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

    Dear Otis,

    can you provide me more information about Fred and Stirling? I don't
    know anything about them.

    Thanks

    Another thing:
    I can't understand this obsession with the 3rd party: if some one is
    sure of his results, he wouldn't be afraid of 3rd parties.
    This is precisely something I started to think about just one month
    ago. Before I taught that the world wouldn't have understood how
    genius Bates (and so me and all the other guys curing them selves)
    was. Then, even after many good results in terms of flashes, I started
    to think that I shouldn't be afraid of a comparison. After 2 years of
    "isolation" I came back ready to face the orthodox truth with a pure
    scientific attitude, without any pre-ideas. What I discovered is that
    my AVERAGE results are not so good. I then realized that we - the
    Bates practitioners - tend to believe only at half the truth. We try
    to remember only flashes and think as if we are so close to be able to
    maintain them for hours. We think that even if we can't see well in
    low light, we will soon be able. We are so afraid of making a
    comparison with the orthodox world... WHY? Why, if we are so sure this
    thing work? The point is that we are afraid that a rational simple
    explanation of flashes can exist. An explanation that will kill all
    the magic of doing this, and will make evident that it is not possible
    to improve more than something. I think that a real Bates practitioner
    should do as Bates did: face the orthodox medicine. Because what we
    all want is to be cured, which means to see clearly as when we did
    before being myopic, when the eye doctor used to say "you see well".
    Would you have started to practice the Bates method if they told you
    that the best result you can get is 3 lines of VA, let's say 5 in good
    light condition?

    Bates says that you can cure completely your sight. Which means that
    you can face any orthodox check if you are cured. I am still looking
    for someone to find the energy to go on. Maybe you are one of them.
     
    seba, Jun 25, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. seba

    seba Guest

    Dear p.clar,

    do you often find an improvement from -3.25 at 24 years old to -2.50
    at 26? It is my case.
    I agree with you that many Bates practitioners (me included) wanted to
    find something special practicing Bates.
     
    seba, Jun 25, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. seba

    seba Guest


    I just want a proof, a study of some real case that was healed
    completely. And I want it from a source that is NOT SELLING ANYTHING.

    Anyway, how well can you see? Do you have a personal success story?
     
    seba, Jun 25, 2008
    #23
  4. Szczepan Bialek, Jun 25, 2008
    #24
  5. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    yes. yesterday I had a contact lens patient who wore -3.25 in the
    right eye and -3.00 in left eye and now his Rx is -2.75 and -2.25.
    his age is 26.
     
    p.clarkii, Jun 25, 2008
    #25
  6. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    Otis is a high myope. his prevention doesn't work for him.
    and his neice is named Joy. she tried his prevention method for years
    and she is now a slight myope.
     
    p.clarkii, Jun 25, 2008
    #26
  7. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    this is another example of someone trying to bilk others on an
    unfounded prevention program.
    eating has an influence on vision if a person is diabetic, or if a
    person has a vitamin deficiency. nothing else is medically proven.
     
    p.clarkii, Jun 25, 2008
    #27
  8. seba

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Sebastiano,

    Dear Otis,

    Seb> can you provide me more information about Fred and Stirling? I
    don't
    know anything about them.

    Otis> Yes, click here:

    www.myopiafree.com

    and read the commentary by Dr. Stirling Colgate on the right side.

    The issues is this:

    1. They "woke up" to the need for prevention BEFORE ANY MINUS WAS
    USED.

    2. Obviously a pilot (who MUST keep his Snellen clear) will wear a
    "plus" with
    great intensity. Further,

    3. He will keep on doing it until his Snellen.

    a. Passes the DMV Requirement (20/40 or better), and then, continued

    b. Pass the 20/20 line (with a refractive STATE of zero or better).

    But this is like losing weight. You don't need a "3rd party" to do
    it.

    You just need the scales and resolve to DO IT.



    Seb: Another thing:



    I can't understand this obsession with the 3rd party:

    Otis> Have you read the remarks of P.Clarkii?

    Otis> Just call that the "majority-opinion", and look
    for the second-opinion that says that ENTRY into
    nearsightedness could be prevented by the person himself.


    if some one is
    sure of his results, he wouldn't be afraid of 3rd parties.

    Otis> If you clear your Snellen yourself -- why bother
    (or pay) for 3rd parties? They don't care about you
    keeping your distant vision clear. All they care
    about is attacking people who advocate prevention
    AT THE THRESHOLD using second-opinion methods.
    (Let me add that OBJECTION to the minus lens
    is the second-opinion.)


