Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by seba, Jun 24, 2008.

  1. seba

    seba Guest

    Hi everybody.

    I started practicing Bates Method 2 years ago, with a myopic defect of
    -3.00 and -3.25. I actually can have voluntary flashes of clear vision
    (blinking). During these flashes I can read very well: 10/10 if light
    is good (outdoor sunlight).

    The problems are:
    P1. the flashes last only a few seconds, and usually disappears if I
    blink
    P2. in low light it's practically impossible to have flashes
    P3. even if during the flash I can see well, the image is still often
    doubled (or multiple). Basically during flashes I can see multiple
    focused images.

    I have been thinking for months that these were only temporary
    effects, but after so many months I'm quite tired. That's why I
    started to make some research (I don't understand why I had't started
    before...) in order to clear some points. Here my questions:

    Q1. There is anyone who could succeed in resolving problems P1,P2,P3?
    In other words to cure completely his/her sight.
    Q2. I went yesterday to the optician and had an objective measurement
    of my eyesight: -2.50 and -2.50. How can I see 10/10 during a flash if
    my error of refraction is so big?

    I started reading articles, and I found a study of 1952 by Elwin Marg
    "flashes of clear vision and negative accomodation with reference to
    the bates method of visual training" stating that even if the
    refraction error is not changed by training, the VA improves of many
    lines. This is exactly what I experienced.

    So I am now trying to figure out what a flash is, and in particular if
    it can be hold for a long period (that's why I ascked Q1). These are
    my three hypothesis:

    H1: "Bates theory of accommodation was right, the method works: and it
    is just a matter of practice. With practice I'll be able to hold
    flashes." What makes me uncertain about this hyp. is that I started to
    read literature about Bates. I found out that Bates theory is stated
    as the truth by the authority. Every time there was an inconsistence
    between Bates theory and facts observed by other scientists, Bates or
    Bates followers cited Bates book. Which basically means that he was
    the only person who observed his reality... On the other hand, after
    two years of practice, I improved my acuity, so Bates had to know
    something. See next hypothesis.
    H2: "Bates theory of accommodation was wrong, but the method works".
    As in the literature I found that the ciliary muscle is the "thing"
    that generates accommodation, and also Bates said that what was
    important are the facts, not the theory, I think that it is possible
    that it is really this the truth. Still, exercises of relaxation
    proposed by Bates can relax the autonomous part of the nerve system
    and let the muscle being controlled properly and accommodate in the
    right way. In this scenario I still consider myopia as a functional
    problem. The only difference between H2 and H1 is what is the real
    factor in accommodation.
    H3: "Myopia is not functional: depends on the shape of eye/lens and
    can't be improved with training". This is the classical orthodox
    theory. Many studies make me feel that this theory is right: in
    particular the one by Elwin Marg 1952 and also many studies on
    biofeedback (Gallaway) explains my flashes of clear view in terms of
    improved VA due to the training. Refractive error according to these
    studies is not changed. It all seem consistent: my VA was improved by
    the training and made me able to "interpret better" the blur and read
    more lines. Regarding flashes, they could just be due to tear film
    that acts as lens. These flashes are also stronger during the day
    because of size of the pupil and Depth of Field in different light
    conditions. The feeling of rest and relaxation can be explained as
    result of auto suggestion: basically one can convince himself that
    will see well when will be relaxed, and what really happen is that,
    due to improved ability to interpret blur, tear film lens, big depth
    of field because of strong light condition, that person sees better
    and "triggers" the "feeling of being relaxed" as previously auto
    programmed (see also NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming).
    This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my
    improvement from -3.25 to -2.50.

    I'd like that everybody that has any suggestion for me, material, or
    personal experience help me to understand which one of the hypothesis
    is closer to the truth.
    I think I improved a lot, but if I don't discover what a flash is, I
    really can't find the strength to go on with the treatment, and
    neither to stop without feeling guilty.

    The truth will free me, I don't really care if it will be that Visual
    Training can heal your sight or not.

