Getting Stronger: Discussion Forum

Discussion Topics => Rehabilitation => Topic started by: OtisBrown on May 20, 2011, 07:57:06 AM

Title: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on May 20, 2011, 07:57:06 AM
Subject:  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.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Todd Becker on May 20, 2011, 08:47:04 AM
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.

Quote
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

Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: shadowfoot on May 20, 2011, 09:09:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Alex_Myopic on August 29, 2013, 01:33:58 PM
Hi, this is my first post here and I'd like to thank Mr Otis Brown for recommending me this forum. I use Bates method and plus lenses together. I have managed to see 20/20 with myopic lenses of -1,25D (left and right) in two months starting with L:-2 R:-2.25. In the last month I have managed 20/30 with my subcorrected -0.75D lenses. However I started the plus lenses 2 years ago before I did subcorrection and the day I learned how to do the Snellen test I learned that I have managed to become overprescribed since I had 20/15 at the Snellen chart.

I'd like to make a point in the following text that Bates may had in fact analyzed that the plus lenses can turn a myopic eye into an emmetropic, and that analysis decades before Young's plus lenses research.

First a small excerpt from http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/ (http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/)

"Furthermore his (Bates) 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."

But when I read this from Bates I immediately thought of plus lenses therapy.
This topic (THE CAUSE AND REVERSIBILITY OF ERRORS OF REFRACTION) Bates engaged in Chapter IX of Perfect Sight Without Glasses, excerpted below:

In an eye with previously normal vision,
a strain to see near objects always results
in the temporary production of hypermetropia
in one or all meridians. That is, the
eye either becomes entirely hypermetropic,
or some form of astigmatism is produced
of which hypermetropia forms a part. In
the hypermetropic eye the hypermetropia
is increased in one or all meridians. When
the myopic eye strains to see a near object,
the myopia is lessened and emmetropia
may be produced
, the eye being focused
for parallel rays while still trying to see at
the near point. In some cases the
emmetropia may even pass over into
hypermetropia in one or all meridians. All
these changes are accompanied by evidences
of increasing strain, in the form of
eccentric fixation (see Chapter XI) and
lowered vision; but, strange to say, pain and
fatigue are usually relieved to a marked
degree.




 
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Todd Becker on August 29, 2013, 04:57:29 PM
Welcome to the Forum, Alex.

The passage you excerpted from Bates is consistent with his other statement that I had commented on and - I think -- is equally mistaken.  Bates had the idea that attempts to focus objects beyond the far point of focus tend to increase myopia.  My experience (and logic) tell me that such efforts tend to reduce myopia.

Likewise, in the passage you quote, Bates takes the position that

In an eye with previously normal vision,
a strain to see near objects always results
in the temporary production of hypermetropia

"hypermetropia" being the old-fashioned term for hyperopia or far-sightedness.

Likewise, Bates advances the corollary view that

When the myopic eye strains to see a near object,
the myopia is lessened and emmetropia
may be produced[/b], the eye being focused
for parallel rays while still trying to see at
the near point. In some cases the
emmetropia may even pass over into
hypermetropia in one or all meridians.

That would suggest we can reduce our myopia by attempting to focus inside of the near point. This is precisely the opposite of the techniques I advocate, namely:

- print pushing, in which one makes an effort to focus on print held just beyond the far point
- plus lens therapy, which assist print pushing by bringing the far point in closer to the eye, making print pushing more convenient for those with mild myopia

Accordingly, plus lenses are unnecessary for those with strong myopia, i.e. those who would otherwise wear lenses stronger than about -2 or -2.5 diopters (with the far point beyond about 16-19 inches)

I have respect for Dr. Bates' interest in fostering natural vision without eyeglasses.  I just find the above explanations to be inconsistent with everything else I know.

Perhaps you can resolve the paradox or point out where I have gone wrong in my interpretation or understanding?

Todd
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Hillyman on August 29, 2013, 09:37:40 PM
Todd

Thank you for this posting. I could not make heads or tails of the Bates quote.  You pointed out just where the points of inconsistencies are with the current thinking seen (I think) in this forum and sites such as the Frauenfeld Clinic.

Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Alex_Myopic on August 30, 2013, 08:21:35 AM
Todd

Quote
Perhaps you can resolve the paradox or point out where I have gone wrong in my interpretation or understanding?"

"That would suggest we can reduce our myopia by attempting to focus inside of the near point. This is precisely the opposite of the techniques I advocate, namely:

- print pushing, in which one makes an effort to focus on print held just beyond the far point
- plus lens therapy, which assist print pushing by bringing the far point in closer to the eye, making print pushing more convenient for those with mild myopia

Sorry for quoting too many. Generally Bates wrote that straining to see is harmful but in the above excerpt the strain in close distance can turn a myopic eye into an emmetropic (and if this is continued for long time I suppose we have the permanent effect of plus lenses prevention and therapy). Bates referred to "near point" because of the close distance and not in relation to how blurry we see it which I think you suggest by using the terms "near point" and "beyond far point".
Also in plus lenses therapy we have the myopic effect at close distance (=near point) so the eye tries to accommodate (and shorten in long term) in order to make the converging image (rays) due to plus lenses in front of the retina, more parallel-like in order to be formed exactly onto the retina.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf)

And this is what Bates said:
"...the eye being focused
for parallel rays while still trying to see at
the near point. "


My rate of treating myopia has been increased since I have been using my old pair of +1D to read my computer screen which I had it about 70cm away from my eyes. So now I see my monitor from 50cm and with some blur from plus lenses instead of using it at 70cm.
For reading I have a +1,5D

Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Alex_Myopic on August 31, 2013, 04:17:32 AM
Thanks for your reply Mr Otis.

I had a book about research in chickens which developed myopia just because they were confined. The chickens which were allowed just one day per week to live outside, had much less myopia.
I have also read that even though oblique muscles doesn't do the active focus, when we see near object there is a force put on the eyeball tending to elongate it.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on December 21, 2013, 06:00:06 PM
Hi Alex,

Subject:  What Dr. Bates' efforts successful.

Question: Who the hell will judge success?

++++++

Records were made with the same card or with an unfamiliar card for testing the vision. This matter is discussed below. Each line of the Snellen card is designated by a number which indicates the feet that the line should be read by the normal eye. Records of the vision are written in the form of a fraction: The numerator of the fraction represents the distance in feet of the pupil from the card while the denominator denotes the number which designates the lowest line read. Records were usually submitted as follows:

TEACHERS:  Public School No. 46, W. A. Boylan, principal.
E. 6A., J. Hiesel. T., 27
D., 27
I., 27
N., 25

STUDENTS:

 February, 1913. April, 1913. June, 1913.
 R. L. R. L. R. L.

John D. ...... 20/100 20/50 20/50 20/40 20/20 20/20
Sanford G. ... 20/50 27/70 20/30 20/40 20/15 20/20

++++++

It is often stated that we should have a "repeatable" study.  But to this very day - no one has even CONSIDERED conducting any such study.

In my opinion, I would have each person measure his refractive STATUS himself - using the classical "trial lens and Snellen".

I do it myself.  Yes, it does take strong desire, insults and resolve.  But engineers tend to be able to make that type of commitment.

I do not care if these people "stood on their head", or bayed at the Moon.  What I do care about it that they technically knew how to make their own measurements - themselves.

It is this "attitude" that is blocked in all studies.  They feel that all people are incompetent, or in any event, do not have the desire or motivation to actually read and record their own Snellen.

This is a question of leadership, more than anything else.



Thanks for your reply Mr Otis.

I had a book about research in chickens which developed myopia just because they were confined. The chickens which were allowed just one day per week to live outside, had much less myopia.
I have also read that even though oblique muscles doesn't do the active focus, when we see near object there is a force put on the eyeball tending to elongate it.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on December 22, 2013, 09:29:56 AM
Subject: Why statistics (developed after Bates' study) are VERY IMPORTANT.

Item:  I am often criticized because I will never say, "cure", and I will agree that Dr. Bates report of success (see above) is both correct and accurate.

Issue:  If I were going to conduct a "pure prevention" study, I would have each person read Dr. Bates statistics, as well as these statistics (assuming each person has a life-time career goal of going from 20/50 to 20/20).

