Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method

[OtisBrown]

We "get stronger" when we are prepared to listen to those who OBJECT to "standard practice".
This man, Dr. Bates truly inspired me to "get stronger" in scientific widsom -- simply because he had the guts to conduct the world's first truly preventive effort or study.  He documented the results, with some people clearing their Snellen from 20/60 to normal.  The result -- his study was endlessly attacked -- and no further efforts were conducted.  For the record, here is Dr. Bates statment:

http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevention-teachers.php

While I more emphasize the wise use of the plus (at the 20/60 level) under total control of the person himself, any person doing research should understand this aspect of true prevention.  Otis

[Todd Becker]

Hi Otis,

I moved this topic here, because the Challenges board is reserved for people who want to post collaborative or competitive challenges to reach a particular goal, e.g. weight loss, fitness or the like.

I did read the Bates article you linked here.  While I admire Bates as a pioneer of prevention, I'm puzzled by a few of his statements, e.g.

Myopia with elongation of the eyeball is incurable. It is usually acquired during school life. Acute myopia, spasm of the accommodation, or functional myopia is an early stage of incurable myopia. The cause of myopia is an effort to see distant objects.

Near use of the eyes is not a cause of myopia. By the aid of simultaneous retinoscopy, it was always demonstrated that an effort to see near objects lessened myopic refraction or produced hypermetropic refraction.

These statements are in complete opposition to IRDT theory of the "dynamic" eye, which has been confirmed by observations, and by the videos you show of children with their noses buried in books who go on to become myopes.

How do you square Bates' statements above with what we know today about the progression of myopia?  Furthermore his statement that myopia is caused by "an effort to see distant objects" is altogether the most baffling of his statements.  In fact, a large part my own successful myopia reversal was brought about by viewing distant objects and by the use of plus lenses.  And what are plus lenses, but devices that put your eyes into a refractive state equivalent to viewing distant objects when you are in fact viewing close up objects?"

Todd

[shadowfoot]

I think Bates was brilliant and a pioneer, and I do not doubt that people has succeeded using his methods. However, re what Todd said, I think he was totally off in regards to what was actually going on. He saw success and assumed he knew why it was working. Sadly, his explanation was wrong, and was therefore discarded by contemporary eye doctors.  

Bates tactics included looking at things in the distance. He states in this article that he was able to "cure" minor myopia in fifteen minutes by looking at the Snellen. Bates also emphasized taking breaks from reading and looking in the distance, not keeping your eyes too focused on one thing, etc. Those are all helpful things to do.

Any google search on improving eyesight will pull up hundreds of sites promoting Bates techniques. While these may work for some, I think that the use of the plus lenses are a much more helpful technique. That is why I have been trying to promote Todd's work here, because I think that if natural vision improvement can incorporate modern science (as Todd does) then it will be much more successful and may some day possibly even be accepted as an alternative treatment, the way that posture work is accepted as an alternative treatment to surgery.