    I am right now in New York until 30th June. Then I'll be in Italy. I
    am available also to travel to meet people who obtained a good
    improvement (permanent 10/10 even in low light condition) or to see
    people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work.

    Thank you to everybody.

    Sebastiano
     
    seba, Jun 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. seba

    otisbrown Guest

    Sear Sebastiano,

    Congratulations on obtaining 10/10 (20/20) vision (even
    if short duration).

    This is not the group to support further clearing work by you.

    Why not join this group for further discussion of your
    success (with some problems)?


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

    Enjoy,
     
    otisbrown, Jun 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. seba

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Sebastiano,

    It will not be a "3rd party" that convinces you that you are seeing
    10/10. It will be you who does that.

    As you might know, the DMV Standard for driving a car is
    20/40 (10/20) -- and in some states 20/50 and even 20/60.

    Yes, we all want 10/10 vision all the time.

    But I am curious -- what is your AVERAGE visual acuity?

    Is it 20/40 or 20/50? In daylight?
    In room illumination?

    Do you wear your -2.5 diopters all the time?

    Or only when you drive a car?

    There are many people, who if they read 10/10 in spurts, and
    passed the DMV 20/40 line -- would be very pleased with
    their results.

    But that also must be a matter of your judgment. No 3rd party
    can resolve these issues for you.

    Congratulations on your (temporary) success.

    Enjoy,
     
    otisbrown, Jun 24, 2008
    #3
  4. seba

    Zetsu Guest

    If you are going to Italy, FIND A MAN CALLED RISHI GIOVANNI GATTI lol
     
    Zetsu, Jun 24, 2008
    #4
  5. seba

    Dan Abel Guest

    I'm fond of attributing everything to depth of field, which is a little
    extreme, but I'm seeing strong indications of this in the parts I've
    left in above.

    Testing of refractive error is done in "normal" light conditions,
    because that is often the light level when we need to see. It doesn't
    do any good to have the eye doctor find that you don't need glasses to
    see in bright sunlight, when you actually need glasses to see the
    television, or road signs at night when you are driving.

    Finally, as others have posted, it isn't unusual for somebody to have an
    improvement in myopia of 0.75D in one eye, over two years. Let me
    guess, you're middle aged?
     
    Dan Abel, Jun 24, 2008
    #5
  6. seba

    seba Guest

    My myopia started when I was 12 and increased up to the maximum
    (-3.25) when I was 24. Now I am 26. I have been practising between 24
    and 26. Can this explain the improvement of my refractive error to
    -2.50?
     
    seba, Jun 24, 2008
    #6
  7. seba

    seba Guest

    I personally know him. What I am looking for are proof of bates method
    curing eyesight or proof that the method doesn't work (or can't
    improve more than a little bit the VA).
     
    seba, Jun 24, 2008
    #7
  8. seba

    seba Guest

    This is not the point: I don't want to pass the driving test: I want
    to see clearly. With clearly I don't mean "being able to recognise
    letters" but literally see in focus. My experience showed me in fact
    that I can read 10/10 even with little blur or multiple image. This is
    not what I want to reach. This is not NORMAL VISION, or PERFECT
    VISION. I am here looking for people that can show me their
    improvement. Are you one of them?
    Doing nothing in light condition it's 4/10. Blinking it gets 7/10
    easily. Sometimes 10/10. In low light doing nothing it's 3/10 and
    blinking can improve to 5/10.
    I have been living wothout wearing glasses for 16 months.