+++++

No one can “perfectly” summaries statistics. But what we know now, is that the natural eye is very responsive to “long-term near work”. This is NOT the eye “becoming defective”. It is just a natural process.
 When a plus was used (in a bifocal) here are the results. The plus did not go down. The rest of the children were given a strong minus – which they wore all the time.

Age 6, -0.7 Diopters per year.
 Age 7, -0.7
 Age 8, -0.7
 Age 9, -0.56
 Age 10, -0.54
 Age 11, -0.37
 Age 12, -0.43
 Age 13, -0.40
 Age 14, -0.40
 Age 15, -0.42
 Age 16, -0.44
 Age 17, -0.47

These statistics are proven beyond any reasonable doubt. They suggest that is would be wise to start wearing the plus, before your refractive status goes below -1.0 diopters and about 20/40.

++++++

Much like Dr. Bates study - this study also suggests that prevention is possible.  But this data, suggests that you must necessarily start with true-prevention, BEFORE you ever start wearing a minus lens.  That issue does require an understanding of the above statistics.  I know that most people REFUSE to look at these statistics, for reasons that I will never understand.



Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on January 13, 2014, 06:38:25 AM
Dr. Bates was indeed the true leader of prevention (but not "cure").

Dr. Bates STARTED my interest in preventive research.  Some of his ideas might have been "wrong", but the concept of staring a prevention study or effort - with highly motivated people, at 20/40, is always the right idea.

Whether you wish to say, "exercise-prevention", or "plus-prevention" is totally up to you.

What Dr. Bates did not know, is that when you put  your nose on the book (for years) your refraction goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  (This truth was not known when Dr. Bates conducted his successful study.  It is crucial for any future study that would involve the person who is interested in true-prevention.)

Even Dr. Bates defined "permanent myopia", to be any vision less than 20/160.

It is true that even if you weigh 500 pounds, you can lose weight.  So, yes, you can lose 300 pounds if you wish.  But you will find few people have that interest - so they will stay at 500 pounds.

In that sense, there is no "permanent myopia".  But, just as it makes sense to AVOID putting on 300 pounds, it also makes sense for you to prevent your Snellen from going below 20/40 (or about -1.5 diopters).

It is not the job of an OD or MD to prescribe "weight prevention".  In the same way, it is not the job of an OD to prescribe "vision protection".  He just assumes that is your job.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: CapitalPrince on January 13, 2014, 04:43:04 PM
does "no permanent" myopia mean even if a person has worn glasses for a very long time and has high myopia ( say -6D). if he is put in an open environment for 16 hours a day and does absolutely no close work, his refractive state will (very very slowly) move in a positive direction? Would standing outside looking in the distance (passitvely)also reduce his axial myopia?
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on January 13, 2014, 05:00:01 PM
Hi Sam,

Subject: Would you make yourself -6 diopters myopic - to run this experiment?

Item: I certainly would not.  If I knew I could reverse it, while still at 20/40 (and -1 diopter) you can bet everything you have that I would be wearing a plus lens for all close work, until I got back to emmetropia (refractive state = self-measured 0.0 diopters, and 20/20).

But to answer you hypothetical question:

1) We know that the natural eye will "move positive" at rate of +1/2 diopter per year (with no "near work").  Thus, it would take about 12 years of "open" environment, to gradually get back to 0.0 diopters.

2) Here is the documentation for that possibility:

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/od-success/

Tragically, most ODs will not tell you about this problem of the natural eye's adaptiveness to long-term near - even though it is proven science.  The result is of course a strong minus, which creates even more adaptiveness, and eventually -6 diopters of myopia.