    This is precisely something I started to think about just one month
    ago. Before I taught that the world wouldn't have understood how
    genius Bates (and so me and all the other guys curing them selves)
    was.

    Otis> I truly object to the word "cure". I think it is a mistake to
    use it.
    I think that Bates (followers) make sweeping claims -- that are
    impossible to verify. The majority-opinion ODs then used
    these excessive claims to discredit Bates.

    Otis> Other researchers like Dr. Prentice made very limited
    "claims" about prevention -- and I think they were on to something.

    Then, even after many good results in terms of flashes, I started
    to think that I shouldn't be afraid of a comparison. After 2 years of
    "isolation" I came back ready to face the orthodox truth with a pure
    scientific attitude, without any pre-ideas.

    Otis> This whole field is staturated with misconceptions, starting
    with the word "cure".

    What I discovered is that
    my AVERAGE results are not so good. I then realized that we - the
    Bates practitioners - tend to believe only at half the truth.

    Otis> Just remember, the majority-opinion only has 1/2 the truth.

    We try
    to remember only flashes and think as if we are so close to be able
    to
    maintain them for hours. We think that even if we can't see well in
    low light, we will soon be able.

    Otis> But you at least checked -- and see 20/20 under specific
    conditions under
    YOUR CONTROL. That is a major first step in my opinion. There is a
    great
    deal of SCIENCE behind plus-prevention (read Francis Young's work on
    my site for an understanding of these issues).

    We are so afraid of making a
    comparison with the orthodox world...

    Otis> The "orthodox" world has a minus lens that works impressively
    in 5 minutes. If you are a "service" person, that is the only thing
    that works in that context.

    WHY? Why, if we are so sure this
    thing work?

    Otis> There are only two sure things in this world, death and taxes.
    All the
    rest is a matter of YOUR judgment.

    The point is that we are afraid that a rational simple
    explanation of flashes can exist.

    Otis> I would say a rational reason why, when you place a -3 diopter
    lens on the eye -- it changes its refractive STATE by -2 diopters
    in less than six months.

    An explanation that will kill all
    the magic of doing this, and will make evident that it is not
    possible
    to improve more than something. I think that a real Bates
    practitioner
    should do as Bates did: face the orthodox medicine.

    Otis> As you please. I think that prevention (on the threshod)
    is a matter of science, not medicine.

    Because what we
    all want is to be cured, which means to see clearly as when we did
    before being myopic,

    Otis> I don't use the word "cured". Only wise preventive method
    on the threshold. (See the Eskimo study.)

    when the eye doctor used to say "you see well".
    Would you have started to practice the Bates method if they told you
    that the best result you can get is 3 lines of VA, let's say 5 in
    good
    light condition?

    Otis> If they showed me the scientific fact about the proven
    effect of a -3 diopter lens on the natural eye -- I would have
    been more inclined to take true-prevention seriously -- and
    avoid any use of the minus.

    Bates says that you can cure completely your sight.

    Otis> I don't agree with "cure completely". Reasonable
    compromise is wise. (As I discussed above.)


    Which means that
    you can face any orthodox check if you are cured.

    Otis> The problem is the OPINION of the orthodox -- which
    is not justified by pure science.

    I am still looking
    for someone to find the energy to go on.

    Otis> I would sit down and ask yourself what your true goal actually
    is.

    Otis> Substantially passing the DMV test, with 20/30 to 20/25 vision
    under
    "room" illumination conditions? Would that be "acceptable" to you
    (self
    confirmed?) I don't know -- only you can set that goal.

    Maybe you are one of them.

    Otis> No, I don't think so. It is you alone who must be the leader in
    your
    effort.

    Just my second-opinion,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 25, 2008
    #28
  9. seba

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friend,

    You are tired? Perhaps.

    But let me suggest this analogy.

    I am tired of bushing my teeth -- for two years.

    Do you think I should stop? The choice of NOT
    using preventive measures is the same in each case.

    Enjoy,



     
    otisbrown, Jun 25, 2008
    #29
  10. "seba"
    Visual training can heal if will be combined with nutrition. See:
    http://www.i-see.org/josephson.html
    You have enough time to make his own observations. You probably have known
    that your acuity is not the same all time. It is nutrition dependent. If you
    are a "salt loser" you should cut down cooked plant products. The same is if
    you are inclined to diabetic. It should be changed for animal fats. P.clark
    wrote today: eating has an influence on vision if a person is diabetic, or
    if a person has a vitamin deficiency. nothing else is medically proven".

