Perfect Mental Control for Perfect Sight

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Deidara, Aug 24, 2007.

  1. Deidara

    Deidara Guest


    Perfect sight is impossible without continual shifting, and such
    shifting is a striking illustration of the mental control necessary
    for normal vision. It requires perfect mental control to think of
    thousands of things in a fraction of a second; and each point of
    fixation has to be thought of separately, because it is impossible to
    think of two things, or of two parts of one thing, perfectly at the
    same time. The eye with imperfect sight tries to accomplish the
    impossible by looking fixedly at one point for an appreciable length
    of time; that is, by staring. When it looks at a strange letter and
    does not see it, it keeps on looking at it in an effort to see it
    better. Such efforts always fail, and are an important factor in the
    production of imperfect sight

    Better Eyesight magazine, Dec.1919
    Deidara, Aug 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Deidara

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear absolutely correct,

    Do you believe that Dr. Bates was correct in making
    these statements about science and the minus lens?

    Re: Who defines a scientific statement of objective fact?
    Do you believe in Bates?

    Re: Are Dr. W. H. Bate's statements about the effect of
    a minus lens on the eye's refractive STATUS correct?

    Did Dr. Bates make intentionally make false statements
    concerning the behavior of the eye in order to sell his book?

    Was Dr. Bates a scientist? Was he a good ophthalmologist?
    Would he lie, or make false or perhaps inaccurate statements
    about the effect that the minus lens has on the natural eye in
    order to get you to use is "relaxation" methods? Was he a
    quack as so many claim? Was he thinking of your visual welfare,
    or did he only wished to make a buck?

    It is standard practice for most ODs to ridicule Dr. Bates and
    all his followers -- as non-scientific, by calling them flakes,
    practicing pseudo-science, engagining in psycho-babble
    and other such pleasantries.

    Do you believe these are accurate descriptions of Bates and
    people who would initiate second-opinion, or preventive methods?

    I keep an open-mind on both Bates and the opponents of
    Bates. That seems to be the most you can do. I also believe
    there is an honest second opinion on prevention which you do not
    seem to understand.




    Subject: Is Dr. Bates, right or wrong?

    Science is never merely knowledge; it is orderly knowledge.

    Josiah Royce

    Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar -- and
    often convincing.

    Oscar Wilde

    And as for putting glasses upon a child it is
    enough to make the angels weep.

    William Bates

    This is Dr. Bates' statement about his reason for his
    opposing the use of a minus lens on an eye that is slightly

    I believe that the parents should be aware of the proven
    effect that the minus lens has on the refractive state of the
    eye, as stated by Dr. Bates.

    You can make the eyes change in a negative direction by
    forced wearing of a minus lens on the natural eye -- but that
    scientific truth was not known in 1920. Today this effect is very
    clear from the direct experimental (scientific) data.
    [Scientific reference: Both chicken and primate eye.]

    It is intellectually short-sighted continue to deny the
    proven effect that a minus lens has on the natural eye.


    From Chapter 8 by Dr. Bates

    (Clarifying statement)

    ...That (minus-lens) glasses must injure the eye is evident
    from the facts given in the preceding chapter. One cannot see
    through them unless one produces the degree of refractive error
    which they are designed to correct.

    But refractive errors, in the eye which is left to itself,
    are never constant. If one secures good vision by the aid of
    concave, lenses, therefore, it means that one is maintaining
    constantly a degree of refractive error which otherwise would not
    be maintained constantly. It is only to be expected that this
    should make the condition worse, and it is a matter of common
    experience that it does.

    After people once begin to wear (minus-lens) glasses their
    strength, in most cases, has to be steadily increased in order to
    maintain the degree of visual acuity secured by the aid of the
    first pair...


    A person with myopia of 20/70 who puts on glasses giving him
    a vision of 20/20 may find that in a week's time his unaided
    vision has declined to 20/200.


