Steady progress in high and super-high myopia

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by g.gatti, Aug 5, 2005.

  1. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Hallo to all, I see the old marpions are still here, so to speak, and
    are stable in their practice, so far so good for them.

    Now I had the opportunity to work for several hours with two very nice
    young Italian ladies who are overcoming their own myopia by rest
    methods.

    One of them, graduated in psychology few years ago, was wearing strong
    minus lenses of 8 dioptres untill ten weeks ago. She dropped them
    starting her self-treatment by rest methods according to the
    publications by Dr. Bates, of which I am the Italian translator and
    publisher, and gained a very great success: she is now able to see at
    two meters letters which the normal eye can see at three meters, but in
    flashes she can see the letters suitable for two meters, so this is
    like 20/20. In the meantime, her night vision has improved very much to
    the extent that she was able to attend to the big concert that the rock
    band U2 gave in Milan last week.

    The other one is the lady I ave previously talked about, the woman
    recovering from her worst prescription of -23 D and glasses worn since
    age five. She is permanently without glasses now since January 1st this
    year and can spot 12/15 letters under electric light quite easily after
    a few minutes of practice with rest methods. This case is particularly
    interesting to the observer because her eyes, which were at the
    beginning bulging, only partially open and steadly fixed in a stare,
    now are radiant, open, moving and almost normal regarding their past
    bulgingness. Apart from a few weeks of disencouragement, when the lady
    went in search of answers for her condition to the wrong people
    (oculists who refracted her under mydriatics and found the same amount
    of myopia if not worst), and lost contact with practice, she is working
    now very well, using the "sun glass" by Dr. Bates and learning to look
    at the sun. The lady travels by bicycle and by train without any help
    and enjoys her life like she never did before. She also goes to the
    night club to dance and have fun. On the last trip home after visiting
    me, the people on the train pleased her with nice comments regarding
    her blue eyes, a fact that surprised her the most.

    These things I write here are for the record.

    I have also to tell about countless clients with little vision defects
    which are on the way to their permanent cure being very silly in
    dimension: 2 dioptres of myopia or something like that. The clients are
    well endowed in their own practice and have normal sight most of the
    time, all waiting for the time to come to check their driver's license
    test and remove the glasses prescription.

    One very interesting fact is about one man who had cornea conica,
    judged incurable from several authorities. This man read Dr. Bates book
    and other of his publications, and started practicing with intense
    intelligence and courage. The good eye now sees 20/10 consistently. The
    weak eye with cornea conica had flashes of normal sight (10/10) after
    two months of self-treatment. This eye had worn something like -5
    dioptres contact lenses, but the man dropped them seeing their
    uselessness about 8 months ago.

    Tomorrow one lady will come to buy the books and the pinholes to try to
    cure her own very difficult situation, that of a lasik operation which
    was unsuccessful: one eye has remained myopic, the other one is
    hypermetropic. This condition stresses her very much and gives her all
    sorts of pains, and problems to the muscular-skeletric system, causing
    lameness and other strange illnesses. She has wasted almost 50 thousand
    eur in a few years to try to correct this dreadful condition, with no
    avail. Unfortunately, this woman has great responsibilities to abide on
    her job position, so will be difficult for her to find time for her
    cure, but we will see.


    I wanted to let all the learned people here that I have published the
    first part of Dr. Bates "Cyclopedia" of perfect sight, those who are
    interested may have a look at my webpage:
    http://TheCentralFixation.com.

    One last personal remark: I can look now at the sun continuously for
    1510 seconds, at mid-morning. Also I can look at the white sparks of
    the soldering electrodes with absolutely no problems of after images
    whatever.


    Since these anecdotical evidences are consistent and are becoming quite
    relevant in number, I have to emphasize that the truths discovered by
    Dr. Bates 100 years ago are still valid and merit much credit and
    further study.


    I'm becoming convinced that the prophecy of Dr. MacCracken will be
    right: those who will prove the truths of Bates won't be publishers
    like myself or the clients or the so-called "Bates Teachers". THE
    DOCTORS IN DUE TIME WILL WAKE UP AND START TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH.

    Perhaps it will take some other 20 years or more, but it will happen.

    When I see that the manufacturers of eyeglasses are pushing the
    sunglasses for children under 5 years of age, I have to think that
    perhaps the situation has come to a maturation, so to speak: something
    big is going to happen, because the madness seems so high and dangerous
    that people will soon rebel.

    But the doctors, the learned men, will have to find out, not me nor
    Otis.
     
    g.gatti, Aug 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. g.gatti

    p.clarkii Guest

    you wrote "the woman
    recovering from her worst prescription of -23 D and glasses worn since
    age five."

    bullshit!
     
    p.clarkii, Aug 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear p.clar,

    Perhaps Rishi could clarify the remark.