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  A person can be a "leader", and not be "right" in some detail.
Re: What my knowledge of his "objection" did for me.
I think I was about 14 years old when I "woke up" to the drastic over-prescriptions I was getting from an eye doctor.  I judged that a "mistake was being made".  I felt there HAD TO BE A BETTER WAY.  The ONLY objector I could find was Dr. Bates.  At that time I did not "know" the details and the problems of true-prevention -- but I resolved to find out on a pure-scientific level.  It might mean that Bates was wrong to the core. It might mean he was only "making money".  Or it might mean there was some elelment of "truth" in a few things he said.  I had also "figured out" that a "plus" MIGHT be of some use (but only for prevention).  But I truly wondered WHY I heard NOTHING ABOUT IT!  It was this curiousity (not arrogace) that led me to (prevention-minded with plus) Dr. Jacob Raphaelson, and vision scientist Dr. Francis Young.  I believe that a preventive study -- could be totally successful -- with the right people. They would be Todd and Shadow -- in a four year college -- because you have the smarts to understand and follow "plus prevention" instructions.  That is his value to me.  Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Additional personal insights about a "formal study" and Bates 1913 study.
Bates clearly restricted his study to visual acuity of from 20/30 to about 20/70.  He also claimed success from that level.  But he did not have these people "intellectually" involved, nor did he identify those who would have extreme motivation to achieve success.  If there is ever to be a truly "open" preventive study, it must involve a person with great motivation (for starters) -- as well as the maturity to take personal responsiblity to 1) Establish his Snellen, as well as his 2) Refractive status.  For great motivation, I mean a would-be pilot who truly must get his refractive status in the "postive" range, and that mean Snellen clearing to 20/20.  I personally measure my refractive status myself -- to an accuracy of 1/4 diotper -- as an engineer.  With practice (which I expect of an engineer) I know he could do the same thing.  But the real issues is this motivation that makes it possible.  Brian Severson had the self-motivation to truly "stick" with this effort -- because he absolutly needed his refractive state postive, and his Snellen clear.  Todd followed Brian, because he knew it was necessary to "stick" with this effort -- until you "get there".  But a lot of people quit -- because that use of the(preventive) plus is indeed tedious.  After all, no one can convince you that you should continue -- if you get "tired" of wearing the plus.  So for me, this intellectual motivation as well as the physical measurements are critical to a truly scientific study.  From the long history of this "problem" -- there has been no attempt at all to face the problems as I describe them, and proceed towars a truly honest and successful prevention study.  That is why I consider Bates important in concept of a future prevention study -- not based on Bates efforts, but rather on 1) Todd's success, and 2) Current pure science that is indeed convincing.  Tragically, the "medical mind" simply blocks this concept out of existence.  Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Why don't ODs support prevention.

Re: The answer is that they do -- with their own children.  They also know that most of us simply will not accept the need for the plus when we are at 20/40 to 20/60.

Here are some remarks of an OD who is FIGHTING his fellow ODs (profession) for the right to practice plus-prevention.  I only wish there were more "truth telling" ODs in this world.  I know I wish I had their support.  Here is the discussion for your interest.


http://www.chinamyopia.org/special/feelbackfromotis.htm

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject: About Todd and his success with getting his distant vision back to normal.
There is a great deal of "pure science" that says that he was successful.  The recommendation of a few doctors certainly confirms that success.  But remember, the OD is taught how to "react" to you -- and I mean the minus is "pure reaction".  After all what would YOU DO, if you are sitting in an office and a kid comes in and can only read the 20/50 line?  Give the kid a "lecture"??  Or just put a minus lens in front of his face -- until he can read the 20/20 line through that lens?  I think I know EXACTLY what you would do.  But that is PRIMITIVE.  Now I can (and should) teach you how to obtain that minus lens yourself -- so you can do that yourself.  That would bring the issue full-circle.  The OD has a business to run, for Pete's sake.  He can not be concerned with your long-term visual future.  Why do you think he would, or could be?  That is why I am not particularly critical of some of these ODs.  I just take the entire situation is profoundly tragic.  Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:   Why I honor Bates -- and some misconceptions he had.
Re:  Todd you are correct here.  For me the issue is what a "wise" optometrist insists his own children do.

Todd> These statements (by Bates) are in complete opposition to IRDT theory of the "dynamic" eye, which has been confirmed by observations, and by the videos you show of children with their noses buried in books who go on to become myopes.

Otis> That is exactly the issue.  I deal with a great "mass" of natural eyes -- not one single eye.  When a child puts his nose ON THE BOOK for hours on end, weeks, months, YEARS, you "wonder" if the natural eye will change its refractive STATE from plus to minus.  (A negative state will have blur-at-distance.)  This is completely expected by the IRDT theory (stated in various forms).  I was looking for the objective facts and science -- from the primate eye -- the proves this -- for a mass of natural eyes.  This concept shows that it would be very wise to start prevention before your Snellen goes below 20/40 to 20/50.

Todd>  How do you square Bates' statements above with what we know today about the progression of myopia?

Otis>  I don't.  But I do admire a man who will throw himself into a study and attempt prevention.  The massive Eskimo data, as well as the "best of" bifocal studies show how critical it is that A PERSON UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES.  I post this information under "discussions", and do not necessarily "fault" an OD with his knee-jerk response of the minus lens.  But I do understand it.

