In these unique 2 months that I have trained my Eyesight, I have indeed made little progress. However, it's quite enough progress to continue and have faith in something.
Everyone seems to turn their back on what seems illogical. Only approximately 1 of 20 people who I have told believe that I'm not wasting my time with some "kooky" method. Even my best friend doesn't believe me. I think that, overall people try not to be Gullible.
Everyone gets caught up in life and tends not to believe, really... anything. The world is blind, literally.
When the entire profession and industry is so ignorant of the basic principles of correct eye use, it makes you wonder what other beliefs out there go unquestioned in our culture and yet are totally off the mark, doesn't it?
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
I used to be critical of people who called this whole idea of eyesight improvement kookery. And as you say, I have about the same experience, only 1 in 20 people seem open to the idea.
Now, I've had a bit more time to consider why. David raises a good point, beliefs are often left unquestioned. I think the reason why many beliefs remain unquestioned and unjustly criticized is because people have an emotional reason not to change their mind. It requires non-judgmental thinking and being open about ones own fears and challenges.
With eyesight, these fears are easy to understand. Take two groups of people that we tell of eyesight improvement, people with perfect sight and people with imperfect sight.
People with perfect sight are led to believe that glasses wearers are nearly blind or useless without glasses. They have no perspective of what it's like to wear glasses, so naturally they believe whatever they were taught. Let's say that suddenly they hear of someone wanting to run around without glasses. Their first reaction may well be that they are afraid this person is endangering themselves or others by not being able to see properly. They don't see an immediate or obvious point to the whole slow process of recovering eyesight naturally so may initially just say, 'why don't you put your glasses back on?' without even thinking about the bigger issue consciously.
People with imperfect sight may have worn glasses so long they are quite attached to them psychologically. For them, accepting the possibility of eyesight improvement may be like a skinny person going up to an overweight person and saying, 'I used to be fat like you, but did you know it's possible to get fit if you exercize and eat right?' Ok, not exactly, but consider it. People get comfortable with who they are and how they became that person. Improving eyesight requires challenging not only your beliefs about wearing glasses, but the feelings associated with it and how you started wearing them. People may associate being frightened or insecure with taking off their glasses. The tension they are holding in their eyes may be due to specific emotional difficulties that, whether they consciously know or not, cause them to keep their glasses close instead of dealing with those emotions. (I always discounted that one until I recently realized that my own myopia is a result of intense staring that I learned to do from a young age when being lectured at). I'm not saying everyone with myopia got it from repressing some emotion. There are probably as many causes of near- and far-sightedness as their are people with these problems, and as a result, it's impossible to say exactly what psychological connection people have to the belief that they absolutely need their glasses to see.
My eyesight is now consistently 20/50 without glasses, yet I started with -8.00 glasses 10 months ago. I think that this issue of being aware of the underlying feelings and sources of automatic responses to change will be the key I will use to help alleviate my friends and family of the glasses addiction.
sorrisiblue Wrote:People with perfect sight are led to believe that glasses wearers are nearly blind or useless without glasses.
That is a great observation. The more correct version is that people have no idea that myopic people have different degrees of myopia. Even my father who has incredibly good eyesight ( he is 68 now) never understood how bad my eyes were. We have a calender on the wall on which there are letters of many sizes. A few years ago, during dinner time the topic was about vision and all of us were measuring against the calender. Oddly enough the oldest member ( my dad) read every smallest letter from fifteen feet. I was amazed because these letters were incredibly small to be seen at 15 feet. My cousin took his turn and he could read almost all the letters. Then my sister read most of it but lesser than my cousin. My mother could not read a single letter without her glasses. I tried to shy away from the room, but my father asked me to try. I said that I hardly see the calender leave alone read it. My father was puzzled and began to schold me that I was hiding serious vision loss from him and as a father he was entitled to know about my health. He asked me what fraction of normal I could see and I said it was probably around 3%.
The irony is that my father used to accompany me to the doctor everytime I used to go to the eye doctor but he never knew how much I could see. He knew that I had such numbers such as -8D but he had no idea what VA that translates too. He told me less than 50% must be very bad and I had to tell him that 50% vision is very mild myopia which he found very hard to digest.
Most people who have never worn glasses dont have a clue what myopes can see. They dont distinguish between -1D and -8D either.
Subject: Objection to the minus lens -- is the second-opinion.
The preventive methods advocated by optometrists (Plus -- and other methods)
are not "kooky" -- but they require an informed, competent person who can
"visualize" what is required.
