Human vision, Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years

Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years

Author	Message
seba #1 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Hi everybody. I started practicing Bates Method 2 years ago, with a myopic defect of -3.00 and -3.25. I actually can have voluntary flashes of clear vision (blinking). During these flashes I can read very well: 10/10 if light is good (outdoor sunlight). The problems are: P1. the flashes last only a few seconds, and usually disappears if I blink P2. in low light it's practically impossible to have flashes P3. even if during the flash I can see well, the image is still often doubled (or multiple). Basically during flashes I can see multiple focused images. I have been thinking for months that these were only temporary effects, but after so many months I'm quite tired. That's why I started to make some research (I don't understand why I had't started before...) in order to clear some points. Here my questions: Q1. There is anyone who could succeed in resolving problems P1,P2,P3? In other words to cure completely his/her sight. Q2. I went yesterday to the optician and had an objective measurement of my eyesight: -2.50 and -2.50. How can I see 10/10 during a flash if my error of refraction is so big? I started reading articles, and I found a study of 1952 by Elwin Marg "flashes of clear vision and negative accomodation with reference to the bates method of visual training" stating that even if the refraction error is not changed by training, the VA improves of many lines. This is exactly what I experienced. So I am now trying to figure out what a flash is, and in particular if it can be hold for a long period (that's why I ascked Q1). These are my three hypothesis: H1: "Bates theory of accommodation was right, the method works: and it is just a matter of practice. With practice I'll be able to hold flashes." What makes me uncertain about this hyp. is that I started to read literature about Bates. I found out that Bates theory is stated as the truth by the authority. Every time there was an inconsistence between Bates theory and facts observed by other scientists, Bates or Bates followers cited Bates book. Which basically means that he was the only person who observed his reality... On the other hand, after two years of practice, I improved my acuity, so Bates had to know something. See next hypothesis. H2: "Bates theory of accommodation was wrong, but the method works". As in the literature I found that the ciliary muscle is the "thing" that generates accommodation, and also Bates said that what was important are the facts, not the theory, I think that it is possible that it is really this the truth. Still, exercises of relaxation proposed by Bates can relax the autonomous part of the nerve system and let the muscle being controlled properly and accommodate in the right way. In this scenario I still consider myopia as a functional problem. The only difference between H2 and H1 is what is the real factor in accommodation. H3: "Myopia is not functional: depends on the shape of eye/lens and can't be improved with training". This is the classical orthodox theory. Many studies make me feel that this theory is right: in particular the one by Elwin Marg 1952 and also many studies on biofeedback (Gallaway) explains my flashes of clear view in terms of improved VA due to the training. Refractive error according to these studies is not changed. It all seem consistent: my VA was improved by the training and made me able to "interpret better" the blur and read more lines. Regarding flashes, they could just be due to tear film that acts as lens. These flashes are also stronger during the day because of size of the pupil and Depth of Field in different light conditions. The feeling of rest and relaxation can be explained as result of auto suggestion: basically one can convince himself that will see well when will be relaxed, and what really happen is that, due to improved ability to interpret blur, tear film lens, big depth of field because of strong light condition, that person sees better and "triggers" the "feeling of being relaxed" as previously auto programmed (see also NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming). This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my improvement from -3.25 to -2.50. I'd like that everybody that has any suggestion for me, material, or personal experience help me to understand which one of the hypothesis is closer to the truth. I think I improved a lot, but if I don't discover what a flash is, I really can't find the strength to go on with the treatment, and neither to stop without feeling guilty. The truth will free me, I don't really care if it will be that Visual Training can heal your sight or not. I am right now in New York until 30th June. Then I'll be in Italy. I am available also to travel to meet people who obtained a good improvement (permanent 10/10 even in low light condition) or to see people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work. Thank you to everybody. Sebastiano
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:14:26 GMT

John Sherid #2 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years I just want to make a couple of quick points... Quote: >[...]On the other hand, after >two years of practice, I improved my acuity, so Bates had to know >something. Not necessarily. Acuity does not always stay constant for everyone. As has been said here many times by doctors who know, some people find that their acuity improves with time, and others get worse. Your change probably would have happened anyway whether you practiced Bates or not. Quote: >[...]or to see >people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Suppose every swan that you ever see is white. Does this prove that there is no such thing as a black swan? No, you can never say that. All you can say is that every swan you have seen is white. When an idea is put forward, the proponents of the idea must prove that it is valid. It is not our responsibility to prove that the idea is invalid.
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:44:54 GMT