    We have the testimony of Dr. Sidler-Huguenin, of Zurich,
    that of the thousands of myopes treated by him the majority grew
    steadily worse, in spite of all the skill he could apply to the
    fitting of (minus-lens) glasses for them. When people break their
    glasses and go without them for a week or two, they frequently
    observe that their sight has improved. As a matter of fact the
    sight always improves, to a greater or less degree, when glasses
    are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted.

    That the human eye resents (minus lens) glasses is a fact
    which no one would attempt to deny. **

    Every oculist knows that patients have to "get used" to them,
    and that sometimes they never succeed in doing so. Patients with
    high degrees of myopia have a great difficulty in accustoming
    themselves to the full correction, and often are never able to do

    The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree
    make all objects seem much smaller than they really are...

    These are unpleasantness that cannot be overcome...

    All glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less
    degree. Even with very weak glasses patients are unable to see
    distinctly unless they look through the center of the lenses, with
    the frames at right angles to the line of vision; and their vision
    lowered if they fail to do this ...

    As for putting (minus-lens) glasses upon a child it is enough
    to make the angels weep.



    ** Except for an honest disagreement about this statement by some
    people, I would say "adapts to the minus lens"
    rather than "resents", but the implication is still the same.

    What is the final truth about the effect of the minus lens on
    the natural eye? What do YOU think? How would you prove that Dr.
    Bates right or wrong on his fundamental statement? Commentary?



    The task of science is both to extend the range of our
    experience and to reduce it to order, and this task presents
    various aspects inseparable connected with one another. Only by
    experience itself do we come to recognize those laws which grant
    us a comprehensive view of the diversity of phenomena. As our
    knowledge becomes wider, we must even be prepared therefore to
    expect alterations in the point of view best suited for the
    ordering of experience.

    Niels Bohr,

    "Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature."
    otisbrown, Aug 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Deidara

    Deidara Guest

    Dear Otis,

    I will agree -- as with the concept of the dynamic nature of a
    fundamental eye. However, I will "keep" an open mind -- to the
    preventive second opinion.

    Deidara, Aug 24, 2007
  4. Deidara

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Absolutly Incredible,

    Subject: My first introduction to Dr. Bates -- concept.

    Yeah, my ophthamologist told me that Bates was
    a jerk, trying to "sell books", and was completely
    discredited by the majority-opinion.

    I resolved to find out what this "under-dog" has to
    say -- and determine if his scientific experiments
    were correct and repeatable.

    I also wanted to understand this situation through
    the "eyes" of a second-opinion optometrists -- to
    understand what he thought was the
    nature of the problem (of prevention).

    Was it public hostility towards the concept -- or what.

    Was it that vision-clering simply does not work -- under
    any circumstance, or the "best" circumstance.

    That is the nature of our discussions on,
    and that is why we should enjoy this
    scientific review of the natural eye's behavior.

    Second-opinion best,


    otisbrown, Aug 24, 2007
  5. Deidara

    Deidara Guest

    Dear Otis,

    Subject: Prevention -- or the "quick-fix" minus

    It is certain that prevention is not easy -- but the public must be

    Deidara, Aug 24, 2007
  6. Deidara

    p.clarkii Guest


    "The Public Must Be Informed!!" said Otis "Paul Revere" Brown,
    engineer, as he rode off into the night on his valient steed!
    p.clarkii, Aug 28, 2007
  7. Deidara

    Deidara Guest

    Dear PClar,

    Subject: And EXCELLENT study of the effect of the minus on the eye.

    Since you are certain that a -3 diopter lens has no effect upon the
    focal state of the fundamental eye -- the public must be left to
    decide for themselves your credibility.

    Deidara, Aug 28, 2007
  8. Deidara

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I don't think that PClar has a problem with credibility. You do.
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 28, 2007
  9. Deidara

    Deidara Guest


    Subject: And HONEST "second opinion"

    Yes you will of course "insist" that the fundamental eye is not a
    dynamic system -- however we should allow the readers to "decide" for

    Deidara, Aug 28, 2007
  10. Deidara

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Absolutely Correct

    Subject: SCIENCE and the natural eye's dynamic behavior.

