Lit research for "See Clearly Method"?

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by KKramsch, Jul 20, 2004.

  1. KKramsch

    KKramsch Guest

    I know that exercise-based techniques for correcting vision,
    whether they are effective and scientifically sound or not, have
    been around for *at least* 55-60 years (
    ), and therefore I am hoping to find some scientific evaluation/review
    of these methods. My immediate interest is to weigh the claims of
    the "See Clearly Method", which currently is being aggressively
    advertised in the US. I haven't found the right keywords for my
    search. What keywords can I use to do a PubMed search on this
    topic? Do these exercise-based techniques go by some generic
    technical name?


    KKramsch, Jul 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. KKramsch

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Karl,

    Actually, preventive methods have been "around" for
    the last 100 years.

    The methods of "fixing" the eye with a lens go
    back 400 years. They all work, and are impressive
    in their own way.

    But a number of ODs and MDs (notably Dr. Bates), realized
    that the "quick-fix" minus lens has a secondary consequence.
    He advocated "exersize" or "relazation", but was totally
    ignored since these methods profuced no "quick fix".

    The only other method that could work -- would be
    PREVENTION with a plus lens. But that process is
    not based on "exercise" but rather an understanding
    that the eye is a "dynamic device" and is controlling
    its REFRACTIVE STATUS to its average visual enviroment
    (as a sophisticated system -- not as a broken camera).

    You can find Dr. Bates on
    Alex Eulenberg has his complete book for your review -- for

    Let us know what you think of these alternative
    PREVENTIVE methods.



    Otis Brown, Jul 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. I know that exercise-based techniques for correcting vision,
    The research is not done properly otherwise the whole industry of
    refraction business will fall down, at least before science.

    They do a crippled research, using blind groups, so they have the same
    wrong statistics for ever.

    A "blind" group, used to shed light?

    A simple contradiction.

    Unless medical men will learn that each individual is built unique,
    they won't help anybody really. They will go on selling their false
    science and propose "quick un-fixes" to the gullibles.

    Inbtelligent people will discard very soon these kind of researches
    because they are false.

    The succes of marketing of this S.C.N. is just a marketing success:
    since it thrives on effort, it won't help to heal the eyesight: it
    will help to improve, just as th eyesight improves when you stay
    without glasses for a while.

    But if the addiction to glasses is recent, I believe the
    effort-methods have some utility in prevention, for a time.

    I bet that all the positive results claimed from the S.C.M. people or
    other system advertised on the Internet, as far as I know, will fall
    down in time, because with effort, you tire, before or after.

    Only rest rests.

    Please visit my webpage
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Jul 20, 2004
  4. KKramsch

    KKramsch Guest


    KKramsch, Jul 21, 2004
  5. KKramsch

    Vile Guest

    hoping to find some scientific evaluation/review
    of these methods."

    Here is another example of how this group tears apart the new poster.
    3 different views by the usual suspects, but no real answer to his
    question. I believe he is looking for review of the see clearly
    method by people who actually use it, not to be redirected or hijacked
    by other posters to their own agenda. I am not saying that the 3
    different views are wrong, just that they don't belong on the post.
    Whatever happened to posting on topic?

    And just so I stay on topic.... Karl I would say I have never seen an
    unbiased view website on the See Clearly method. But I know they are
    based on the Bates Method book which is much cheaper than what the See
    Clearly Method costs for you to review. Maybe comsumer
    has done something with it, but that is a pay website to check out

    See was that so hard to stay on topic!!!!!
    Vile, Jul 23, 2004
  6. (Vile) wrote in
    Well, when he says "lit research" he's clearly asking for a review of the
    scientific literature that investigates this method. He's clearly not
    asking for user testimonials.

    The fact that he's having trouble finding this literature speaks reams
    about the method to those who know how to listen.

    Scott Seidman, Jul 23, 2004
  7. And just so I stay on topic.... Karl I would say I have never seen an
    You are wrong. The Bates ORIGINAL book has nothing to do with the
    "exercises" advertised by other methods of "vision improvement".

    I hope you will understand one day that the true work of Dr. Bates was
    all on mind, nothing to do with the eyes at all.

    If some intelligent reader wants to get more info please visit
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Jul 23, 2004
  8. You can find Dr. Bates on
    It is not the original book, the idiot has cut many pieces.

    You cannot rely on these fraudolent people.
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Jul 23, 2004
  9. KKramsch

    Francine Guest

    No one is tearing apart the new poster, and I believe he knows it.