    That last "official" measurement of this
    woman was -23 diopters. (An incredible
    amount.) I am surprised her retina
    did not peel off the back of her eye.

    Let us hope that Rishi is correct, and
    she can get along without those -23 diopter glasses.

    As you might know, one woman taught her
    2.5 year old child to read -- and "wondered"
    why the child was -6 diopters myopic.

    Maybe this is how the -23 diopter myope
    started out?

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Aug 6, 2005
    #3
  4. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Hello Otis, the lady went to another doctor a couple of months ago and
    the autorefractometer measured -27D.

    Under mydriatics the doctor examined her eyes and said it was quite
    good in relation her ultra-high myopic condition.

    In a near future, as soon as her cure will be more perfect, I hope she
    will have the courage to publish all her prescriptions.

    Another interesting fact is that a month before she went to another
    optometrist, a young lady much more "soft" on her, and measured -18,50
    D for the worst eye and -16 for her better eye.

    What happened was that the measurement was done promptly, while in the
    other case she had to wait more than an hour in a darkened room, with
    tension growing in her mind.

    This p.clar who comments "bullshit" is just an idiot who creates shit
    in his own mind and then spits it out on innocent people he meets.

    Speak to you later
    rgg
     
    g.gatti, Aug 8, 2005
    #4
  5. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    Subject: My post on "Attitude" and work.

    I had intended to "apend" that statement
    to reflect on the -18 diopter and -23 diopter
    values you posted. These are
    incredible values, since the eye has
    an approximate value of 60 diopters.

    I study the behavior of the natural eye
    (primates). There are no primates
    living in the "wild" who have
    refractive states of that value.

    The only explanation is that suggested
    by Bates, i.e., the compounding effect
    of an over-prescribed minus.

    To insist that there is "no relationship"
    between the visual enviromnt and
    the natural eye's refractive status, is
    simply wrong.

    To ignore it, or concern for that
    issue is tragic.

    To refuse to entertain the possiblity
    that the refractive state of the
    natural eye "follows" its visual environment
    (for the "convenience" of practice) is
    simply tragic.

    I do not know what the future will bring,
    but at the current rate, about
    85 percent of high school students
    (in Singapore) are myopic, and
    about 93 percent of medical
    students (on Taiwan) are
    myopic.

    Does this sound like wonderful
    "progress"?

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Aug 9, 2005
    #5
  6. g.gatti

    p.clarkii Guest

    your myopia measurements of -27D, -18.5D, etc. and obviously crap!
    if you are using an autorefractor then we know your measurements are
    crap!
    "shit in, shit out"-- so they say.
    if you are ignorant enough to believe these numbers, then you probably
    are ignorant enough to actually believe you are curing peoples myopia.
    do you play sitar music and burn incense while you cure their myopia?
     
    p.clarkii, Aug 9, 2005
    #6
  7. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear p.clar,

    Sujbect: Auto-refractors and optometric measurements.

    Rishi does not have access, nor is he permitted to use an
    "Auto-refractor". Thus the "failure", or
    lack of accuracy must be placed on the person who made the measurement
    in Italy.

    I have exchanged some emails with Rishi, and seen some of these
    records, and over-time
    they show steady movement towards the -23 diopters.

    One measurement might be in "error", but a
    series of measurement made by a "professional" could hardly be in that
    much "error".

    The issue of "what to do about it" is completely
    separate from the -18 and -23 diopter measurements. You can dispute
    them by calling them "bulls___", but that is more likely to discredit
    you -- or the person who made the measurements in the first place.

    Best,

    Otis
    (Error)
     
    otisbrown, Aug 9, 2005
    #7
  8. g.gatti

    RM Guest

    Really. Tell me about your "studies". Do you study all the information
    that is published? Why do you ignor the human data but embrace the chicken
    and monkey data? Isn't human data more relevant since you try to
    extrapolate your theory to influence humans to do what you think is best--
    that is use plus lens prevention? Aren't you actually on rather shaky
    ground with your theories since they don't seem to relate to humans? Aren't
    you actually doing something akin to practicing medicine without a license?
    Why not post your address and telephone number so that I can have the
    medical licensing authorities in your state take a look at what you are
    doing?
    Poor logic again chemosabe. The best explanation for Rishi's outrageously
    high myopia values is that they are incorrect! I have $100 that says Rishi
    doesn't understand refraction (like you), can't perform a refraction (like
    you), and doesn't know what he is talking about (again, like you).
     
    RM, Aug 9, 2005
    #8
    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.