    I am willing to agree that plus-prevention is tough. It takes
    a person with good insights (Dr. Stirling Colgate at
    age 14 years) to do it RIGHT.

    But when some majority-opinion OD tells me that a
    -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE
    STATE OF THE EYE -- I am going to doubt

    When he tells me I must IGNORE ALL SCIENTIFIC
    DATA -- THAT "HE" DOES NOT LIKE, I am going
    to totally doubt both his scientific ability as
    well as his scientific competence.

    But remember, it is JUST the majority-opinion ODs
    who are in a state of DENIAL.

    The second-opinion ODs like Steve Leung SUPPORT
    plus-prevention at the threshold -- when the plus
    must be used if prevention is the goal of the
    parent and child.

    That type of "path" choice in your life will have
    major and personal consequences if you choose
    the "easy" minus.

    Face scientific facts squarely -- and make your
    choice on the facts, and not the intense bias
    of the majority-opinion.

    Second-opinion best,

    otisbrown, Aug 28, 2007
  11. Deidara

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I'm not sure I am a majority-opinion OD, but I am an OD, and I will
    tell you that any lens has an effect on the refractive state of the
    eye. In the case of a -3.00 diopter lens on an emmetropic eye, the
    eye is changed to a hyperopic refractive state. In the case of a
    hyperopic eye, the eye is changed to a more hyperopic state. In the
    case of a myopic eye, the eye is change to a less myopic state up to
    the power of the lens, and then a hyperopic state if the power of the
    minus lens exceeds the power of the eye.

    So see? There is no doubt whatsoever for you to doubt my scientific
    crediblity (although your sanity is in question).

    DrG O.D.
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 28, 2007
  12. Deidara

    Zetsu Guest

    Please please could you explain that.

    I am confused when you said that the eye changes its refractive state.
    I thought that the actual refractive state of the eye itself is not
    changed; I mean the correction of the lens just allows the light to
    focus normally on the eye. But the physical eye itself is not changed
    unless through surgical operation. Isn't that right, or wrong?
    Zetsu, Aug 28, 2007
  13. Deidara

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    That is a very astute observation. I meant the eye experiences a
    different refractive state. I also forgot to include the effects of
    accommodation. A negative lens will move the focal plane back towards
    the retina in the case of a myopic eye, and back away from the retina
    in the case of an emmetropic or hyperopic eye. Accommodation will
    bring the focal plane forward within the limits of its amplitude.
    Meanwhile, the retinal defocus changes its size with respect to the
    distance of the focal plane from the retina. Some researchers think
    that long term retinal defocus can alter the refractive state of the
    human eye in the presence of a genetic predisposition to myopia.
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 28, 2007
  14. Deidara

    lena102938 Guest

    If it is so "innocent" and safe to wear -3 for person
    With 20/20 And nothing going to happen.
    Why we would not conduct that experiment.
    It is save. Vision not going change in 1 year.
    Let's make it. Humanitarian reasons are satisfied .
    It is safe. No risk.
    lena102938, Aug 29, 2007
  15. Deidara

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Lena,

    Subject: Test to prove a -3 diopter on the normal
    eye is "perfectly safe".

    You would first want to check this by placing a -3 diopter
    lens on a population of eyes that are normal.

    The goal of this test would be to PROVE that
    the refractive STATE (objectively measured)
    DOES NOT CHANGE by -2 diopters
    in six months.

    I would OBJECTIVELY test their concept on
    the natural monkey-primate eye -- before
    I would test it on the normal (20/20) human-primate eye.

    Given the proven results (i.e., the refractive STATE changes
    as a control-system would change), I would say that
    you would never get "human experiment" -- to confirm
    what you already know from objective science
    as it concerns this characteristic behavior of the
    natural eye.

