Perfect Sight a matter of spontaneous undestanding

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by g.gatti, Feb 2, 2005.

  1. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Now I am talking with a lady, 60 years old, who knew nothing about
    Bates treatments, and once I discovered that she wore contacts for
    myopic condiitons, I asked her to trash them, a thing she did quickly.

    Then she reported to me that in summer at seaside, without glasses, she
    had flashes of perfect sight without any knowledge of these things.

    This means that the eye itself tends to become normal again in
    favourable conditions.

    Of course to get these flashes you need to have glasses off.

    Unless you drop them, only a deepening of the strain will follow.

    By practicing voluntarily how to replicate these flashes of perfect
    sight or normal vision, one becomes able to be cured permanently, no
    matter how difficult the disease can be from the start.
    Is any ophthalmologist interested in these things?

    g.gatti, Feb 2, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. g.gatti

    kemccx Guest

    so how long does this process usually take? For example, if you're a
    -6.00 myopic and trash your glasses/contacts a few hours a day - when
    will the sight become perfect?
    kemccx, Feb 2, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    the discarding of the glasses should be permanent,
    g.gatti, Feb 2, 2005
  4. g.gatti

    kemccx Guest

    but you need to function - so you need vision to drive, work - etc.
    kemccx, Feb 2, 2005
  5. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    no, you need to be cured first.

    how can you cure yourself with glasses on?

    you cannot.

    meditate upon that.

    a paradigm shift is needed in your understanding.
    the cure is not difficult: you suspend your job for a few days and try.
    g.gatti, Feb 2, 2005
  6. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    To support your concept of "improving" from -20 diopters of myopia,
    here is a case of a young woman who "improved" from
    -10 diopters to -6 diopters in about two months.

    What do you think? Was is pure "accommodation myopia",
    or "eye-length myopia", or was it pre-destined by her
    "heredity" that her visioh would improve in this manner.

    Please note that I did not "dis-respect" anyone. I simply
    reported object, scientific facts.





    I have retyped this letter from the original and changed the
    names. Jeanie's daughter started out (at age six) with 20/50.
    She received a strong minus lens -- even though 20/50 is
    acceptable for most children. After years of receiving minus
    lenses stronger than necessary, she received a lens increase from
    -6.0 to -10.0 diopters. Jeanie's suspicion and response is
    described in the following paragraphs.


    Here are copies of my daughter's eye records and
    prescriptions. You will never know how grateful I am for you and
    Mr. Severson. When I stop and think of what could have happened
    to Shanna had I not found you -- my blood starts to boil. I have
    come to realize that people never question eye doctors as they do
    medical doctors. We are all at their mercy and do not even know
    it. You have my permission to give my telephone number to anyone
    who you feel needs it.

    Check-up before school -- Shanna received the new contacts on
    August 5. She puts in -10.0 Diopter and is able to see -- she
    says one mile down the road. I immediately told her to take them
    out. After begging my optometrist to please give me information
    to stabilize her vision, he becomes EXTREMELY UPSET.

    I then went to the libraries and book stores looking for
    information but I found only William Bates' name. I then ordered
    his book. Next I found Mr. Severson and finally you in the back
    of his book. After reading your books I immediately knew I had
    the wrong optometrist -- so I nicely asked his assistance in
    obtaining a -6 Diopter lens for studying.

    The doctor reluctantly gave them to Shanna, telling us to use
    them for STUDYING ONLY. I then confirmed the focal status of
    Shanna's eye's, by assisting her in checking her vision against
    the eye chart -- both inside and outside.

