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

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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....

 

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

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

Enjoy

 

It's also possible to continuously ignore valid questions.

Anybody who looks at threads like this should pay particular attention
to this.

 

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

 

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

Don't even use his name in your idiotic posts, please.

 

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,

 

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.

 

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

Hve you ever read one of your own posts?