-23 D under self-treatment: progress update

Today I helped my young client to read outdoors.

After the use of the sun-treatment and the solar glass she was able to
read license plates with numbers and letters 9 cm tall at a distance of
15 meters.

Also she was able to read a big sign with a number 26 (50 cm tall) at a
distance of 50 meters.

Very good!

http://TheCentralFixation.com

 

Very Roughly:

9 cm at 15 meters

3.6 cm at 6 meters

Maybe 20/100 or so on
an "day" eye-chart -- if your
numbers are correct.

Keep us posted.

Best,

Otis

 

I met her at the station this morning and visibly her eyes were quite
bulging outside, expecially the weaker one, and quite closed, the upper
eyelids covered the upper part of the iris.

Then in late afternoon the eyes were more normal, less bulging, and she
could see herself in a mirror and praise herself for her nice work.

Also the pupils were less dilated.

This case is very interesting because the girl (a graduated biologist
with a doctorate in genetics) is determined to be cured, and soon, and
is willing to cope with the treatment and follow Dr. Bates guidelines
in full.

She is doing sun-gazing with the HRM protocol, too.

She has never worn any kind of eyeglasses anymore since Jan 1st.

I don't know why the so-called learned men here do not treat the Bates
treatment as scientific. It is truly 100% scientific: if you DO it, you
get ALWAYS results. And if you CONTINUE to do it, in the end you will
get a cure, always. I mean that science is a collection of reproducible
facts. It is quickly and easily reproducible, the fact that after
removing the glasses and started treatment, letters come out of the
snellen chart with mathematical security, if you follow the directions.

See you later.

 

Dear Rishi,

Going from -23 diopters to 20/100 seems impossible.

But, maybe, as the ODs will tell you, she
had "muscle spasm" myopia, or perhaps
"pseudo-myopia".

It might be that her genetics "pre-programed"
her vision to "clear", at the same time
she was working to clear her vision.

She has the "physics" backgrond for this
type of analysis.

What does she think of her efforts?

Enjoy!

Otis
Engineer

 

We have researched this case and can now confirm that there was a slight
error in the original reporting. Was was written as -23.00 D. was
actually -00.23 D.

Rishi, who is an astrologist by trade, sends her apologies.

 

To me is just science applied to intelligence.

Yes, I am interested in how much this effect can be. I have read on
this board of learned people that 5 dioptres is the limit.

That's may be reasonable, but we know that if she stops treatment and
takes glasses again, she will lose her improvements.

Of course she truly has it, indeed.

She was shocked to see the license plates with such an easiness. Now
she has to decide if she may devolve the right time to treatment and
get a sabbatical semester from her studies or continue her studies full
time and neglect the treatment.

I hope she will choose the best track, which is --- to me --- quite
clear.

I have pictures of her practicing with the small chart at one foot, you
could see the eyes bulging out so there are no questions about the
stupid answer this MASTER IDIOT MR. STACY has just published hereafter.

But pictures will be published at the end of the cure.

However, auto-refractometer papers are available to be seen.

If you are interested, I will post them.

 

She probably was over-prescribed by Rishi's cousin, Rushi, over in
Palermo.

I have also noticed that Rishi has taught this poor unfortunate how to
squint and how to make her pupils tiny in order to improve her sight.


DrG

 

I have her not taught anything, she just practised with me the methods
Dr. Bates, a lifetime ophthalmologist and discoverer of adrenalin, has
written in his book, The Cure of Imperfect Sight by Treatment Without
Glasses, which I have reprinted in English and also translated into
Italian (this for the first time in the world).

By the way, her eyes were partially closed, thanks for your ugly
treatment of 23 years which producec just a continue degradation of her
vision AND or her eyes.

If there was Mussolini alive, you would have been jailed because of
your weakeing of the race by the spectacles prescription you so
blindily give instead to teach patients what is the problem and its
solution.

Fast variability in pupils width is just a sign of mental strain.

people with perfect sight have not such kind of variability in pupil
size.

This check anyone can do.

Take a patient with perfect sight and no discomfort from the sunlight
and you will see.

Please, mind your own business, blacklist me and get lost.

 

Dear Rishi,

RM and DrG requested that the Italian "authorities" bring strong
measures against the "guilty" party.

But I am not certain whether that is you -- or the OD who
over-prescribed the woman by -20 or so diopters.

The "jury" remains "out".

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

No, it just turned out to be a clerical error. Those pesky decimal
points. I'm sure she will correct it publicly very soon. Rishi also has
a very nice selection of pinhole glasses for sale that she also uses to
determine progress with Bates. Very stylish. She sells them from her
astrology site, along with the Bates reprints. Quite the businesswoman.

w.stacy, o.d.

 

Check under your pillow, Otis. It's quite possible that the tooth
fairly left you money, too.

 

The reason we originally suspected the error was the incidence of myopia
that high is so rare as not to be believed. I've seen about 10,000
people (20,000 eyes) in my many years of practice, and the highest myope
I ever encountered was -19.00, about 20 years ago. From time to time I
see -12.00 to -15.00, but never have I personally seen a -23.00. I
wonder how many o.d.s on this group have seen -23.00 in their years of
practice? If you answer this, please post approx. the # of eyes you've
seen along with the highest myopias you've seen.

w.stacy, o.d.

p.s. the other reason we suspected an error is that a 23 D. myope's eye
is about 8 mm too long for its optical system. To achieve emmetropia
the eye will have to shrink almost a centemeter, or the cornea will have
to be flattenet 8 diopters (can you imagine that?), or a clear lens
exchange would be required.