    8/05/95 -10 RE -9.5 LE 20/20 (Original -10 diop. prescript)

    8/26/95 -8.0 RE -7.5 LE 20/20 (Older prescript 3 weeks later)

    8/26/95 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE 20/100 (Low power - provided for reading)

    8/31/95 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE 20/40 (One week later)

    9/26/95 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE 20/20 (Four weeks later)

    (For comparison, see the -10.0 D prescription below)

    Since she was seeing so well on 9/26/95, I told her to remove
    her contacts and then come back outside. Without ANYTHING on she
    stood 20 feet away and could focus on the 20/70 and 20/50 line for
    about 2 or 3 seconds -- then she said it would flash or float

    Patient: Shanna Brave, Birth Date, 3/2/82:

    Dated 8/5/95: -10 D Prescription by Dr. Bob Smyeth, OD

    20/20 -10.0 RE -9.5 LE.

    In subsequent conversations with Jeanie, she stated that her
    nine year-old son was just starting into nearsightedness, and that
    she would do everything in her power to help her son with the
    proper use of the plus lens -- to avoid the catastrophic situation
    that had developed with her daughter. Jeanie wondered why this
    knowledge is not made generally available to the parents of young
    otisbrown, Feb 2, 2005
  7. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    I don't like the approach of the plus lenses.

    To me it is absurd.
    The cure is there, without any use of plus.

    What is the need?
    g.gatti, Feb 2, 2005
  8. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    Subject: Understanding Alternatives

    Yes, the "Bates" method is indeed to reject ALL GLASSES.

    An if that method works -- then GREAT.

    But that is the $64,000 question.

    The ODs know what works "instantly" -- and that is the minus lens.
    Given your rejection of the "plus for prevention", then
    it is up to you to "clear" your vision by your method.

    In fact my argument it that "optometry" is indeed limited
    in the sense that you (an many others) will REJECT
    the plus when it must be used for prevention.

    So we come to a "Mexican standoff". We are
    "frozen" in this state of "bad-mouthing" these
    ODs -- but we will not listen to those ODs who
    WILL promote true-prevention with the plus.

    If you listen carefully -- I am in fact promoting
    "change", in both the OD -- and "us" also.

    For the pilots and (students of science) who
    "push" very hard in the use of the plus, then
    vision-clearing is possible.

    So let us continue to analyize the dynamic
    nature of the fundamental eye -- and help
    those -- who can learn to help themselves.

    Let us also offer to help those ODs who
    are not helping the public with the plus.

    That would be a major "leanring" step
    in the right direction.
    That would be a better future.


    otisbrown, Feb 3, 2005
  9. g.gatti

    retinula Guest

    I suppose its OK to drive without your glasses even though you can't
    see a lick.

    When the ancient manuscripts that Gatti follows to practice his "art"
    were originally written (middle ages), there were no cars so I suppose
    he doesn't know how to handle this problem.

    retinula, Feb 3, 2005
  10. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Why this idiot goes on to reply?

    Please, **** off!

    Your stupidity is already published in the whole world, so there is no
    need for you to continue.

    You are believing in an ancient and surpassed theory about vision
    defects to be incurable.

    Then stick to your ridicule assumption.

    Let intelligent peole learn for themselves what is the truth!
    g.gatti, Feb 3, 2005
  11. g.gatti

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I wear a plus, too, Dan . . . but then I'm farsighted.
    Neil Brooks, Feb 3, 2005
  12. g.gatti

    Dan Abel Guest

    Let's see if I can make Otis's day. I'm going to admit right here in this
    newsgroup that my wife wears a plus, AT THE URGING OF HER OD! How's that?
    Dan Abel, Feb 3, 2005
  13. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "retin.."

    It is nice you signed off as "Quack".

    You obviously have not paid attention to anything
    I have presented.

    I stated that a person should have a MEDICAL
    check -- to verify no MEDICAL problems.

    I state that the person must PASS the required
    legal standard REQUIRED of him, which
    is the reading of 1.8 cm letters at
    6 meters.

    I insist that thei individual PERSONALLY verify
    that he meets AND EXCEEDS this standard
    when he drives a car.

    The only issue is his ability to "clear"
    to 20/20 -- by his own efforts.

    Indeed Dan Abel's wife is using the plus -- for
    various reasons.

    Furhter -- I agree that most people lack
    the motivation to do this work -- but that
    is their choice.