    Sorry but I strongly disagree. There is something called science,
    based on repetition and logic. It provides models that are correct
    until a better model is found. What I am researching for is Bates NEW
    model of eye: a theory that should explain more than orthodox
    theories, as stated by Bates. Bates science can be an improvement of
    science. Well, how can you confirm a theory or destroy it?
    Researching, finding examples of success or counterexamples. Sharing
    information: real information of real facts really observed. Even if
    they are so subjective as flashes. I wouldn't research if I hadn't my
    flashes. So... a newsgroup is a place where one can share information.
    I am looking for someone in my condition, someone who had
    improvements, but wants objectively try to understand what they are,
    thinking that this is still science. I did the mistake of thinking
    that Bates is right and that science is wrong. But even Bates is a
    scientist, so if what he says is true, he wouldn't be afraid of
    applying scientific method to his discoveries and statements.
     
    seba, Jun 24, 2008
    #8
  9. seba

    seba Guest

    It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Suppose every
    I agree with the philosopher about the swan, but still I think
    thateven if we cannot DEDUCE that the method doesn't work with some
    syllogism, still the fact that after 100 ears no one can provide
    documentation/studies that someone can retain a flash for more than
    seconds and see 10/10 is a proof -if not that the method doesn't work-
    that it is not as easy as stated in Bates book. We can empirically
    INDUCE that there are not big results. This INDUCTION can be source
    for a theory if NO COUNTEREXAMPLE is found. So... I am looking for the
    counterexample. I wanted to be the one, the person who could see 10/10
    in every light condition, as long as I wished, thanks to Bates method.
    After 2 years I have to admit I am not. I feel I made some mistake
    (this is a common result of positive thinking) and I'd like to find
    that person that can confirm me that.
    That's true, but you also have to consider expectations and hope. If
    there is still a little possibility that something great is true, it
    is difficult to abandon the idea saying "okay, you invented this
    thing, I think it is wrong until you show me it is right".
    If you were sick and going to die, wouldn't you try every chance to be
    healed? You would, I guess, until you can say "okay, this doesn't work
    for me" or "I am not willing to pay the price that this cure has". I
    am not saying that it is my responsibility to prove the world that the
    idea is invalid, but yes it is our responsibility to understand if we
    are refusing a chance or if we are trying 100% to improve our
    condition.
     
    seba, Jun 24, 2008
    #9
  10. seba

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Sebastiano,

    Subject: EXCESSIVE CLAIMS of "easy" or "quick" -- by anyone.

    There are a lot of "caims" out there. I certainly don't make them.

    Further, admitedly, the minus is very easy and quick.

    Further, Bates is NOT THE ONLY ONE ADVOCATING PREVENTION -- but
    he is certainly the most vocal about these issues.

    But let me add this commentary:


    documentation/studies that someone can retain a flash for more than
    seconds and see 10/10 is a proof -if not that the method doesn't
    work-
    that it is not as easy as stated in Bates book.

    Otis> While I respect Bates -- you must remember that in his first
    10 years, he only published the fact that SOME kids cleared
    their Snellen from 20/70 to normal. I wish he had NEVER made
    any claims beyond that point.

    Otis> Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have
    cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained
    it by their own verification.

    We can empirically
    INDUCE that there are not big results.

    Otis> You are correct. But they are results, and you can function
    with no minus lens on your face. In fact, you might consider getting
    some weaker minus lens and checking yourself.

    This INDUCTION can be source
    for a theory if NO COUNTEREXAMPLE is found. So... I am looking for
    the
    counterexample. I wanted to be the one, the person who could see
    10/10
    in every light condition, as long as I wished, thanks to Bates method.

    Otis> And we all wish you the best with your efforts.

    Enjoy,
     
    otisbrown, Jun 24, 2008
    #10
  11. seba

    seba Guest

    okay, this can be the example I was looking for. Where can I find
    documentation about them?
     
    seba, Jun 24, 2008
    #11
  12. seba

    Zetsu Guest

    lol actually anecdotes counts as evidence...
    seba ur title of this thread says 'IM TIRED' well if thats the case
    then ur doing bates wrong duhh... u have to feel NOT TIRED by resting
    lol
     
    Zetsu, Jun 24, 2008
    #12
  13. seba

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    As always (you will agree) this is a matter of your majority-opinion.

    I certainly agree that AFTER a child induces a negative refractive
    STATE in
    his natural eye -- well a strong minus is VERY CONVINCING.

    But that does not make it science. It just makes is easy.