    You should also observe your acuity (and flashes) after bath in ocean (or
    Mediterraneal) water. In such waters no potassium but very much sodium and
    magnesium. Sodium causes relax, potassium strain.
    S*
     
    Szczepan Bialek, Jun 25, 2008
    #30
  11. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    stupid analogy. if you stop brushing your teeth, they will decay and
    fall-out. if you stop your dumbo prevention scheme, your spectacle
    prescription will likely not be adversely affected and it will
    probably stay virtually unchanged two years later. stopping the
    prevention scheme will simply make your life a little easier by doing
    something productive instead of reading Snellen letters all day and
    not going around in a fog wearing vision-blurring plus lenses. and if
    your prevention scheme includes looking at the sun, like some foolish
    Bates advocates suggest, then you will gain a health benefit by
    avoiding something that is proven to be detrimental.

    Otis -- why don't you follow a prevention scheme? For those folks who
    don't know, Otis is significantly nearsighted and none of what he
    suggests works for him. why do you try to tell others it works? you
    are "proof" that it doesn't!
     
    p.clarkii, Jun 25, 2008
    #31
  12. seba

    Jason Sperry Guest

    if you stop brushing your teeth, they will decay and
    I haven't brushed my teeth for many years, and not only have they not
    decayed or fallen out, but a cavity disappeared and another one
    diminished (all on their own).
     
    Jason Sperry, Jun 25, 2008
    #32
  13. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    Stirling Colgate was probably a good physicist. however he doesn't
    know beans about vision.
    Should I pretend that I have the answer to unlimited energy via
    particle physics? Is an expert violinist also an expert engineer?

    20/40 is blurry Otis. noone like to go around seeing 20/40. seeing
    like that is unsafe and uncomfortable. who cares about some arbitrary
    BMV criterion-- people want to see clearly at the level that their
    visual system is capable of. glasses or contacts or LASIK can offer
    that but dumb prevention schemes have been repeatedly debunked. quit
    pretending that you can offer people help Otis. you are nothing more
    than an eccentric old man who posts (and reposts, and reposts) on
    internet newsgroups.
    resolving to do it won't make it happen. if I resolve to move Mt.
    Rushmore using a wheelbarrow, do you think I could do it?
    whats the point? so people who don't see clearly should avoid 3rd
    parties like eye doctors-- is that what you mean? good luck trying to
    solve it on your own because you can't. you can't fix your own vision
    Otis so why do you try to tell people how to fix their's?
    why do studies show that the refractive state of near-sighted people
    who don't wear their glasses actually progresses at the same rate as
    those who do? apparently the "wretched minus" doesn't do any harm and
    simply helps the person see better who is wearing them. you just
    cited another study yourself yesterday that shows that but you don't
    apparently comprehend its true meaning. a senior moment perhaps?

    why is there no proof that re-reading Snellen charts and using "the
    plus" actually works? there IS proof that it doesn't, and you know
    it!
    please provide the proof that this is true for humans Otis. It isn't
    and you know it. you are trying to apply decades-old studies where
    lenses were sutured onto monkey's eyes as being identical to the human
    situation wearing glasses. Studies clearly show that humans who don't
    wear glasses, or wear their glasses religiously, progress at the same
    rate!

    quit lying Otis!
    medicine IS the practice of science as it relates to the health of the
    human body.

    you are such a cliche-ridden old fool Otis Brown

    there is no science that proves your views Otis. the real science
    that uses statistical analysis and controlled studies all shows that
    spectacle correction has NO INFLUENCE on further development of the
    refractive state of the human eye.
    well look no more. Otis Brown has the energy (although he doesn't
    have the plan.) he has been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong by so
    many people over the years who have followed this newsgroup that he
    actually wears them down until they go off and live a real life.
    Otis, on the other hand, has no real life and lingers here where he
    continues to foist his invalid opinions and twisted "facts" upon
    others as if he actually knows something. he is a dangerous man who
    is actually practicing medicine without a license by suggesting people
    follow his recommendations, and he HAS been reported to the
    authorities in the state where he lives. BEWARE OF LISTENING TO
    IDIOTS ON THE INTERNET! If Otis Brown is so smart, why does he wear
    big thick glasses?
     