    Other than that -- I enjoy technical analysis
    of the behavior of the eye as a sophisticated


    otisbrown, Feb 3, 2005
  14. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dan,

    Indeed -- in some respects (i.e., Jacob Raphaelson, "the printer's
    it is not the "OD", but rather the public's resistance to
    accepting this recommendation to use the
    plus at the "threshold".

    But there are now some ODs who are going to make
    this "recommendation" more "forceful" -- and that
    is the type of change I advocate.

    The mother and child who wish to "turn down" the
    preventive approach should understand that
    the "bifocal" stududies show a steady
    "down" rate of -1/2 diopter per year.

    If then don't take this fact seriously -- then
    of course, just wear the minus lens.

    I am not going ot argue with them about
    that issue.


    otisbrown, Feb 3, 2005
  15. g.gatti

    LarryDoc Guest

    I "felt the need" to check the optics of my contact lenses.

    (I'm "testing" four plastics/four RGP lenses each of the identical
    parameters, for surface wetting, deposits, end of day comfort, not to
    mention stability of optics. But I digress. That's too scientific for
    this thread.)

    Well I just can't believe it! I need more of "the plus!"

    Hallelujua! I'm almost cured! My eyes must be "a sophisticated system."

    Oooops. I'm farsighted. Getting worse, not cured. But I sure do like
    "the plus!"

    Gimmme more of that "plus" please! I love "the plus."

    Now will you people PLEASE stop hounding poor old Otis. Even making fun
    of his absurdity, although there is a certain satisfaction, still wastes
    space on our machines.

    LarryDoc, Feb 3, 2005
  16. g.gatti

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I will, but I have to post this link /first/:
    Neil Brooks, Feb 3, 2005
  17. g.gatti

    RM Guest

    That was a mistake-- seriously!

    Now you've called the troll out from under his bridge. I guess we are in
    for a long diatribe from Otis now. Best to leave him alone!

    RM, Feb 4, 2005
  18. g.gatti

    RM Guest

    Go away troll.

    RM, Feb 4, 2005
  19. g.gatti

    retinula Guest

    Yes, IMHO both Gatti and you are both Quacks

    I can assure you that, after reading your posts for some time, I have
    DEFINITELY not to listen to anything you present. You keep stating the
    same phrases over and over again while NUMEROUS experts present strong
    arguments against your position. You never acknowledge their logic
    even though it is obvious to everyone else, and then ultimately you
    stomp off mad as if you have been wronged somehow.

    You're just wrong Otis. There's nothing wrong in admitting it and
    growing as a result of the experience.

    Now you are about to start misquoting Dan Abel's statement that his
    wife is using a plus lens. You are going to claim this is some kind of
    proof for your wacky ideas. Just like you stretched the truth when you
    stated that MT "recommends using +3.00 lenses". You argue like an
    adolescent child Otis.
    And you enjoy reading your own posts and the arguments they provoke
    too. Sick old Otis gets a thrill thinking about what an intellectual
    he is, at least in his own mind.
    retinula, Feb 4, 2005
  20. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "Retin..."

    As usual, you, like Rishi resort to name-calling and
    other insults. Sad!

    If you kept an "open mind" you would learn
    new ideas and concepts -- as other more
    "open" optometrists and medical doctors have

    We ALL agree that prevention is difficult -- but
    under the right circumstances -- possible.

    The "method of the minus" was put in place
    400 years ago -- and anlyized initially
    by J. Kepler.

    That analysis was carried forward and became
    the Gullistrand "schematic eye". Not bad work -- but
    required that the natural eye be ASSUMED to be
    "frozen" for purposes of analysis.

    I certainly understand "mathematical" idealizations
    such as this. The problem it that this
    "model" no longer reflects scientific
    truth (results of REPEATABLE scinetific

    But of course you are never going
    to "see" the need for change -- and
    will continue the "dead" concepts
    of the past.


    otisbrown, Feb 4, 2005
    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.