does "no permanent" myopia mean even if a person has worn glasses for a very long time and has high myopia ( say -6D). if he is put in an open environment for 16 hours a day and does absolutely no close work, his refractive state will (very very slowly) move in a positive direction? Would standing outside looking in the distance (passitvely)also reduce his axial myopia?
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: CapitalPrince on January 13, 2014, 05:10:13 PM
thanks for the answer to the hypothetical question otis. I always wondered about this senario. It's cool to know that the eyes can go back to 0D very very slowly when placed in an open environment, even when nothing else is done.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: NickGrouwen on January 13, 2014, 11:35:15 PM
dr bates was a great man and undoubtedly helped a lot of people in his time. compared to what most of us have to deal with today (axial myopia) back then it was psuedomyopia that was more prevalent (although, unbeknown to himself, he also had some exercises that countered axial myopia such as reading fine print and working with the snellen), so his method that focused on relaxation saved many people from unnecessarily living a life bound to ever worsening eyesight caused by the minus lens. i find some of the anecdotes provided in his literature a bit hard to believe but most likely he worked with thousands of people and only picked the craziest stories to publish ;D like the nearly blind guy who palmed for a whole day or two (i forgot exactly how long) and came back to dr bates' office with clear eyesight, no more headaches, cataracts gone, etc.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on January 17, 2014, 09:38:35 AM
Hi Nick,

Dr. Bates did make one insightful statement:

"You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired.  We can also say that neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts, can you convince some people that an opinion which they have accepted on authority is wrong." -- William Bates

http://www.iblindness.org/

This continues to be a problem with so-called, "medical research".  The minus lens process was NOT ESTABLISHED by "reasoning, or by actual demonstration of the fact", it was established by the concept of "crude quick-fixing", with little that is science to support it.

I would add this statement about why you can not "reason" with a "medical authority".

"I know that most men …  can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very fabric of their lives." -- Leo Tolstoy

The  minus is a "bad solution", but it is the only solution for 99.99 percent of the population at this time.

Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: CapitalPrince on January 17, 2014, 10:19:32 AM
When i palm for as short as a minutes, I can sometimes see 20/20-20./15 for a few minutes, then it slowly goes back.

bates also mentioned stuff like reading the snellen, shifting, central fixation, and these challenge the eyes. active focusing for long periods of time my be very benficial (like in my dad's case). but bates concept of only relaxation my not be effeective. 
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: CapitalPrince on January 31, 2014, 04:50:37 PM
however I wish i never read about bates. I was under the impression close work has no effect on the eye, so i continued to put my nose in the book and read hours without looking up.

no amount of "shifting" and "palming" could ever save me. i think he didn't realize that close work = strain, no matter if one "strains" or not.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: CapitalPrince on March 17, 2014, 08:51:02 PM
Totally ridiculous and potential "harmful" suggestions from iblindness.

<arocarty> Good question. Glad that you ask. Why did Bates claim that if you strain at near, you produced a hyperopic shift, and if you strain at far, you produce a myopic shift (in one or all meridians of the eye - as he also observed that it often produced astigmatism as well): simultaneous retinoscopy. One has to understand, first, that Bates was extraordinarily skilled at utilizing a retinoscope. Probably better than any ophthalmologist in the history of the instrument. This gave him the ability to detect errors of refraction, very quickly, in a very objective manner, even when a patient was unaware of one being present. And the ability to do it under all sorts of conditions. He used it to examine hundreds of thousands of eyeballs,on babies, children, teens, adults, people who had their eye lenses removed, animals, anything that moved or breathed.

By means of this instrument, he was able to verify, in a highly objective way, many highly consistent patterns in the nature of refractive errors. When people strained or made an effort to see at the nearpoint, he invariably observed that it produced temporary hyperopia, or a hyperopic shift, and when people made an effort or strained to see at the distance, a myopic shift. Even with people from whom the eye lenses had been removed, the same principles always applied. He observed long-standing high levels of myopia disappear in seconds under certain conditions, and people who normally had remarkable vision create errors of refraction in seconds as well. He could demonstrate this to anyone, on anyone, within a few minutes. Armed with this knowledge and factual data, he separated, as we know, from conventional methods of treating refractive errors.

I can personally testify that reading fine print, is a benefit to vision. I've used my eyes for hours and hours and hours, for years and years and years, at the nearpoint, and my vision did not move in a myopic direction, quite the contrary, when I learned how to relax and release mental stain, shift and swing more freely, and fixate, thanks to fine print. It helped much with releasing astigmatism as well. I don't want to think where I might have ended up if I had continued the same straining ways.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Alex_Myopic on March 20, 2014, 10:21:36 AM
@CapitalPrince

If a myopic person did brakes from reading and did some palming he/she could benefit.
Also Bates'central fixation is mainly for looking far and when used at near it should be focused at small details.
Reading fine print at close distance without glasses can also help people developing presbyopia but Bates was overconfident of fully correcting any visual refractive (and others) problem and sometimes in just months so he didn't discriminate the myopes from this habit.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on March 28, 2014, 05:24:13 AM
Hi Alex,

Question:  Is the minus "poison".  How do you avoid used it.