    I know that if I had 20/20 (and a refractive STATE of
    zero diopters), (after confirming the scientific
    data) I would not want MY refractive STATE to
    go negative by -2 diopters from wearing
    a -3 diopter lens 16/7.

    Maybe you want to volunteer your children
    for this study.

    The natural-eye data convinces me that
    this is far more than speculation.

    The natural YOUNG human eye will
    do the same thing.

    Just one man's opinion.

    otisbrown, Aug 29, 2007
  16. Deidara

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    There is no medical reason for doing so. One doesn't give drugs to a
    person who has no disease. Although I did observe this to happen once
    with one of my patients who was over-corrected by about 4 diopters for
    a period of about one year. She did not suffer any permanent ill-
    effects, and no refractive change. However, it did cause some
    headaches and disturbances in her near vision.

    Why don't you conduct such a study, get it published, and we can all
    talk about it here on
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 29, 2007
  17. Dr G

    I think it is one thing to talk about the effect of minus lenses on
    healthy people or on some myopic people.

    As a general rule it does seem to be true that the strength of a minus
    lense **does** influence the amount of measured myopia.

    Studies have shown that a reduction in minus does create **more**
    mypoia for some people. I know you are not going to dispute that.

    But even so you are absolutely sure that too much minus can have no

    Is that actually true? For sure?

    I think it is more complicated than it is obvious.

    For example i have a range of lenses for my vision in 0.25 steps.

    I found that if i wear too much of a reduction my eyesight gets worse
    in about 1 day. It becomes noticable via the blurr diameter i
    observe of a distant light. (That test has always proven a very
    reliable indicator of my vision as measured by an optician).

    But i then find if i wear a higher power that my vision gets better
    and i can *then* wear a slightly lower power and find my vision is
    stable for weeks on end with that power.

    My own experience of wearing full strength minus lenses is that my
    vision very quickly becomes noticably blurry after about 3 hours
    whereas in the beginning it is absolutely totally clear as measured by
    the blurr diameter of distance lights.

    But I think us myopic people do need opticians and i am certainly not
    blaming opticians for my eyesight being defective.

    However many competant opticians do believe that amount of minus does
    in some manner influence the degree of myopia progression that their
    clients are likely to suffer from.

    Studies as i know you agree dont really prove much at all. People
    tend to prove what they want to prove.

    I am inclined to think that the jury is out still on the effect of
    lenses upon the eye.

    For example i think it is accepted that contact lenses are more likely
    than eyeglasses to produce stable vision rather than progressively
    worsening vision.

    Either way i know plenty of people who after life style changes found
    they got better vision. Divorce. Birth of a child. Emmigration.

    At the end of the day I think people are wrong to point the finger at
    the bad minus and imagine that they dont have some responsibility in
    the vision they get. But that is where you and I disagree.

    I think for example that the vision Otis has of around -5.5 which is a
    moderate to high amount of myopia is related to the dogmatic style of
    reasoning he has where only his opinion can be considered to be TRUE
    DYNAMIC. And yet he has no success at all with using his plus lenses
    to improve his vision. Total failure at that. So how dynamic are
    his own eyes? Evidently for his TRUE SCIENCE to be correct he would
    have to accept the THIRD OPINION that ALL NATURAL EYES - 1 are

    Somehow that kind of logic means nothing to him. He is not
    interested in what is true or false. He is only interested in his
    opinion. He is typically highly myopic. What is inside him is more
    important than what exists outside of him. The natural world no
    longer interests him. He only sees his own world inside his mind.
    That is the myopic way.

    andrewedwardjudd, Aug 29, 2007
  18. Uncorrected hyperopes experience exactly the same conditions. They
    have problems, but getting myopic isn't one of them.
    Accepted by whom?

, Aug 29, 2007
  19. Deidara

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Here is one study that directly answers your question.

    Changes in refractive error for exotropes treated with overminus
    lenses.Rutstein RP, Marsh-Tootle W, London R.

