Young child with eye problem please help.

Hi


We've got a 14 months old baby boy that periodically turns his left eye
in.
He has been doing this since birth and most people told us he would
outgrow
it. He was born premature, is classified as a 10 month old right now,
and for the first few hours of each day, the eye
does not turn(or turns very little). I took him to the eye doctor
yesterday
and the doctor told us he has severe farsightedness. I have watched my
son
focus in on very small objects close to him, and I have watched him
smile
back at me from a distance of 80 feet. The ophthalmologist told us that
he
is farsighted & will need glasses (+5 !?)
Obviously we are quiet shocked by this (no family histories of
Strabismus or
bad vision)
because he is so young & also doesn't show any signs of having problems
with
seeing the world around him, he has been walking for several months and

doesn't bump into anything & he's very interested in books and can
distinguish & name items that look very much alike like a cow/horse &
duck/chicken. It appears that the eye is turning in less often as time
goes
by. The doctor is suggesting glasses and I am worried that the glasses
might
prevent my Childs natural progression to a normal state. I have read
that
the glasses halt


What I would like to know is:


there any alternative approach to correct this situation other than
glasses, and, is this something that may naturally get better as time
goes
on?(as I said, it happens roughly 10% of the time throughout the day)


Is there a change that his eyes will improve by wearing glasses or will
the
glasses prevent the bodies natural method or correcting the eyes as my
child
matures?


I would be very grateful for any information (links) related to babies
&
vision

 

This is one case where early intervention with glasses may be absolutely
necessary to prevent serious vision disability in the deviating eye.
If it is conclusively established that the degree of hyperopia is
causing esotropia, you MUST supply the child with appropriate glasses
(or as he gets older, contact lenses). This is the only way he will be
able to utilize both eyes together and prevent amblyopia (lazy eye).
This is one area that mainstream optometry, ophthalmology and the
science of physiological optics all agree. Do NOT listen to any
pseudoscientific suggestions to the contrary that might pop up here.
And do NOT wait until he is older to act. He needs to establish normal
binocularity (no strabismus) by age 4 or 5 at the latest for his visual
system to develop normally.

w.stacy, o.d.

 

This child is at high risk for amblyopia, i.e. lazy eye. The standard
treatment of accommodative esotropia is eyeglasses, followed by
patching if the doctor determines that the vision in one of turned eye
is subnormal, i.e. amblyopic. If proper treatment is delayed or
denied, then there is a risk of permanent vision loss. If you are not
comfortable with the advice of the doctor, then get a second opinion
from a pediatric vision specialist.

DrG

 

wrote:

Discard the glasses, read the book by Emily Lierman, Stories From The
Clinic.

http://TheCentralFixation.com.

What do you think an eye doctor will tell you if not buy the glasses???

You should not talk with the hanged man about which rope has to be used.

 

Neil Brooks wrote:

He knows you are disgusting with your treatments.

In fact he asks for some alternative method.

I have supplied him with the source of such method, which is not
alternative at all, just the proper method.

It is silly that these people who ask for help then disappear and do
not continue to tell how things are going.

It's the same thing you do with your own patients: they are cheated by
yourself then they go to some other doctor, who cheats them also, and
the story goes on ad libitum, and nobody gets any cure whatever.

 

I have received an e-mail by somebody called William Stacey, a
so-called eye doctor.

He says that I could be arrested for what I am saying.

He says that since I have no training in visual science, I should be
silent.

I don't know.

I have seen people become able to read a whole snellen chart which was
just a gray smudge in a few minutes of rest treatment they administered
by themselves to themselves.

I don't think either I have any visual science training.

But what to do?

Do you think it is a crime to witness and tell stories about
self-cures?

Do you think it is a crime to become cure of a disease???

I really don't know.

The poor father who has come here to seek advice, may find great advice
in the books I sell and which are free downloads on the Internet.

There it is said what to do in a case like his.

Simple techniques, rocking the child, having him move his gaze, and so
on.

What is the need of any "visual science training"???

These things are simple, make no harm: the only harm they can do is to
cure the problem.

The doctors here are jealous that patients/clients may find their own
way to get cured without the need to pay their fees.


This is what I see going on since eons.


I had -5 dioptres prescription, which is now regarded as a really
ridiculous problem, by myself.

I am becoming interested in heavy cases, high-myopia, or serious
diseases like glaucoma.

These are really a great challenge for my intelligence and for those
who suffer from them, to see if we are able to grasp what is the cause
and cure it.