    Moreover, "The See Clearly Method" is not based on the Bates Method,
    not at all. It is not entirely useless, but is basically the exercises
    seen on websites about computer vision syndrome. The Bates system,
    whatever you want to think of it, is based on practices, not
    exercises, to completely relieve stress. The "See Clearly Method" also
    claims that optometrists endorse it as being useful; they do not. It
    was developed by a couple of optometrists as a money-making scheme.
    However, most vision problems that CAN be improved via eye exercises
    require an individualized program. Below is a quote from the SCM
    website. If one CAN see clearly, they can see that it is not Bates,
    and not Optometric Vision Training.



    "The See Clearly Method exercises are designed to help strengthen and
    relax your visual system. The See Clearly Method Advanced Eye Formula
    is a custom-formulated daily supplement designed to provide
    nutritional support for your vision.
    The See Clearly Method gives you a series of easy yet powerful
    techniques designed to address common vision problems, including
    eyestrain, nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, and poor
    vision due to aging. According to the doctors who created the See
    Clearly Method:

    • The muscles in your eyes, like all muscles, need proper exercise to
    stay in shape.
    • Sustained and/or close-up focusing (watching TV, computer use,
    reading) can overload the visual system and stress the muscles
    responsible for focusing.
    • An overloaded visual system can result in vision problems.
    • Eyeglasses and contact lenses provide a "crutch" to compensate for
    vision problems and can create dependency.

    The See Clearly Method provides simple techniques that strengthen and
    relax the eye muscles responsible for focusing so your vision can
    improve naturally -- in just minutes a day.

    Make the See Clearly Method and the Advanced Eye Formula part of your
    plan for better visual health…you'll see the difference!

    "I believe that the See Clearly Method and Advanced Eye Formula
    combined create one of the most complete systems available for
    improving your vision naturally."
    Dr. Marc Grossman, Optometrist,
    Author of Natural Eye Care - An Encyclopedia,
    Greater Vision, and The Magic Eye

    Fifty years of research and clinical experience form the foundation
    for success of the breakthrough home vision program: The See Clearly


    • Designed by a team of award-winning optometrists and research
    • Easy to use program
    • The See Cleary Method provides simple techniques that strengthen
    and relax the eye muscles responsible for focusing so your vision can
    improve naturally — in just minutes a day
    • Use at home, at the office or on the go

    According to the doctors who created the See Clearly Method, in just
    minutes a day you can begin to:

    • See more clearly
    • Eliminate or reduce nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism,
    poor vision due to aging and eyestrain
    • Strengthen your eye muscles
    • Prevent further deterioration of your vision
    • Eliminate or reduce your need for glasses and contacts"
    Francine, Jul 23, 2004
  10. KKramsch

    Francine Guest

    Karl has said that he is looking for literature about "exercise-based"
    vision improvement methods. He mentioned the "See Clearly Method"
    because he has heard of it, as the company has a rather aggressive
    advertising campaign. In doing a google search, he can use the
    keywords "Vision Therapy" or "Vision Training" to find information of
    this kind, and he can go to the web sites of OEP, COVD, PAVE, etc. He
    can also look up BABO (Baltimore Academy of Behavioral Optometry). My
    newsgroup specializes in providing literature of this kind, as well.

    Once again..."The See Clearly Method" is NOT the Bates Method, and is
    NOT Vision Therapy. It will not do much good, nor much harm,either,
    except to one's bank account, of course.

    BTW - I believe that the newsgroups "i-see," or "2see," which have
    been around for years, has members who have tried SCM if this is info
    that anyone is seeking.

    Best regards,
    "Focus On Vision Training" Newsgroup
    Francine, Jul 24, 2004
  11. (Francine) wrote in
    What's the current word on vision therapy and myopia?? My quick medline
    search seems to suggest its got some efficacy for "abnormal nearwork-induce
    transient myopia", but crossing "myopia" with "vision therapy" doesn't get
    any hits other than that, since 1996.

    Scott Seidman, Jul 24, 2004
  12. KKramsch

    amni Guest


    The fact that there is no litrature about a subject proves nothing
    about it's validity.

    I made experiments with my eyes and found out that some
    behaviour of my eyes of clear scientific value,
    yet such behaviour was never mentioned
    in all the internet pages which I read.

    Also, galileo claimed at his time the
    _scientific absurd_ that earth turns around the sun,
    whereas most scientists of his time
    believed that the the sun turns around earth
    (based on ptholomey theory of solar system).

    amni, Jul 24, 2004
  13. KKramsch

    andrew Judd Guest

    You are not going to find much in the literature. I have been
    recently trying to get established researchers in myopia interested in
    ideas that seem to account for the environmental factors known to be
    associated with myopia.

    I have had quite a bit of success getting individual optometrists
    quite excited by some of the alternate views on myopia that are
    starting to appear around the World

    Personally I tend to see the psychoemotional reasons for vision
    problems as having more significance than other factors but its
    obvious that lenses are an essential tool in any approach.