A lot of my research centered on Dr. Bates and his study in 1913.  Was Bates a "fraud", or was he an honest man with a better idea?  That remains an "open question" - even today.  I has suspected that the minus was a truly "bad idea".  It is clear that Bates also thought that the "minus" should not be used, or its use should be seriously "restricted".  Bates protested the "minus" by grinding a  minus under his heel.

I can understand the OD in his shop.  He wants to make your vision incredibly SHARP.  That is fine - until you realize that some ODs state that the minus is "poison".  When you find an OD who says that -  you should listen to him.

Remember, I never "hate all doctors" who some people accuse me of doing.  What I "hate" is the ignorance that perpetuates this tragic situation.

So, assuming you wish to avoid the minus, how do  you do it.  For yourself (now close to 20/20) I think, a combination of BOTH METHODS are of greatest value to you.  I think your objective reading of your own Snellen is the key to your own success.  But I do not advocate that a person start plus-prevention, unless the person  can still read the 20/60 line (or so).  This concept is about prevention only, or "doing it yourself".  I simply refuse to make "claims" beyond the above statements.




@CapitalPrince

If a myopic person did brakes from reading and did some palming he/she could benefit.
Also Bates'central fixation is mainly for looking far and when used at near it should be focused at small details.
Reading fine print at close distance without glasses can also help people developing presbyopia but Bates was overconfident of fully correcting any visual refractive (and others) problem and sometimes in just months so he didn't discriminate the myopes from this habit.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Alex_Myopic on March 29, 2014, 04:24:36 AM
Worser than 20/60 or 20/70 I believe it's impractical to start with plus lenses. Is there a limit to the degree of improvement (in diopters) with plus lenses for example due to axial myopia or from a point and then we can have plateaus or 1/2 diopter per year after some time of improvement?
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on June 28, 2014, 06:15:47 AM
Hi Alex,

There are people who attempt to make me "pro-Bates", or "anti-Bates"  (Or pro or anti - exercise).  I am neither.

I know we do need a person to stand up and OBJECT to the minus lens (when at 20/40 to 20/50, or -1 diopter) and promote the person's intelligence and motivation.  People have used "exercise" to get back to 20/20, (refractive state  = 0.0 diopters) but that is rare.

In fact some ODs "figured out" that the eye was dynamic in its basic behavior (proven), and realized that helping the "general public" would be impossible.  So they choose to help their own children, by insisting that their children wear a plus for all  close work.  That is the real success for a parent and his child.  That is the "real truth" of this difficult situation - as we both understand it.

What I praise about Bates was his bold 1912 study - that was partially successful.  But I also support the concept of individual responsiblity of using BOTH "exercise" and the plus-for-near.  That includes the requirement that the person teach himself how to measure his refractive state himself.

By that "interactive" process, of exercise/plus, some motivated people get to legal 20/20, eventually.  But as we know from Shadowfoot, if you are at 20/20, and the minus shows you can "do better", then continued use of the plus will get you to 20/18, self-confirmed.

I think that is what Todd did - but this type of "fortitude", is in the person, and not in the optometrist.

We are posting here, to help each of us come to grips with this problem, and get back to naked-eye 20/20.

How we do it - is our own business.




Worser than 20/60 or 20/70 I believe it's impractical to start with plus lenses. Is there a limit to the degree of improvement (in diopters) with plus lenses for example due to axial myopia or from a point and then we can have plateaus or 1/2 diopter per year after some time of improvement?
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Alex_Myopic on June 28, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
@Mr Brown,

yes, by recovering to -0.5 from -2D it seems that our eyes refractive status is dynamic and not only can recover from pseydomyopia but slowly further.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on September 12, 2014, 08:35:54 AM
Hi Alex,

Subject:  Bates was not bad - but his "followers" destroy all Bates credibility.

