Handy Trial-lens kit (Phoropter) for checking your Refractive STATE.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Mar 14, 2008.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Subject: Checking BOTH your Snellen and your refractive STATE --
    yourself.

    We know that the 1913 study (by Bates) was successful. I was told by
    a
    majority-opinion OD that this success did not "count" because the
    kids did not measure their refractive STATE, and their STATE did not
    change in a positive direction, although their visual acuity
    cleared from 20/70 to normal in about six months.
    So that seems to be the "sticking point". Bates did not have
    them confirm that their refractive STATE changed in a positive
    direction -- as their Snellen cleared to normal.

    Here is the "tool" by which they should make that critical
    measurement. It is called,
    variously, a "trial lens kit" or a "phoropter."

    There is great "power" in making measurements yourself -- because
    you will BELIEVE the results.

    If you a teaching Bates, or preventive methods, this tool would be of
    value to demonstrate to the
    person that his Snellen is clearing as his refraction is moving in
    the correct direction as well.

    =================

    Description:

    It's basically a phoropter (one of those
    "which is better, 1 or 2" machines) that you can keep in your purse
    or
    jacket pocket.

    That's 8 plus lenses, 8 minus lenses and a plano lens for each eye,
    giving you a whopping 289 possible combinations! (Sorry, no
    cylinder/astigmatism lenses.)

    http://www.good-lite.com/i-test.cfm

    "Quickly and easily screen vision with the new handheld I-test
    Phoropter Vision Screener. Place the I-test on the face like regular
    eye glasses, a patient can adjust lens strength by rotating the dial
    to the desired lens strength. Lens range from +4.00 to -4.00 diopter
    in 0.50 diopter increments. Each lens also includes its own occluder
    and pin hole occluder."

    * Tests for myopia, hyperopia, presbyopia, and anisometropia.

    * Folds up for easy storage.

    ===================

    Interesting?
     
    otisbrown, Mar 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    For reference -- here is Dr. Bates successful study:

    http://central-fixation.com/batesmed/my ... ention.htm

    When will with the N.E.I actully SUPPORT this type
    of work?

    And if not, why not?

    Why did they "take down" a study that showed signs
    of success?

    You are supposed to invest in success -- not attempt to distroy it.

    Enjoy,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Here is the correct link to the Bates study:

    http://www.central-fixation.com/batesmed/myopiaprevention.htm

    Rather that "trashing" Bates, why not run this study with
    more mature students-of-science -- who can do it RIGHT?

    This issue of Bates (Second-opinion) will never be resolved
    until you give him (and his advocates) a chance to verify
    that first successful result.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 14, 2008
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    If this isn't, by design, just another Otis Brown self-gratification
    love-fest....

    As I've asked you, on dozens of occasions, what happens when you work
    with the Optometry Colleges, in an effort to get testing going?

    Or ... like usual ... do you /fear/ actual testing, and taking an
    actual first step, because ... these ideas fail under testing?

    You may, or may not, answer that. It's pretty much rhetorical.

    By the way ... if the "natural" and/or "fundamental" eye is "dynamic"
    in the way that you say it is, then ... why ARE you still a -6d myope?

    That doesn't make sense....
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 14, 2008
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    On disagreements (about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- IN
    SCIENCE.)

    "It is possible to disagree -- without being disagreeable."

    Enjoy
     
    otisbrown, Mar 14, 2008
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    It's also possible to continuously ignore valid questions.

    Anybody who looks at threads like this should pay particular attention
    to this.
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 14, 2008
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that anything that you
    advocate works any better than:

    - meticulous visual hygiene
    - lots of fresh air and exercise
    - periocular warming
    - ocular motility exercises

    OR, for example, than doing nothing?

    Are you aware of the USAF Academy study that showed that:

    - some myopes got more myopic over time
    - some myopes got less myopic over time
    - some myopes stayed stable over time

    ??

    Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything you've suggested
    results in anything BETTER than these results?

    Also, nobody ever says the eye isn't dynamic. That's just your usual
    straw man argument. The real question is: that's the basis of your
    entire theory ... so ... why are you still a -6.00d myope?

    And when did you jump from plus lenses (let's say Catholicism) to
    Bates Method (let's say Baptist). Seems an unlikely change, no?

    Thanks,
    Neil
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 14, 2008
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    Zetsu Guest

    PISS OFF OTIS! PEOPLE LIKE YOU MOCK THE BATES SYSTEM!

    Don't even use his name in your idiotic posts, please.
     
    Zetsu, Mar 14, 2008
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Zit,

    Subject: Bates GOOD NAME -- and what he attempted to
    do in his 1913 study.

    Re; His bone-headed "followers" give Bates a BAD NAME.

    If we worked with the concept of BATES 1913 study -- then
    PREVENTIVE progress MIGHT be possible -- with the
    people who have the motivation for it.

    But you would be a big zero for any type of systematic PREVENTIVE
    study.

    I once wondered why Bates had such a "bad name" amoung the
    ophthalmologists
    that I worked with.

    It was never Bates -- it was the distortions and excessive and wild
    claims by
    his benighted "followers" -- that never understood his 1913 study.

    Why don't you read that study -- AND LEARN FROM IT?

    True-Bates best,
     
    otisbrown, Mar 14, 2008
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Zit,

    Subject: Difficult scientific determination.

    I truly do not know who is more scientifically screwed up -- you or
    Brooks.

    But you definitely deserve each other.

    My deepest sympathy is extended to the majority-opinion ODs who
    MUST deal with you. As an engineer -- I never will.

    No offense intended.
     
    otisbrown, Mar 14, 2008
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    Since the bates method is a crock, why not mock it?


    Hve you ever read one of your own posts?
     
    Guest, Mar 14, 2008
    #11
    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.