Todd>  Furthermore his statement that myopia is caused by "an effort to see distant objects" is altogether the most baffling of his statements. 

Otis> To me also!!  That is where objective science comes it.  If you want to see the eye "go down", just examine the refractive state of monkeys in cages.  Almost all of them develop a negative state if kept there for seven years.  This is natural eye behavior, not "cause of defect".  The ODs tell me that the natural human eye does not "behave that way" -- with no justification for their statement.

Todd>  In fact, a large part my own successful myopia reversal was brought about by viewing distant objects and by the use of plus lenses.

Otis> I agree!  But most people seem to have a very difficult problem relating to scientific truth, and instituting the use of the plus when they are at 20/40 to 20/60.  I understand that issue, but it must be the person who understands the proven behavior of the natural eye -- to truly commit to the long-term use of the plus -- in my opinion.

Todd> And what are plus lenses, but devices that put your eyes into a refractive state equivalent to viewing distant objects when you are in fact viewing close up objects?"

Otis> Both of us are engineers.  We tend to look for an engineering/scientific solution.  I looked for ODs who figured it out.  But very few people can truly "think through" these issues, and truly commit to wearing the plus.  This is obviously why I created a number of short videos to show how this problem develops in our modern society.  The situation has gotten profoundly worse over the last 100 years because 1) It is so easy to put a minus on an ignorant person in an office, 2) The massive arrogance of the ODs who ignore all science of the primate eye and 3)  The tendency of all of us to love the "easy way", and ignore the "hard way" of taking control an wearing the plus when we are at 20/40.

Otis> It was my goal to begin a process of reason, logic and science, and update my knowledge of these issues.  It was my thought to verify the "objectors" to the minus lens, and that stated with Bates.  He motivations were "pure" but his methods did not work.  But I consider medicine to be "isolated" now in their office, and they cling to the minus lens with an arrogance that is extreme.  This is why you, following Severson's success, were also successful.  The fundamental eye is indeed not what is taught in optometry school.  It is what science (of the primate eye) tells it that it is.

Otis> But just try to submit a paper to, "Journal of Physiological Optics", and see what happens.  Never going to happen. 

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  Plus prevention advocacy by a doctor.

Here is a discussion about the need for the plus -- before you start wearing a strong minus lens.

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/nomyopia.htm

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  As a doctor, it is always good to listen to BOTH opinions.

What your "local doctor" was taught and believes.  This is the commentary I received from a doctor on preventing myopia.

First video — What is a negative refractive state of the natural eye — in objective science?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDTbtpfpac&feature=related

Second — "Does wearing a minus lens (intended to "fix" your distant vision) only accelerate the natural eye's response to both long-term near, compounded by a strong minus lens?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7Ve28jfO7Y&feature=related

I guess that if you are a doctor, then telling the public "something easy", if far better than getting them "concerned" about the effect of a strong minus they are about to receive.

After all, the minus creates extremely sharp vision "instantly" why would anyone challenge, "accepted knowledge" and argue that the plus would be far, far, better, even though takes a wise forceful man to use it correctly and, in time, successfully.

I therefore post what a second-opinion ophthalmologist has to say about the above "attitude" -- that you can not avoid entry into myopia with a plus lens. Note the "Tank" in the picture is the "bland, assuring attitude" that will not permit publication of the possibility that this "self assurance" simply opens the door to making the situation profoundly worse. 

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/nomyopia.htm

I don't like giving the "bland old doc" a hard time -- but I don't line my vision permanently destroyed  by a minus lens either.

Otis


Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject: This was one of my "early" questions I had about ODs.  It becomes clear why and OD can not "prescribe prevention".

Re: What indeed is the truth about the dynamic natural eye with positive and
negative refractive states?


Question> If you really believe the whole glasses industry is a scam and that by
doing the eye exercise you'd never need glasses, how do you explain that so many
Optometrists/ Doctors and their children wear glasses?! Are they hiding the
'TRUTH' from their families as well?

Otis> This was one of the most "troubling" questions for me. This is why I
finally arrived at Raphaelson's home.

