Want to try Dr. Bates theory

Hi everyone,

I'm in my 40s and can not see far distance (-2.75) vision. I really
hate wearing my glasses and to scared to have laser done to my eyes so
I thought maybe I can try something more natural if I can fix / even a
little my eyes vision.

I read the Dr. Bates book but not to sure are a few things.

1. He talks about the relaxing of the eyes and I'm sure this can not
do anything bad to my eyes and I think it is a very nice relaxing
practice. But how offen should I do it per day (he stats you need to
see just black (really black and alos try to picture a letter)? is
this correct.

2. Look at a letter (contour shape etc) on a wall for a few minutes
and then look far. AGain how close should the letter be and how offen
etc.

Is there anyone that has tried this and it did work for them?
Is there any danger of doing this?

Would really appreciate it someone can get back to me .

Thanks for your time.

Dear Friend,

The ODs posting here think that Bates is a "joke".

I would suggest clicking on this site for an
more open-minded review of Bates and
other second-opinion methods of prevention.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/

They will be more supportive of you desire
to clear your Snellen.

Enjoy,

Otis



On Mar 16, 1:18 pm, cde...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm in my 40s and can not see far distance (-2.75) vision. I really
> hate wearing my glasses and to scared to have laser done to my eyes so
> I thought maybe I can try something more natural if I can fix / even a
> little my eyes vision.
>
> I read the Dr. Bates book but not to sure are a few things.
>
> 1. He talks about the relaxing of the eyes and I'm sure this can not
> do anything bad to my eyes and I think it is a very nice relaxing
> practice. But how offen should I do it per day (he stats you need to
> see just black (really black and alos try to picture a letter)? is
> this correct.
>
> 2. Look at a letter (contour shape etc) on a wall for a few minutes
> and then look far. AGain how close should the letter be and how offen
> etc.
>
> Is there anyone that has tried this and it did work for them?
> Is there any danger of doing this?
>
> Would really appreciate it someone can get back to me .
>
> Thanks for your time.

On Mar 16, 11:05 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> The ODs posting here think that Bates is a "joke".

That's not what I read.

The OD's (et al) here think that YOU are a joke, Otis. Please don't
read any more into it than that.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:1174069118.198024.310820
@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm in my 40s and can not see far distance (-2.75) vision. I really
> hate wearing my glasses and to scared to have laser done to my eyes so
> I thought maybe I can try something more natural if I can fix / even a
> little my eyes vision.
>



If you are -2.75, you'll continue to need glasses to see, even if the Bates
thing manages to work a little (and I doubt it will).

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

The Bates method works in parting a fool and his/her money.

Of course, please read Bate's original report:

http://central-fixation.com/batesmed...prevention.htm

And make up your mind accordingly.

And if you would like second-opinion advice, why
not check with optometrists who have used Bates
and other methods to clear their vision from
-2.75 diopters (and worse) to normal. See:

http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html

for details.

The majority-opinion ODs on this site believe that
nothing affects the refractive STATE of the eye -- ever.

If you believe them, then you can forget clearing your
vision by these essentially preventive methods.

Be wise.

Think and review these facts for yourself.



On Mar 16, 1:18 pm, cde...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm in my 40s and can not see far distance (-2.75) vision. I really
> hate wearing my glasses and to scared to have laser done to my eyes so
> I thought maybe I can try something more natural if I can fix / even a
> little my eyes vision.
>
> I read the Dr. Bates book but not to sure are a few things.
>
> 1. He talks about the relaxing of the eyes and I'm sure this can not
> do anything bad to my eyes and I think it is a very nice relaxing
> practice. But how offen should I do it per day (he stats you need to
> see just black (really black and alos try to picture a letter)? is
> this correct.
>
> 2. Look at a letter (contour shape etc) on a wall for a few minutes
> and then look far. AGain how close should the letter be and how offen
> etc.
>
> Is there anyone that has tried this and it did work for them?
> Is there any danger of doing this?
>
> Would really appreciate it someone can get back to me .
>
> Thanks for your time.

