Lit research for "See Clearly Method"?

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 (http://tinyurl.com/4myv6
), 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?

Thanks!

-Karl

 

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 www.i-see.org.
Alex Eulenberg has his complete book for your review -- for
free.

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

Best,

Otis

Engineer

 

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 http://thecentralfixation.com

 

Thanks!

-Karl

 

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 reports.com
has done something with it, but that is a pay website to check out
reviews.

See was that so hard to stay on topic!!!!!

 

(Vile) wrote in @posting.google.com:

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

 

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
http://thecentralfixation.com

 

You can find Dr. Bates on www.i-see.org.

It is not the original book, the idiot has cut many pieces.

You cannot rely on these fraudolent people.

 

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.

Cheers,
Fran

``````````````

QUOTED:
"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
Method.

START YOUR 30-DAY RISK-FREE TRIAL TODAY!!!

• Designed by a team of award-winning optometrists and research
scientists
• 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"

 

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,
Francine
"Focus On Vision Training" Newsgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/focus_on_vision_training/

 

(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

 

HI

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

 

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

http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html
http://www.beyond2020vision.com/nearsightedness1
http://www.beyond2020vision.com/nearsightedness2

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.

 

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.

DrG

 

There is quite a bit, actually, at the sources I have mentioned.

Cheers,
Francine
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/focus_on_vision_training/

 

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...


Fran

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer


but crossing "myopia" with "vision therapy" doesn't get

 

Francine,

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
authority'

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

 

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.

 

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 http://thecentralfixation.com if you want to find more on
our work as faithful people to the original system.