 

If Mussolini was alive, these two strong idiots would have been put in
jail long before, due to their stupidity and weakening of the race.

The woman was not "over-prescribed". She was just treated according the
"law" and got disturbed day after day, the more the prescription, the
more the disturb.

After removing the 23 D convex glasses, the poor girl could not see
anything more far than 5 or 10 cm.

Now she walks in the streets 6 km per day to go to work, and I am
confident that in a few weeks she will be able to run her bicycle.

The "jury" is just the intelligence of the readers.

We go on here in listening to stories of complaint from the disgrace of
this "science".

Today I went to another client who told me a story of ophthalmic
migraine.

She was very precise in telling me that in 30 years of treatments with
physicians, NEVER SHE GOT ANY BENEFIT WHATEVER.

I explained to her the benefits of true palming (the sue of the mind
and memory to silence pain), pinpointing the chapters in the book of
Dr. Bates where this is outlined.

I am sure she will do fairly well because when she recognized that this
was a trick which was never mentioned to her but was sound, she smiled.
Then her grandchildren of three years came running in sight and I
suggested her to practice the remembrance of the little boy, his smile,
his voice, etcetera. The old lady was even more excited to try this
"new" technique.

I understand that we are doing mostly religious or philosophical work,
in fact, I am sorry. It's not medicine nor science. This newsgroup is
not fit for my messages. I see.


See you later.


http://TheCentralFixation.com

 

Another chapter in "The Further Episodes of Rishi's Streetwalker
Girlfriend...."

Rishi, if you could read, you would notice that you *never* read about
a commercial airplane flight, filled with passengers, that took off
and landed safely. What makes the headlines are the cases where
things go wrong.

Millions (dare I say probably closer to a billion) have been well
served by optometrists, opticians, and ophthalmologist. I'm wondering
how many fictitious patients you have swindled in your day.....

I think she was implying that you give her a headache.

Well, it's tough to say whether that amusing little anecdote is longer
on credibility or on detail. Hmmmm.

No. Of course it's not. You're the only one that doesn't seem to
realize that.

Now that you claim to, will you leave? I'll give you a dollar. Or a
Euro . . . or some Lira . . . .

 

Mr. Stacy, please, stop this bullshit.

The fact that YOU, out of your ignorance, have not seen a -23 D myopic
case does not mean that at least one of your peers could not prescribe
it!

In fact, the eye of the young girl is manifestly bulging out, but after
self-treatment with Dr. Bates' sun-glass, the eye appeared sincerely
MUCH better.

Today this intelligent girl has phoned me her improvements.

She practiced with the big Snellen chart at 10 feet and could see the
line of 20 feet (with both eyes together, one eye is less myopic by 4
dioptres than the other, last measurement with the auto-refractometer
was -16 and -20).

A very great progress indeed.

This girl will be cured.

I promise my dedicated effort in helping her to overcome your malicious
practise.

This is for the record.

 

A while ago I asked if the o.d.s (or o.m.d.s if any are out there) would
post their highest myopia corrections, out of approximately how many
patients they had seen (not during school, residency, etc. where the
most outrageous Rx come) in practice. Haven't seen any reports.
Reiterating my -19.00 (it was approximately O.U.) out of over 10,000
patients. Or have all the docs been scared off by that pinhole pusher?

w.stacy, o.d.

 

pusher?

I am glad that nobody was so injured by your malicious practice, except
this poor intelligent young lady.

This, however, does not negate her disease.

She is curing herself and she will succeed.

This is for the record.

 

Dear Rishi,

It boggles my mind to find that this 28 year-old woman has
a -23 diopter prescription -- and can read in the reange of
20/100 to 20/70.

The rough translation between visual acuity and a "correcting"
lens is about 70 (feet) to 1 diopter, or the power (average)
used to clear from 20/70 to 20/20 is about 1 diopter.

Thus -23 diopters is about 20/1600.

WOW!

What happened. What when wrong with the "prescription" process.

Why was her vision not checked under "room" illumination.

The ODs sneer at your statements -- but I think they don't
what to know about these "situations".

You should protect this woman's privacy -- but it would be
interesting to see the "refractive" history you posted for her.

I am very pleased that she can see 20/100 -- almost clear
enough to work with out glasses.

Best,

Otis

 

Hmmm...interesting that Otis believes Rishi. Speaks volumes about you,
Otis.

DrG

 

Dear DrG,

I believe what I see in print. That is what I suggest.

In fact one man, a Mr. Romish, had a "prescription" of
-4.5 and -4.25 diopters.

He has overheard me talking about true-prevention and
attempted to "clear" on his own -- with out talking to me!

In a way -- I am glad he did -- because I did not believe
he could clear from that "level" of a prescription.

He obtained a strong plus lens -- and begin working with it --as
well as PERSONLLY checking his own eye chart.

His eye chart reading was FAR BETTER that this "prescription".

After some work (intensive) he began to read the 20/40 line (close)
on the eye chart. I suggested he go to the DMV and attempt
to pass the required LEGAL line. He failed.

He continued working and "pushing print" after a few more weeks
he went back and PASSED the DMV!

I was so shocked, I asked him to give me BOTH his prescription
AND his driver license test.

I have both.

Those are the fact. I am certain you will figure out
some way to "spin" the for your own benifit.

Whether Rishi has these records -- I do not know.

But from the above -- I will give him the benifit of the doubt.

Enjoy,

Otis