On Mar 16, 8:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> The majority-opinion ODs on this site believe that
> nothing affects the refractive STATE of the eye -- ever.
>
> If you believe them, then you can forget clearing your
> vision by these essentially preventive methods.

First, you really shouldn't put words in other people's mouths. It's
a terribly bad habit ... and certainly not your only one.

Second, if all of this works so well, then why are you a -6.00d myope?

Hmm.

> Be wise.
>
> Think and review these facts for yourself.

Amen to that!

[so sorry, C66, but ... that horse ... it's anything but dead ;-)]

Did me the world of good. Was prescribed very weak glasses in my early 20's,
went to the library, only found one book, "Better Eyesight Without Glasses",
didn't know anything about Bates (thank heavens!), did the exercises then
realised it was about a "philosophy" of seeing. Since then I have never been
prescribed glasses, am 48, not presbyope yet but getting there, have 6\5+
visual acuity, every specialist I've seen says given that I have optic nerve
damage, exotropia, third nerve palsy, monocular vision(only finger vision in
one eye), it is a bloody miracle I see as well as I do.

However, Bates was really over the top as are many of his adherents. You can
try Bates, my situation is unique so not applicable to everyone, but if you
listen to many here you may be put off Bates. Try it, try it properly, and
see what happens. There are thousands of people out there who have used
Bates methods to good effect. If it works for you too hell with the
established view. If it doesn't, to hell with Bates!


John.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm in my 40s and can not see far distance (-2.75) vision. I really
> hate wearing my glasses and to scared to have laser done to my eyes so
> I thought maybe I can try something more natural if I can fix / even a
> little my eyes vision.
>
> I read the Dr. Bates book but not to sure are a few things.
>
> 1. He talks about the relaxing of the eyes and I'm sure this can not
> do anything bad to my eyes and I think it is a very nice relaxing
> practice. But how offen should I do it per day (he stats you need to
> see just black (really black and alos try to picture a letter)? is
> this correct.
>
> 2. Look at a letter (contour shape etc) on a wall for a few minutes
> and then look far. AGain how close should the letter be and how offen
> etc.
>
> Is there anyone that has tried this and it did work for them?
> Is there any danger of doing this?
>
> Would really appreciate it someone can get back to me .
>
> Thanks for your time.
>

On Mar 17, 12:35 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote
>
> > Think and review these facts for yourself.
>
> Which facts would that be?
>
> Was it "Only a small part of the phenomena of refractive errors is accounted
> for by the inaccuracy of focus"
>
> Or, "the lens is not a factor in accommodation"
>
> Or, "Yet it is to-day a perfectly well-known and undisputed fact that many
> persons, after the removal of the lens for cataract, are able to see
> perfectly at different distances without any change in their glasses."
>
> Or, "all persons with errors of refraction [have], at frequent intervals,
> moments of normal vision when their myopia, hypermetropia, or astigmatism
> wholly disappears."
>
> Or, "A sudden exposure to strong light, or rapid or sudden changes of light,
> are likely to produce imperfect sight in the normal eye, continuing in some
> cases for weeks and months.

Dear Mike,

CHANGE is always difficult for medical people.
We all understand AND RESPECT that issue.

But there is a second-opinion, that a negative
refractive STATE of the natural eye can be
prevented.

Even your fellow optometrists support that
second-opinion perspective.

http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html

The fact that you don't understand the preventive
second-opinion is OK.

But just do not deny that some optometrists
support successful clearing of vision with
these preventive measures.

Second-opinion best to you,

Otis


>
> Or "Noise is also a frequent cause of defective vision in the normal eye.
> All persons see imperfectly when they hear an unexpected loud noise.
> Familiar sounds do not lower the vision, but unfamiliar ones always do."
>
> Or, "Women who wear glasses for minor defects of vision often observe that
> they are made more or less color-blind by them.
>
> Oh... here's one: "Some patients are so responsive to mental suggestion that
> you can relieve their discomfort, or improve their sight, with almost any
> glasses you like to put on them."
>
> -MT, reprinted

On Mar 17, 12:13 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> But just do not deny that some optometrists
> support successful clearing of vision with
> these preventive measures.

That brings up an interesting batch of questions:

http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Care to answer them?