Why the word "cure" should not be used.

Dear Second-opinion friends,

Subject: The word "cure" makes for a very bad and false idea.

My appreciation of Bates was in his FIRST steps
of prevention -- i.e., was tp INSIST that the kids
be cognizant of their Snellen.

And further, the EMPOWERMENT of the kids to
take the actions that are necessary for THEM
to confirm their own clearing.

I do not support the notion that this clearing a Snellen
is EVER a "cure".

It is essential that this work be under the
complete control of the person doing it.

If you use the work "cure" then you bring the
entire medical world into the discussion with
the implication that MEDICINE must "cure"
a negative refractive STATE for the natural
eye.

How you "parse" these words is up to you.

But a great deal of science depends on using
simple and EXACT terms.

Here is Bates discussion about his his
SECOND OPINION, clashed with the majority
opinion of his day.

If the person himself had made these critical
measurements himself -- has seen the results -- and
kept on doing it -- then this "contest" of
wills would end.

==============


Dr. W. H. Bates

Successful prevention rejected -- by people who do not like
the idea of it.

Chapter 32

Why it is very important that you take control and do it
yourself.

==================

By Dr. Bates:

Patients whom I have cured of various errors of refraction
have frequently returned to specialists who had prescribed glasses
for them, and, by reading fine print and the Snellen test card
with normal vision, have demonstrated the fact that they were
cured, without in any way shaking the faith of these practitioners
in the doctrine that such cures are impossible.

The patient with progressive myopia whose case was mentioned
in Chapter XV returned after her cure to the specialist who had
prescribed her glasses, and who had said not only that there was
no hope of improvement, but that the condition would probably
progress until it ended in blindness, to tell him the good news
which, as an old friend of her family, she felt he had a right to
hear. But while he was unable to deny that her vision was, in
fact, normal without glasses, he said it was impossible that she
should have been cured of myopia, because myopia was incurable.
How he reconciled this statement with his former patient's
condition he was unable to make clear to her.

A lady with compound myopic astigmatism suffered from almost
constant headaches which were very much worse when she took her
glasses off, The theatre and the movies caused her so much
discomfort that she feared to indulge in these recreations. She
was told to take off her glasses and advised, among other things,
to go to the movies; to look first at the corner of the screen,
then off to the dark, then back to the screen a little nearer to
the center, and so forth.

She did so, and soon became able to look directly at the
pictures without discomfort. After that nothing troubled her.
One day she called on her former ophthalmological adviser, in the
company of a friend who wanted to have her glasses changed, and
told him of her cure. The facts seemed to make no impression on
him whatever. He only laughed and said, "I guess Dr. Bates is
more popular with you than I am."

Sometimes patients themselves, after they are cured, allow
themselves to be convinced that it was impossible that such a
thing could have happened, and go back to their glasses. This
happened in the case of a patient already mentioned in the chapter
on Presbyopia, who was cured in fifteen minutes by the aid of his
imagination. He was very grateful for a time, and then he began
to talk to eye specialists whom he knew and straightway grew
skeptical as to the value of what I had done for him.

One day I met him at the home of a mutual friend, and in the
presence of a number of other people he accused me of having
hypnotized him, adding that to hypnotize a patient without his
knowledge or consent was to do him a grievous wrong.

Some of the listeners protested that whether I had hypnotized
him or not, I had not only done him no harm but had greatly
benefited him, and he ought to forgive me. He was unable,
however, to take this view of the matter.

Later he called on a prominent eye specialist who told him
that the presbyopia and astigmatism from which he had suffered
were incurable, and that if he persisted in going without. his
glasses he might do himself great harm. The fact that his sight
was perfect for the distance and the near-point without glasses
had no effect upon the specialist, and the patient allowed himself
to be frightened into disregarding it also.

He went back to his glasses, and so far as I know has been
wearing them ever since. The story obtained wide publicity, for
the man had a large circle of friends and acquaintances; and if I
had destroyed his sight I could scarcely have suffered more than I
did for curing him.

================

By this metod of "authority figure" and NOT
BY SCIENCE OR FACTS -- this situation is
perpetuated.

It is no one's fault -- but it is necessary
to understand why you must take control and
clear your Snellen youself.

Otis

 

Any evidence that the difference between those who try Bates' methods
and those who do not is statistically significant ... with those who
try Bates' methods actually /improving/ their vision?

No?

Interesting.

If you have all this insight into vision improvement, then why are you
still a 6d myope?

That really does leave one wondering, no?

 

Subject: OBJECTION to the minus -- is the second-opinion.

In fact there are a number of medical people who have "objected" to
the
over-prescribed minus.

But a PREVENTIVE solution (like Bates) requires that the person
START with the preventive method BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED.