    I am also having my own successes with people who do want to make the
    kinds of changes that people like Kaplan etc are talking about, but
    very very few people are really really prepared to face the kinds of
    issues that are at the heart of some of the lifestyle/relationship
    issues that these people are dealing with. For example people seem to
    be prepared to have unsatisfactory relationships rather than take
    risks that involve change, they want to blame others rather than take
    responsibility etc etc.

    For sure glasses is the easiest solution.
    andrew Judd, Jul 24, 2004
  14. KKramsch

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    There seems to be a consensus in this group the any discussion of
    treatments of myopia be evidence-based, rather than anecdotal. I would
    think that anecdotal reports, whether they come from an engineer, a mad
    Italian, or a VTOD, are all looked upon with the same amount of scepticism.
    Furthermore, given the importance of this topic and the interest it
    generates, it would seem that even a small, but well-designed study would
    be able to find its way into the peer-reviewed literature.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 24, 2004
  15. KKramsch

    Francine Guest

    Francine, Jul 24, 2004
  16. KKramsch

    Francine Guest

    That doesn't make much sense. The VTODs are in the field and their
    clinical experience should carry more weight than engineers who do not
    examine nor treat patients, or mad Italians. If not...go figure...

    Francine, Jul 24, 2004
  17. KKramsch

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Scott,

    Subject: Investigating "claims" about vision improvement

    Otis> Probably that it "does not "work".

    Otis> But it is essential that you determine
    exactly what you mean by "improvement".
    If your OD gives you "exercise", and tells
    you that HE has "improved" your vision from
    -8.75 D to -8.25 D, then yes, myopia can
    be "improved".

    My quick medline
    Otis> As far as "improvement" of "myopia" it depends how
    you define it. A normal eye is defined has having
    a refractive status of exactly 0.0 diopters.

    Otis> Therefore, a negative refractive error (nearsightedness,
    myopia) starts at -0.25 diopters.

    Otis> Thus if a scientists (like Dr. Colgate) changes
    his refractive status from -0.25 to +0.25 diopters
    (vision cleared from 20/40 to 20/20) then yes,
    that is indeed REAL IMPROVEMENT.

    Otis> It would seem that we should do a "follow up"
    on this type of improvement -- but nothing happens.
    Just to difficult I suppose.



    but crossing "myopia" with "vision therapy" doesn't get
    Otis Brown, Jul 25, 2004
  18. KKramsch

    andrew Judd Guest


    In this context I was using 'literature' as a form of scientific
    jargon that means publications appearing in 'recognised' journals, or
    books published by 'recognised authorities' in the field, all of which
    are peer reviewed.

    If you go to the OEP and COVD web sites you will find no references to
    any method of vision therapy that improves myopia.

    Opinion published on the internet cannot be considered 'literature'
    unless by the consensus of our peers the opinion is from a 'recognised

    Even Roberto Kaplan is very reserved in the claims he makes regarding
    vision improvement so that refraction changes are recorded. That
    does not mean that refraction changes are not possible, but I think it
    does show how very difficult it is to improve myopia using methods
    that are commonly used at the current time.

    Much of the evidence is more or less anecdotal.

    andrew Judd, Jul 25, 2004
  19. KKramsch

    Vile Guest

    Come on...I think most people even agree (what what I gathered so far
    from posts and other websites, books) that its because of the changing
    the shape of the eye whether its by stress or not is what causes poor
    vision. And I am not even knocking Bates. Don't piss me off Rishi.
    Vile, Jul 25, 2004
  20. I am knocking you.

    Believe me: it cannot be with stress or effort.

    Any exercise based on stress or effort are wrong.

    Perhaps this kind of work may exhaust you so much than then you drop
    the whole thing, and then you may get a glipse of relaxation.

    It was because you were not enough intelligent that you had to go the
    long route.

    If you were more intelligent, you would have jumped directly on how to
    avoid strain and effort from the very beginning.

    In the original book by Bates there are no exercises.

    Since all the other methods and programs start by quoting Bates,
    because it sells, and then go on with exercises, you may understand
    that all these programs are bogus.

    They are anti-Bates, hence they are against perfect vision, because
    when you are anti-Bates you are anti-truth, so you cannot be with
    perfect vision.

    All the people who talk about Bates, ALL OF THEM, are bogus people,
    unless they demonstrate that they have understood the principles of
    the original system.

    As far as I know, nobody has this courage.

    Even the English spoken people, who have the truth at hand, when they
    came to the real thing, are afraid, and prefer to discard it.

    This is difficult for me to understand.

    Why are you so interested in the false methods?

    You should find to suffice you the original method.

    Your interest in bogus methods is very much wrong.

    Perhaps you are not interested in your own cure, but just to chit-chat
    with other bogus people.

    Why is this?

    Please visit if you want to find more on
    our work as faithful people to the original system.
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Jul 25, 2004
    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.