Here is an example of this problem - by Mary Oliver - a true Bates believer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY9LqQMogX4

Mary states (with no proof at all) that, the plus "causes cataracts".  But I suggest that you be "selective" in which Bates-believer you choose to take seriously.

But above all else - listen to Todd, and others who were willing to start plus-prevention before they went below 20/50 on their Snellen.

Learn - and be wise.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Alex_Myopic on September 13, 2014, 03:51:08 AM
I have read your work (and others) about plus years ago in i-see.org and immediately I got a pair of +1D (I was -2D myopic). My vision stabilized and my night myopia lessened. I was fool not to have had the courage (and also thought of the money needed to spend) not to undercorrect and rehablitate my myopia years ago. A book about Bates gave me the final motive that minus can poison visual acuity. But only with correct and full usage of plus I had results in axial myopia and not pseudomyopia in with Bates can help.

Thomas Quackenbush is a good follower of Bates but even he believes only Bates can solve even high myopia.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on September 13, 2014, 05:33:47 AM
Hi Alex,

It was indeed Bates who convinced me that at least "threshold prevention" would be possible.  (Against, "official Helmholtz THEORY").  I believe (100 years later) that a preventive study with each person at 20/50, and self-measured -1 diopter) could succeed. 

But for now, a person must have the "spunk" to do it himself.  I do respect one visual acuity requirement.  That is that I must EXCEED the 20/40 line, or I will have to get a minus lens (myself), until I do far better than the 20/40 line.  This is what I mean when I say, objective control of your distant vision.

You now confirm 20/25 vision (about -0.25 diopters to -0.5 diopters).  On a bright Snellen you read 20/20.  That to me is wonderful vision, in that you exceed all reasonable requirements, objectively, yourself.  There is no requirement that you wear a minus lens.

I would agree that if you do not STOP, entry into myopia, at 20/50, and wear a strong minus all the time, you will rapidly develop axial myopia.  PERIOD !!

But the idea (of Bates, and Kaisu) is to stop it, at the 20/40 level, and do it yourself.  This is a high degree of responsiblity that we should expect of ourselves.

You are successful - by all reasonable measurements.

I would gladly go though life with 20/25 vision, naked eye, rather than EVER start wearing a minus lens - even if it gave me 20/15 or 20/13 vision.

That is indeed the "trade off" that some people will have in their future.

You avoid the minus - by always passing the 20/40 line - with wisdom and motivation.



I have read your work (and others) about plus years ago in i-see.org and immediately I got a pair of +1D (I was -2D myopic). My vision stabilized and my night myopia lessened. I was fool not to have had the courage (and also thought of the money needed to spend) not to undercorrect and rehablitate my myopia years ago. A book about Bates gave me the final motive that minus can poison visual acuity. But only with correct and full usage of plus I had results in axial myopia and not pseudomyopia in with Bates can help.

Thomas Quackenbush is a good follower of Bates but even he believes only Bates can solve even high myopia.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: Alex_Myopic on September 14, 2014, 02:38:28 AM
I would gladly go though life with 20/25 vision, naked eye, rather than EVER start wearing a minus lens - even if it gave me 20/15 or 20/13 vision.

I agree on that. I hope I get to 20/20 and then not wear glasses except at night. My glasses are only -0,25D now and they help me mostly in the at night.
Title: Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
Post by: OtisBrown on June 30, 2015, 08:43:01 PM
Hi Alex,

I post this to review Todd's comments and his success with the plus, and "pushing print".  This was published four years ago.

Even Bates "cut off" the discussion at around 20/40 to 20/60.  After 100 years, and a great deal
of pure scientific research, preventing  "negative status" is possible.

Bates>  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.

This is an accurate statement - which has not changed in 100 years.   it is a warning.  Bates is not fraudlent in this statement, because it is accurate science.

But his followers, in promoting, "cure everything", or "get out of -10 diopters", are making a fraudlent statement of an expected cure.

Bates clearly excluded that from ever being possible.  That is indeed an honest and accurate statement.

+++++
I would gladly go though life with 20/25 vision, naked eye, rather than EVER start wearing a minus lens - even if it gave me 20/15 or 20/13 vision.

I agree on that. I hope I get to 20/20 and then not wear glasses except at night. My glasses are only -0,25D now and they help me mostly in the at night.