The other day a client called me to get the book and talked about her
glaucoma. She has to take such a long series of drugs to cope. I said
her to continue to take the drugs, of course, because I am not a
doctor, but to follow the instructions as outlined in the book by Dr.
Bates, the discoverer of adrenalin, so not an idiot by any means, and
let his own physician to check for improvements.

What do you think, Mr. Stacey?

What is your vested interest in this field?

Don't you think there could be someone more learned than you, to rob
your job???

Are you afraid?

What is the fear of a simple technique like rocking the child in the
father's lap???

Why are you against this?

The only answer is that you are afraid this simple technique may work
(my suspect is that you KNOW it will work!) and the child become cured
quickly and without much "visual science" applied.

This is my answer, I simply know it is not a wrong answer.

What is your comment?

This is a "scientific" forum, we should talk of reproducible data.

Reproduce the symptom in any given baby and I will tell you what to do
to remove the symptom.

Don't you accept the challenge?

Why not?


http://TheCentralFixation.com

 

I imagine that consistently spelling your name, or buttoning a dress
shirt correctly each pose a similar challenge.

 

Now--three eye surgeries later--my alignment is worse than ever and
my

NOW WE HAVE THE BLIND WHO LEADS THE NON BLIND...

THIS IS SIMPLE MAGICK!!!

Butchers have full right to cut and paste and destroy, it seems.

Yes, keep us up-to-date.

Mr. Neil, please, can you tell us what these old doctors did to you to
have left you in such an handicapped state?

Please, give me a link where I can read your whole story of sufferings.

In particular, I would like to know WHEN AND WHERE you got 100%
ASSURANCE that your present silly condition was due to a mistreatment,
and what was this mistreatment.

I am very interested in your case because even if you have already
sufferend THREE EYE OPERATIONS WHICH PROVED TO BE TOTALLY USELESS IN
YOUR OWN WORDS, I have an ambition to help you cure yourself by means
of rest self-treatments.

Please follow up, I am really eager to help you, I am not kidding.


Yours sincerely

 

No. In *your* words. In *my* words, each helped restore mechanical
alignment and occupational functionality for a number of years.

Unfortunately, my case was "proof" of the theory that, in infantile
esotropes, if the neurologic ability for fusion/stereopsis didn't
develop appropriately, then surgically aligned eyes are unlikely to
stay straight. No "detent" exists.

Nonetheless, all of these therapies returned me to work for several
years on several occasions. Unfortunately, I was born with a lousy
set of eyes a few decades too early.

Not if you were the last troll on earth.....

But thanks. I'll always remember fondly your compassionate outreach.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to induce emesis....

 

Well, are you happy about the outcome or not?

It is not clear.

It seems as if you first say you were unfortunate, then that you were
fortunate...

I do not understand, perhaps because I had no training in visual
sciences...

So, you have been "surgically aligned", but this did not work.

Now you prescribe for the poor father the same treatment based on
operations.

Am I wrong?

So your assumption is that TODAY your eyes could be cured, but of
course there is no counter-proof, and in fact the poor father is
depressed because GUESS WHAT the doctors he consulted WANTED TO PUT
GLASSES over the poor babe's eyes... SAME OLD ROTTEN TREATMENT, it
seems.

What do you think?

It seems you trust these doctors today just as you trusted them forty
years ago, and they proved a failure...

Thank you.

You go induce whatever you want, let me know if it is successful!

It seems you have an attraction for unsuccessful practices.

What has happened to your eyes, in the end?

What are the treatments you are following?

It's interesting that the people who are suffering are those who want
to counsell and treat others...

What is your opinion about this?

 

Actualy, you don't understand because:

a) you are of exceptionally limited intelligence, and
b) what you try to understand, you see through the filter of a very
clear agenda: to sell Bates books

I feel UNfortunate to have been born with the set of eyes that I was.

I feel UNfortunate that less was known *then* about treating my sort
of eye issues than is known *now*.

I feel fortunate that--considering how poor my eyes were and are--that
good and caring and educated and intelligent doctors worked with me to
improve my situation which was already worsening with age.

Of course, you're wrong, Rishi. You're always wrong. Why don't you
get that?

I "prescribe" (suggest, actually) *better* treatment--treatment not
available, not known, or not well understood 40 years ago. Sort of
like the way you think, but you think about vision more like people
did, say, a few *hundred* years ago.

In a percentage of cases, an esotrope is a *true congenital, or
infantile* esotrope, meaning that they were born with this condition.
In those few cases, there is virtually no chance that a neurologic
center for achieving stereopsis will have formed. That being the
case, even if the eyes are *mechanically* aligned, there is no
mechanism for keeping them there, nor, theoretically, can one be
"acquired."