Here is Dr. Prentice's discussion about the difficulties of plus-
prevention.

Again, this is NEVER a "cure" -- but a way of avoiding entry into
a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.

Second-opinion best,


=================================

By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004

----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------


The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia
which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at
the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to
reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.

In most cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and
patience; but a few experiments after the following example will
suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is
possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
repression at the near point.

***** This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic
eyes
an open question. ******


EXAMPLE CASES

Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this
issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As Chalmers
said -- the person must fully understand this issue. It is
for this reason that I suggest full transfer of "control"
to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look
at the chart, and "clear" himself, then no "third party"
(i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I
separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative
refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the
above staement simply clarifies that point. OSB]

[Comment: We also have the "Neil Brooks" effect which must be
understood. (Read sci.med.vision to understand this effect
on an OD.) A few people will SUE ANY OD WHO EVEN MENTIONS
PREVENTION-WITH-PLUS. For that reason, no majority-opinion
OD will EVER help you with true-prevention -- and I don't
blame them. I would not put myself at risk either -- nor
do I expect any majority-opinion to put himself at
professional risk either. But that is why you NEVER hear
about the preventive effect of a plus -- if used correctly.
Think about it. OSB]


===========

 

Any evidence that the difference between those who try Bates' methods
and those who do not is statistically significant ... with those who
try Bates' methods actually /improving/ their vision?

No?

Interesting.

If you have all this insight into vision improvement, then why are you
still a 6d myope?

That really does leave one wondering, no?

 

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant
and has forgotten the gift."

- Einstein

 

Didn't happen to catch this.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that I have ever sued anybody for
anything in my life?

[good luck with that]

Like everything you post, Otis, there's no factual basis for this.
You're just constructing the argument that you think best fits your
preconceived notion.

If there were some method that would prevent myopia, your assertion --
as always -- is that guarding its secrecy is SO IMPORTANT that nearly
every eye doctor in the world is withholding it from themselves AND
their loved ones.

Only to a pathological liar and an absolute fucking idiot like
yourself does THAT answer make MORE sense than ... it simply doesn't
work.

My GOD, you're an idiot.

In this case, a libelous, lying, idiot.

Well done, lad!

 

Subject: OBJECTION to the minus -- is the second-opinion.


In fact there are a number of medical people who have "objected" to
the
over-prescribed minus.


But a PREVENTIVE solution (like Bates) requires that the person
START with the preventive method BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED.


Here is Dr. Prentice's discussion about the difficulties of plus-
prevention.


Again, this is NEVER a "cure" -- but a way of avoiding entry into
a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.


Second-opinion best,


=================================


By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.


Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004


----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------


The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia
which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at
the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to
reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.


In most cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and
patience; but a few experiments after the following example will
suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is
possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
repression at the near point.


***** This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic
eyes
an open question. ******


EXAMPLE CASES


Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.


After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;


...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this
issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As Chalmers
said -- the person must fully understand this issue. It is
for this reason that I suggest full transfer of "control"
to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look
at the chart, and "clear" himself, then no "third party"
(i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I
separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative
refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the
above staement simply clarifies that point. OSB]


[Comment: We also have the "Neil Brooks" effect which must be
understood. (Read sci.med.vision to understand this effect
on an OD.)

CORRECTION:

I am an engineer. In my judgment Dr. C. Prentice was correct.

But equally, some numb-skull SIMILAR to Brooks could file
"charges" against ANYONE who he does not "like".

Neil Brooks posted the "charge" in PA, that he THOUGHT that
my second-opinion advocacy was "practicing medicine".

I responded by contacting the person involved and stated that
having an opinion supporting PREVENTION (say like
Steve Leung) is not "practice". Brooks always gets
confused on that issue.

But I truly appreciate the type of implied threat this
holds for ANY OD who would support plus prevention.

So Neil Brooks did indeed file a "charge".

But what I said was this (and not Neil Brooks) but
some other numb skull:


A few people will SUE ANY OD WHO SUGGESTS
PREVENTION-WITH-PLUS. For that reason, no majority-opinion
OD will EVER help you with true-prevention -- and I don't
blame them. I would not put myself at risk either -- nor
do I expect any majority-opinion to put himself at
professional risk either. But that is why you NEVER hear
about the preventive effect of a plus -- if used correctly.

As Dr. Prentice pointed out -- it is in no sense easy to
use the plus for prevention, and this is NOT a "cure", and
therefore NOT MEDICAL.

For reference for second-opinion ODs read this site:

www.chinamyopia.org

Engineering second-opinion,

 

There's some easy factual information for you, Otis.

Care to address it ... head on?

No?

Didn't think so.