to step on your toes, but that's not what it means at all.
However, it may mean that 30% of the myopes began to experience their refractive error at a very early age. This, in fact, strengthens the theory that glasses worsen vision. Without physical damage to the eye or any timed genetic diseases, a person without glasses will almost never be able to gain -5D no matter how hard he strains. There are no published studies, but a survey of optometrists indicated that almost all of those who think twice before subscribing a minus lens noticed this as a fact.
Without glasses your eyesight can't get any worse than -2D (worst cases). You need glasses if you want to get -5D or worse.
Note that I said that glasses do not continue to worsen vision in all. How much a person's vision will decrease with the use of glasses is quite subjective. Some people wear a weak -0.5D glasses and never experience any further loss of vision. I know many such cases.
Most myopes begin to notice that they have problems in vision when they have more than -1D. When they put on glasses, a good majority of these progress to between -3D and -5D. Without the use of glasses vision may decrease but would be likely contained within -3D.
I remember my uncle's case. He was quite myopic even at school. He concealed this fact from his parents ( and hence never used glasses for a long time). But his vision got so bad ( something like -9D) and his parents noticed his odd behaviourial patterns and found out he was very myopic. The eye doctor was shocked that he first wore his myopia glasses at - 9D!! In his case, his myopia did not progress once they put him on glasses and surprisingly he wears only -5D glasses now inspite of wearing glasses for thirty five years. This is one rare case where I have actually seen a person benefit from glasses - nothing can be generalized. My mom also had -5D for the first prescription but never changed it in thirty years. So you can have high myopia without using glasses at all. The difference is that glasses almost always guarantee some loss in unaided vision - the extent of the loss is different in different people. The staircase myopia happens only in 30% of the cases - that was my point.
So the effect of glasses is variable. Each person is different. Some people ( like me) will become blind if i continue to wear glasses because my vision has never plateaued with glasses. Most people will stablise between -3 and -5 and that is why many people are not bothered to improve their vision through NVI. If everyone gets very myopic on glasses, Bates methods would be far more popular than it is now. If everyone experiences so much discomfort and contiuos loss of vision with glasses like me they wont hesitate to throw away their glasses and try Bates. Many people are quite happy on glasses - to make the matters worse the mainstream still teaches that glasses are good for the eyes. Why, my eye doctor has warned me never to take off glasses or I will experience further loss of vision!