The "minus" did not grow out of science. In fact the only reason it was used
was that it creates an "instant" impression in five minutes, and the ignorant
public (that is you and I) will not "listen" to preventive methods.
Quote:Mrcondo> Everyone seems to turn their back on what seems illogical. Only approximately 1 of 20 people who I have told believe that I'm not wasting my time with some "kooky" method. Even my best friend doesn't believe me. I think that, overall people try not to be Gullible.
Otis> I have suggested taking steps to re-run the 1913 study -- but do it with mature adults.
Otis> The reaction I get is ZERO.
Otis> It is now 95 years later, and the Bate 1913 study is the ONLY STUDY where the person
actually read his Snellen!! To me that is the FIRST STEP of empowerment.
Otis> I know it is almost impossible to get a preventive study started -- but I think
the National Eye Institute should have a fire built under them to consider that
possibility.
Otis> The science of the natural eye has been made very clear. But that is SCIENCE
and not medicine.
Otis> So let us just call science the second-opinion.
Thats a good point, sorrisiblue, 'Why don't you put your glasses back on?' I get that quite commonly amongst people. I find that most people simply don't know a preventive and healing method is out there. They think I'm some lunatic not wanting to have instant "relief" from bad eyesight.
My dad was also shocked to hear how bad my vision was when I couldn't see anything from 4 inches away.
And Otis, I could agree to that; after all, the second opinion is basically the only thing I could see it as (now at least).
As you know, I advocate fundamental change in our "attitude" towards
prevention (and recovery -- if you can manage it.)
It is very important that the person read his/her Snellen, and realize
how difficult it is to un-do the effect of that minus. I think this
is why Bates was so strong in his 1913 study. I think the
study failed because the childeren did not know what
they were doing.
Here is a person who has truly used Bates (as we understand it)
and has accomplished a true success. (She will define.)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sassisailor.wordpress.com/">http://sassisailor.wordpress.com/</a><!-- m -->
She has confirme her status has changed by +1 diopter in seven months.
She is at -5.5 diopters now, so that suggests it will take time
to get towards 0.0 diopters.
But all of the result will depend on Sassy's "sticking" with her
work with Bates.
When I reached the age of 17, I concluded that I was born into a world that is
indeed "Blind" in a scientific sense.
By this research, I reached the conclusion that I was responsible for SOME of
it -- but the true responsibility rests with these "myopic" ODs who only
see their "office function" to be "science".
It is not.
A true scientist would have no problem supporting an HONEST 1913 study.
A person more concerened with YOUR welfare, would have no problem
supporting an "updated" 1913 study -- that puts the person in CONTROL
of all measurements and judgments.
What I regret is that Bates was "killed" in threshold-prevention -- that
could have worked in the context of his study.
So yes, we are all diminished by this anti-scientific attitude of
these office-ODs.
Sorry if it hurts their "feelings" if I express myself this way.
A true scientist would have no problem supporting an HONEST 1913 study, I definitely would follow that statement. Luckily, there are still some true scientists today.
Dear MrCondo,
Subject: Search for the truth.
I always state (and believe) that objection to that minus lens is the second-opinion.
But, I agree that the person himself must get "fired up" for prevention. The
problem is that most people are pulled in 10 different directions -- by
people around them, by their own "miss-conceptions", by "medical bias", and
so forth.
For the future, I think that an ORGANIZED group of people who will
"commit" the the use of these preventive measures (not only Bates) could
achieve scientific success.
I find that the lack of faith in whoever I may have told, to be very inspiring and motivational. It seems to have an oppositional effect taking place; being told you can't do it would result in a backfire of, "Oh yeah? watch me!"
I do not mind being told that prevention IS IMPOSSIBLE.
What I object to is this -- they then go on to say that since IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, we
will prevent, stop, and impede ALL EFFORTS BY YOU TO PREVENT, in an
organized, systematic, scientific manner.
That is why I object to.
There is a great deal of scientific information that says that, had
Dr. Bates been able to conduct a truly PREVENTIVE effort in
1913, with highly motivated engineers, he could have
achieved systematic sucess.
By this I mean that the person would (could) have cleared his
Snellen to normal, and kept his vision clear through the
remaining years he would spend in college.
But the powers-that-be, manage to "block" the orgainzation of
that type or reasonable effort.
What the N.E.I. is doing it not helping with prevention, but
rather blocking by ignoance and apathy the possibility
of prevention. We all suffer from the "blocking" of scientific
knowledge about this issue.
