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

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

But you can ask such people about their eat habits. Maybe that Dr Josephson
is right:
http://www.i-see.org/josephson.html
http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/n...gh-carbohydrate-diet-increase-risk-00750.html
S*

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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,

 

"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*

 

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!

 

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).

 

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?

 

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

 

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"

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*

 

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

 

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.

 

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.