    School of Optometry Medical Center, University of Alabama, Birmingham.

    The refractive changes of pediatric patients who were prescribed
    overminus lenses for exotropia were evaluated. Overminus lenses means
    additional minus power over the lenses required to correct the
    refractive error at distance. Forty exotropic patients, ages 1 to 15
    years, were prescribed overminus lenses (-0.50 D to -3.75 D) for a
    period of 9 to 86 months. A small but significant correlation was
    found between the initial refractive error and the mean annual change
    toward myopia. Other factors such as age when treatment was given,
    duration of therapy, amount of overminus, and the amount of the
    exodeviation had little effect on the rate of myopic change. The mean
    annual changes in refractive error for hyperopes (-0.13 +/- 0.44 D, N
    = 15), emmetropes (-0.26 +/- 0.37 D, N = 17), and myopes (-0.75 +/-
    0.77 D, N = 18) were similar to values reported in the literature for
    nonexotropic children.

    It seems that under conditions of over-prescribing minus, myopes get
    myopic at a faster rate than non-myopes and at a rate that is not
    significantly different than for non-overprescribed myopes.

    Now, can we PLEASE give this a rest?
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 29, 2007
  20. Deidara

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dr L,

    Subject: Your office point-of-view, versus a scientific point-of-

    Re: Learning to ask the RIGHT questions in science.

    If I wish to know if the natural eye is dynamic (in a scientific
    sense) then I am going to OBJECTIVELY test that natural
    eye (or populations of natural eyes) by doing a very basis
    scientific experiment.

    The goal of this experiment is NOT to find the cause of
    "defect" (your OFFICE point-of-view), but just to satisfy
    the scientific question to determine if the refractive STATE
    of the natural eye FOLLOWS an applied -3 diopter lens.

    If you place a -3 diopter lens on the normal young eye, the
    system will change by -3 diopters (average). [normal, refractive
    STATE of zero, 20/20 vision.]

    [A distance of 13 inches is an accommodation change of -3 diopters.]

    So the only issue here is to determine if the fundamental eye
    is a DYNAMIC system, with respect to an AVERAGE change
    of -3 diopters in one eye.

    Since this specific question does not involve "defect" of any
    sort at all, it can be regarded as a true scientific question.

    So the only judgment, is this: Is the natural eye dynamic
    (i.e., will it change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters in
    less than six months -- or will it not.)

    Your office point-of-view (and bias) has nothing to do
    with EITHER the scientific question -- nor the scientific

    Others can judge the nature of science an scientific
    questions of this nature.

    More commentary:

    DrL> There is no medical reason for doing so.

    Otis> Your office "rationale" for ignoring both scientific
    questions and scientific answers. But your approach
    still comes out to denying questions of fundamental
    science. But let us call this your "opinion", and
    accept that your office point-of-view is different
    than a scientific point-of-view. Let us just say
    that we see science DIFFERENTLY. That does
    not make me "wrong" any more that it makes
    you "wrong".

    One doesn't give drugs to a
    person who has no disease.

    Otis> True, but SCIENTIFIC questions about the dynamic
    behavior of the natural eye have NOTHING to do with
    either drugs or disease. But your office point-of-view
    insists that refractive STATES are a "disease".

    Although I did observe this to happen once
    with one of my patients who was over-corrected by about 4 diopters
    a period of about one year. She did not suffer any permanent ill-
    effects, and no refractive change.

    Otis> Your judgement. Other optometrists see this quite
    differently. Thus the reason for the second-opinion on this

    However, it did cause some
    headaches and disturbances in her near vision.

    Why don't you conduct such a study, get it published, and we can all
    talk about it here on

    Otis> I suggest this is a science forum, and the
    experiment I described above IS a scientific experiment
    for SCIENTISTS. Others can determine their
    engineering and scientific interests in establishing
    the fundamental eye as a dynamic system -- in
    terms of measured refractive STATE.


    otisbrown, Aug 29, 2007
    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.