Otis> The minus works "instantly" on everyone -- off the street -- no question
about that issue and no questions asked.

Otis> Most OD feel it is not "worth the fight" to engage the public in "plus
prevention" -- since the public would fights against it. There is always the
"legal" issue of practicing "none standard" optometry. You could get charged
with fraud if you attempted to practice the wearing of the plus, when the child
could pass the 20/30 line, and di not seem to "need glasses".

Otis> However, there are some ODs who eventually "wake up", insist that THEIR
OWN CHILDREN always wear the plus, before their child's Snellen goes below
20/40.

Otis> That works – for their children. They are not really in business to help
you, however. But the issue is then, will the parent's figure this out, and if
so, when?

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

I think the "deeper truth" is that the plus can be effective up to about 20/40 to 20/60.  But, it is clear that the OD or MD "treats" his own children to a minus.

The fact that that idea as serious and truly bad "secondary effect" -- never enters his mind.

You can ask the question, if your child asks for bread, would you given him a stone?  I think, for an OD, the child gets the "stone".

The "bread" being knowledge and prevention with the plus.

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Even Johann Kepler in 1610 recognized that "negative status" for his natural eyes -- was totally self-induced.  Further, no truly significant prevention effort has been even contemplated in the subsequent 400 years.  The medical profession with their "easy" minus, simply can not face this scientific fact.  Can you?

NPR Report> Think of this as a kind of medical detective story. Start with this: The percentage of Americans who are nearsighted has gone way up in 30 years.

NPR> That's according to a study published last month in the Archives of Ophthalmology. Susan Vitale, an epidemiologist at the National Eye Institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, and her co-authors looked at a national survey that gave vision tests to Americans in the early 1970s. It was then repeated with a similar group of people 30 years later. "The prevalence of myopia, or nearsightedness, in people age 12 to 54 went from 25 percent to 41.6 percent," explains Vitale. "So that's about a 66 percent increase."

Near-Work Is A Prime Suspect

Near-work has been a suspect for hundreds of years. Even Johannes Kepler, the German astronomer and mathematician who came up with modern ideas for the lenses that correct nearsightedness, blamed his own fuzzy eyesight on all the reading he did.

"Kepler wrote about it, about 400 years ago, that he thought his nearsightedness was due to his intense study of astronomical tables and so forth," says Dr. Don Mutti, of the College of Optometry at the Ohio State University.

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

I would add that, for "Medicine", that "kicking the can down the road" -- is the ONLY THING THAT THEY DO.  They always attack more reasonable people (engineers, pilots) if they suggest that prevention, would be wise.  They consider anyone who is not "medical" to be un-qualified to make preventive suggestions, or to use a plus on themselves to keep their Snellen clear.  What is wrong with us?

[OtisBrown]

Subject: The "killer" of vision -- is the child himself.

Re" From the primate studies it is very clear that our normal eye
"adapt"  to long-term near, by changing their status in a negative direction.
The rate is established at 0.8 diopters per year for 7 year-olds
In 1975, the Young study established the rate at -0.7 diopters per
year.

Here is the report -- of the natural response to long-term near.

http://www.iovs.org/content/46/1/51.short

[OtisBrown]

Subject: The MEDICAL / OPHTHALMOLOGIST Recommendation.

Here is a email sent to me today -- by Dr. Kaisu and Vesa.  She strongly recommends the wise use of the plus as she states.
++++++

Dear Otis,

Kaisu asked me to translate (from finnish) and forward the following sentence to you, as she feels it absolutely bears repeating. Once again:

Kaisu> my main thesis regarding the prevention of myopia, is to start the prevention with plus glasses (in close work) beforehand, before there is any sight of minus and myopia at all!
Kind regards,
Vesa Salonen

Tampere, Finland

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/nomyopia.htm


+++++++
It is very important to understand this issue.  Prevention with the plus is the wise second-opinion.  It is obvious, that this doctor would ALWAYS recommend that you never wear a minus lens (consistent with passing the required DMV line of 20/40 -- about -3/4 diopters).  If this were always done, with understanding a purpose by the person himself, a person could prevent nearsightedness in himself -- under his control.
Otis