In cases where the esotropia develops somewhere *after* the first
couple of weeks or months post-partem (doc's: correct me if I'm wrong
on the timing), it is possible that fusion has developed, giving the
brain an understanding of what two fused images should look like, and
a way to turn those images into a single, three-dimensional image.
Where that mechanism *has* developed, then restoring functional
alignment to the eyes--by vision therapy, prism lenses, surgery, or a
combination thereof--is an important goal, and likely to solve the
alignment problem, given sufficient vergence amplitudes.

The difference (one of a million) between *these doctors* and you is
that--given additional research and valid information--they learn new
methods, procedures, and techniques, improving their outcomes all the
while. You, on the other hand, don't even *redecorate* your cave
(grotto?).

Still got 'em.

Well . . . I tried the Bates method, with a well-known Southern
California practitioner, for about a year, but everything got worse,
so I stopped immediately. It seems not to have any validity.

I think your suffering is evident on many levels, Rishi, and I pity
you . . . but you already know that. The difference (one of millions)
between you and me is that I use what I've learned to try to help
people. You use what you've contrived as a way to make money, the
health and well-being of others be damned.

 

Ok, I understand.

Ok, I understand.

Ok, I understand. SO now you trust the doctor that YEARS AGO you have
trusted but mistreated you.

I see that eyeglasses are a treatment 400 years old, so Otis has said
here and was not contradicted.

I don't know how to apply your definitions to find a cure.
To call something "true congenital" is not very much helpful and indeed
is a curse. Are you happy to be cursed?

I don't know from where you have picked up this devastating conviction.

How can you be so sure that you cannot do anything for that
condition???

It seems such an arbitrary statement... And stupid too!!! It prevents
any possibility of an improvement... I don't understand now. Are you a
doctor???

I don't know, you are able to discern a limit, 2 weeks, 2 months...
Your span is very vast, more than 400% of inaccuracy, perhaps Otis can
calculate better how much is your error vastness... Then you say: out
of this limit, nothing can be done, while we know that even 80 years
old people have been helped by Dr. Bates in Harlem in 1925 to see even
if blind, there are published articles which prove this, and direct
testimonials... I dont' understand why you are so happy to be abused by
science and medicine, they cannot do anything for you and still you
praise these systems...

I don't know, people come and buy the book and study it and get quick
results and are fed up with the treatments of your doctors. What to do?
It seems you are dumb. People come to buy the books to find relief from
conditions that YOUR OWN PROFESSIONALS CANNOT TREAT.

No, please, don't go to the "Bates practitioners", they are cheaters,
they never had even read Dr. Bates book, discard them. You should take
responsability for yourself, study the original books and start
practicing. Have you started to learn to look at the sun? It is basic
and fundamental.

It seems you have learned nothing.

Your condition is difficult, in your own words, how can you say that
you have learned something useful?

I don't know, perhaps my English understanding is very poor indeed, it
will be helpful if some reader could help me in this.

This Neil seems a very stupid man or just he does not understand what
he is doing to himself...

Where is Jamie? Perhaps she can help me learn better what this poor
Neil is doing...

 

I get farther heckling you than I do trying to work with you.

 

Well, since Mr (Mrs? Ms?) Gatti chose to mention my email to him, I
thought I'd better post what I did send him, even though I said I
wouldn't. My habit is to not respond to trolls, especially not in a
public forum, but this case is pretty egregious.

Here's what I wrote:

"I will not post this publicly, but you obviously have no formal visual
science education or you'd know better than to offer such potentially
damaging advice. I don't know about Italy, but in the U.S. you could be
arrested for suggesting that kind of child abuse, and I would be one who
would turn you in."

Now this email has apparently caused this person to become completely
deranged (if you care to read his posts, the paranoid schizophrenia
shines through brilliantly). Either that or he/she/it is a very clever
troll indeed.

In my original post to this thread I predicted some off the wall advice,
but never dreamed it could be so other-worldly. I'm becoming convinced
that the internet has the capacity to cause mild cases of delusion to
degenerate into fulminating psychoses. I will offer no more responses to
this poster in private or in public, and only hope he/she/it obtains
the counseling and medication that is so sorely needed before serious
damage is done.

w.stacy, o.d.

 

You, Mr. Stacy, being a doctor, are supposed to help people, not to
harass them with your insults.

I see you have no answer to my questions, and you have no answers for
the questions of your patients, too, I mean useful answers, practical.

I don't understand why you so-called learned men go on reading my posts
and talk to me, a very clever troll...

I have asked many times to forgive and foget me, please, don't mind
what I say, just go away, cultivate your killfile and be at peace.

Do you wear eyeglasses?