    p.clarkii, Jun 25, 2008
    #33
  14. seba

    seba Guest

    Dear guys (in particular Otis, P.Clar, Mike)

    I'd like to state a couple of things:

    1. the analogy of the teeth is stupid. Analogy means SIMILAR, not
    identical. This means there are differences. I don't care about
    anything different from sight. This way of proceeding by examples,
    analogies, anecdotes is PRECISELY what made me believe that there are
    proofs that the training works. But THEY ARE NOT REAL SCIENCE.
    Information is contained in NUMBERS, STATISTICS, not in opinions,
    analogies, fairy tales. Otherwise you would also believe that if you
    steal from the rich people and give it to the pour you will be happy
    and a hero. Which is not the case. So, please, let's discuss it
    scientifically.

    2. the concept of the 3rd party and the 2nd opinion is interesting,
    but it is more important in the beginning. It's useful to find some
    energy to start the cure, even if it seems crazy. That's just a way to
    empower one own freedom (see NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming) and
    be ready to face other people judgment. But after that, it doesn't
    make any sense to go on contradicting the 3rd party, just to state
    that we are free from "the majority" opinion. After that, we need to
    come back to planet hearth and face reality, which is facts, which is
    NUMBERS. Stop just opposing the majority opinion and just make
    synthesis creating a better theory, a theory that can explain more
    things. I think the orthodox eye medicine is pretty good for
    explaining many things. Not all of them, but still many. So something
    must be truth. I think that something must be true also in Bates, if
    not the training at least the fact that you can improve VA by relaxing
    (expecially if you are under strain/spasm), as I could personally
    experience. So, please let's stop with this obsession with freedom and
    let's start cooperating. (By the way, if the way one have to bee free
    from the authority is just opposing it just to be different, one is
    not free: he is just doing the opposit, so his behavior is still
    driven by the authority, which was the thing that one wanted to be
    free of. It is the case of teenagers and conflict with parents. After
    that one should grow up and stop saying that it's cool to disobey to
    parents, but just do what he wants, no matter if it's aligned with
    parents model or not.)

    3. please no more stupid answers like "there are only 2 things real:
    taxes and death".

    4. I don't care if the bates in you believe in doesn't talk about
    complete cure. The Bates I am talking about, my Bates, does. To me he
    talks about real cure, complete cure. And that's precisely what I am
    trying to study. If it will turn out that Bates was right only on the
    theory of "partial cure"... well, it means that he was wrong on the
    theory of "complete cure" which is what I am interested in. So,
    please, no more things about what Bates really meant. Question for
    Otis: so are you saying that bates couldn't provide complete cure to
    people? Please answer only "yes I am saying it" or "not I am not
    saying it".

    5. It wouldn't make sense to spend hours in front of a snellen table
    just to read one or two more lines, pass the driving license test, and
    living my life in the fog of 6/10. Maybe it would make sense to feel
    special and enlighten. Anyway, I don't want to talk any more about
    setting goals. I think I have been pretty clear: COMPLETE CURE OF
    SIGHT DEFECT with reference to MYOPIA. This by the way was already
    stated in point number 4.

    6. Please, Otis stop giving information about wearing + lenses. I am
    only interested in Bates method to cure completely sight. Which is
    what I have been practicing for 2 years. I haven't tried + lenses, so
    I am not interested for now.

    7. I am happy to hear that many people experiment the improvement of
    their refractive error at my age, as stated by p.clar and Mike. This
    could explain my objective improvement from -3.25 (at 24 y old) and
    -2.50 (at 26). Can you please provide some references? Maybe some
    publication in order to consolidate it.

    8. After having done all these considerations, and also if I consider
    that I have an assessed error of -2.50 and an average vision which is
    blurry, I still can't explain the flashes that I experiment. During
    them I really see well, and they can last seconds. I usually have them
    more easily if there is a strong light (like today at the beach) and
    have a feeling of wet eyes (even if not always). In strong light I
    reach peaks of 10/10 VA. An other thing is that is sometimes see
    multiple images on focus.
    These are facts. These are what I want to talk about. I am trying to
    understand what they are.