    Prevention is indeed difficult, no doubt. But both Fred and
    Stirling had the intense motivation and persistence to:

    1. Start before any "minus" was "prescribed" (i.e.,
    they verified their Snellen at 20/50 to 20/70.

    2. Then, avoiding the minus, they went all-out
    with a plus the neutralized their near enviroment.

    3. Kept at it, until their refractive STATE moved
    postive and their Snellen cleared.

    4. In the case of Stirling Colgates, he realized that
    if his refractive STATE began moving negative (after
    a long period of time on a radar screen) he would have
    to re-start this preventive process.

    5. Since they were BOTH successful, there was no
    need for a minus at all -- and no need for
    your involvement.

    6. But they had the motivation and ability to
    trust their own results with no "third party" involvement.

    Second-opinion best,


    Enjoy,
     
    otisbrown, Jun 25, 2008
    #13
  14. seba

    otisbrown Guest

    otisbrown, Jun 25, 2008
    #14
  15. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    really? well maybe on your planet but not on planet earth.
     
    p.clarkii, Jun 25, 2008
    #15
  16. Maybe walking around undercorrected (overpositive)
    makes you cranky _AND_ tired?

    I confess this is anecdotal evidence (from this ng!)
    but I have little doubt it could be easily reproduced.


    -- Robert
     
    Robert Redelmeier, Jun 25, 2008
    #16
  17. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    what does this prove?

    maybe if you could go back in time and take these individuals and
    correct their vision with minus lenses (aka "wretched minus") and then
    follow them over time, in the end they would still be at the same
    refractive state as they are after having suffered for years re-
    reading Snellen charts and using "the plus". you have no proof that
    they wouldn't. as you know, it is commonplace for myopes to become
    less myopic over time so why do you think that all the prevention crap
    that you advocate is really the cause of them losing myopia?

    i have MANY patients who are myopes that get less myopic over time.
    perhaps I should claim I am a miracle worker. perhaps I should sucker
    people into buying my book, or trying some eye exercises or vitamins I
    concoct.

    and isn't it interesting that the majority opinion includes almost all
    eye doctors and almost all vision researchers? the prevention zealots
    tend to be the untrained inexperienced people who want to think that
    any phenomenon they observe is something special. losing some myopia
    is not special-- its commonplace.
     
    p.clarkii, Jun 25, 2008
    #17
  18. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    p.clarkii, Jun 25, 2008
    #18
  19. seba

    serebel Guest


    You have your proof. Look in the mirror. You can do the bates method
    for life and you'll never see 20/20, especially from your script.

    Glasses, contacts or surgery ARE the only options. Everything else is
    snake oil.
     
    serebel, Jun 25, 2008
    #19
  20. seba

    seba Guest


    you know... you lost completely any kind of trust. I am here to find
    the truth, not to play with words. There are many ways of feeling
    tired. In my case, practicing, I get a lot of relax (which is the
    opposite of being tired) and some sight improvement. But still I feel
    tired of not getting what is my final goal. If you can't understand
    this -maybe too little for you- difference, well... I am very sorry.

    But anyway, I give you a chance to re-connect. You say that anecdotes
    counts as evidence. I agree, especially if they are proofs. I would
    believe ufo exists if you tell me that you saw one AND you provide me
    evidences. So, please give me the evidences.

    Also what I'd like to point out is that if in our model of the world
    we assume that Bates was right, then it's obvious to state that anyone
    is against him, or doesn't agree with him, is wrong. The point is...
    how can we be sure that he was right? We need proofs. I know that it's
    cool to think to know better than any one else what is right, what is
    the TRUTH, what is the path to illumination, what... ever. But I don't
    see any logic in making a war of words. What if your proof of the
    theory of Bates are just the result of mind control? If you feel cool
    because you are an "elected" person that has the "truth" and feel that
    any one who doesn't agree is a fool. I suggest you to make research on
    mind control. If you are sure that you don't just "believe" in Bates
    as result of suggestion, I am sure that you have some proof or
    evidence.

    Please... help me to be sure like you.

    Thanks

    Sebastiano
     
    seba, Jun 25, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.