    9. NEGATIVE ACCOMMODATION THEORY
    Can I explain my flashes as negative accommodation? I found no big
    scientific study about skilled Bates practitioners (as I consider my
    self). The only one is: Le Grand, 1952: The presence of negative
    accommodation in certain subjects. According to it someone very
    skilled can reach 20/25 of VA generating a negative accommodation of
    2.75 D during flashes that last minutes. I think that this study is
    not enough. More study on skilled Bates people are really required, if
    they exist. Please give me references if you have some. Also give
    refrerences about Le Grand, if you have.
    I have the idea that if Bates works, there should be someone who can
    have afforded a study, showing everybody that he was cured. So I
    propose who is a strong supporter to provide me this evidence. I think
    that Bates skilled practitioners who obtained results, must be very
    skilled persons. Very intelligent, Very aware. So I can't imagine that
    these people didn't share their knowledge creating some scientific
    evidence. If they succeeded and didn't create any proof for the future
    generations... well they are stupid. But as I stated before they can't
    be stupid, so they maybe just don't exist. Which would mean that Bates
    method is something just to relax a little bit the eyes and get 2/3
    lines more of VA, which doesn't really make the difference.
    There is also an article that supports this idea: Marg, 1952:
    "Flashes" of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to
    the Bates method of visual training. According to it the improvement
    of VA can be of just some lines but no negative accommodation occurs.
    This means that the improvement is only a better learning ability to
    interpret blurry images AND CAN JUST LAST SECONDS. This is also
    confirmed by many articles of experiments of biofeedback visual
    training.

    10. THE ORTHODOX THEORY
    If the theory of negative accommodation is wrong (as it seems: please
    provide me counter examples.), the only solution for my flashes might
    be... what? A tear thin film that acts as a lens? I would like to
    believe so, but I really can't. During flashes I see too well to
    believe so. Today I had long flashes, I could see and distinguish
    people t-shirts even at 200 meters on the beach (good light
    conditions). I felt the eyes wet and I hoped that closing and re
    opening them I would have cleaned my tear film and interrupted the
    flash. But it was still there. I could still see well. I'd like to
    stop having flashes and putting on a new -2.50 pair of glasses, but I
    morally can't do that, because of my flashes. I still think that eye
    tear is not an explanation. It doesn't explain my experience. I really
    want to discover the truth. Do you have any reference about tear film
    hypothesis?

    Please, help me in this research. I hope everybody is going to respect
    my requests as I started the post and I AM THE ONE ASKING FOR HELP AND
    INFORMATIONS. In particular please respect points 1 to 6. Read this
    message a couple of times and try to figure out if you are going to
    tell me something I requested. If still you have something to say,
    please make a clear reference at which point you are referring to.

    Thank you very much to every body for your time.

    Sebastiano
     
    seba, Jun 26, 2008
    #34
  15. seba

    seba Guest

    so basically you are saying that if such a method to relax eyes can
    exist, and I am under "tired eye condition", I could use it to
    generate a "fluctuation" of an amount that is at maximum of 0.75D, no
    more.
    Is it correct?

    If it is, it would perfectly explain my improvement of the objective D
    and also the fact that I have problems in improving more.
     
    seba, Jun 26, 2008
    #35
  16. "seba"
    Yesterday I wrote: "You should also observe your acuity (and flashes) after
    bath in ocean (or
    Mediterraneal) water. In such waters no potassium but very much sodium and
    magnesium. Sodium causes relax, potassium strain."

    Could you give us more on your observations from the beach?
    S*
     
    Szczepan Bialek, Jun 26, 2008
    #36
  17. seba

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Sebastiano,

    Subject: Working with Bates people on a Bates site.

    What ever you do -- you will have do it on your own.

    But here is a person working to clear her vision. You might
    enjoy reading her site:


    http://sassisailor.wordpress.com/

    You are right, Bates said, cure, perfect, easy.

    You by your efforts are either going to prove him
    right or wrong.

    I wish you great success by your method.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 26, 2008
    #37
  18. seba

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Otis,

    Thanks for the link to the blog with yet more unverifiable, third-hand
    anecdotes.

    Now ... aren't YOU the one that tries to explain to others what
    "science" is?

    Wow, you're an idiot.

    Seriously.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 26, 2008
    #38
  19. seba

    p.clarkii Guest

    Wait a minute! This is not real "engineering-science". This is more
    like medical science. These observations cannot be considered because
    they are tainted. Francis Young never performed these experiments.
    Instead, hearsay and success stories are the proof we want!

    Ms. Cleo is a supporter of the "second opinion"! So is George Bush.
     
    p.clarkii, Jun 27, 2008
    #39
    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.