Mike Tyne #3 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Quote: > This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my > improvement from -3.25 to -2.50. Why does it needs explanation? Many {filter}s experience the same change without any effort or even knowledge of Bates. It happens to farsighted people too, but it makes them _worse._ -MT
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:29:13 GMT

otisbr.. #4 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Sear Sebastiano, Congratulations on obtaining 10/10 (20/20) vision (even if short duration). This is not the group to support further clearing work by you. Why not join this group for further discussion of your success (with some problems)? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/ Enjoy, Quote: > Hi everybody. > I started practicing Bates Method 2 years ago, with a myopic defect of > -3.00 and -3.25. I actually can have voluntary flashes of clear vision > (blinking). During these flashes I can read very well: 10/10 if light > is good (outdoor sunlight). > The problems are: > P1. the flashes last only a few seconds, and usually disappears if I > blink > P2. in low light it's practically impossible to have flashes > P3. even if during the flash I can see well, the image is still often > doubled (or multiple). Basically during flashes I can see multiple > focused images. > I have been thinking for months that these were only temporary > effects, but after so many months I'm quite tired. That's why I > started to make some research (I don't understand why I had't started > before...) in order to clear some points. Here my questions: > Q1. There is anyone who could succeed in resolving problems P1,P2,P3? > In other words to cure completely his/her sight. > Q2. I went yesterday to the optician and had an objective measurement > of my eyesight: -2.50 and -2.50. How can I see 10/10 during a flash if > my error of refraction is so big? > I started reading articles, and I found a study of 1952 by Elwin Marg > "flashes of clear vision and negative accomodation with reference to > the bates method of visual training" stating that even if the > refraction error is not changed by training, the VA improves of many > lines. This is exactly what I experienced. > So I am now trying to figure out what a flash is, and in particular if > it can be hold for a long period (that's why I ascked Q1). These are > my three hypothesis: > H1: "Bates theory of accommodation was right, the method works: and it > is just a matter of practice. With practice I'll be able to hold > flashes." What makes me uncertain about this hyp. is that I started to > read literature about Bates. I found out that ?Bates theory is stated > as the truth by the authority. Every time there was an inconsistence > between Bates theory and facts observed by other scientists, Bates or > Bates followers cited Bates book. Which basically means that he was > the only person who observed his reality... On the other hand, after > two years of practice, I improved my acuity, so Bates had to know > something. See next hypothesis. > H2: "Bates theory of accommodation was wrong, but the method works". > As in the literature I found that the ciliary muscle is the "thing" > that generates accommodation, and also Bates said that what was > important are the facts, not the theory, I think that it is possible > that it is really this the truth. Still, exercises of relaxation > proposed by Bates can relax the autonomous part of the nerve system > and let the muscle being controlled properly and accommodate in the > right way. In this scenario I still consider myopia as a functional > problem. The only difference between H2 and H1 is what is the real > factor in accommodation. > H3: "Myopia is not functional: depends on the shape of eye/lens and > can't be improved with training". This is the classical orthodox > theory. Many studies make me feel that this theory is right: in > particular the one by Elwin Marg 1952 and also many studies on > biofeedback (Gallaway) explains my flashes of clear view in terms of > improved VA due to the training. Refractive error according to these > studies is not changed. It all seem consistent: my VA was improved by > the training and made me able to "interpret better" the blur and read > more lines. Regarding flashes, they could just be due to tear film > that acts as lens. These flashes are also stronger during the day > because of size of the pupil and Depth of Field in different light > conditions. The feeling of rest and relaxation can be explained as > result of auto suggestion: basically one can convince himself that > will see well when will be relaxed, and what really happen is that, > due to improved ability to interpret blur, tear film lens, big depth > of field because of strong light condition, that person sees better > and "triggers" the "feeling of being relaxed" as previously auto > programmed (see also NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming). > This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my > improvement from -3.25 to -2.50. > I'd like that everybody that has any suggestion for me, material, or > personal experience help me to understand which one of the hypothesis > is closer to the truth. > I think I improved a lot, but if I don't discover what a flash is, I > really can't find the strength to go on with the treatment, and > neither to stop without feeling guilty. > The truth will free me, I don't really care if it will be that Visual > Training can heal your sight or not. > I am right now in New York until 30th June. Then I'll be in Italy. I > am available also to travel to meet people who obtained a good > improvement (permanent 10/10 even in low light condition) or to see > people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work. > Thank you to everybody. > ? ?Sebastiano
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:14:52 GMT

otisbr.. #5 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Dear Sebastiano, It will not be a "3rd party" that convinces you that you are seeing 10/10. It will be you who does that. As you might know, the DMV Standard for driving a car is 20/40 (10/20) -- and in some states 20/50 and even 20/60. Yes, we all want 10/10 vision all the time. But I am curious -- what is your AVERAGE visual acuity? Is it 20/40 or 20/50? In daylight? In room illumination? Do you wear your -2.5 diopters all the time? Or only when you drive a car? There are many people, who if they read 10/10 in spurts, and passed the DMV 20/40 line -- would be very pleased with their results. But that also must be a matter of your judgment. No 3rd party can resolve these issues for you. Congratulations on your (temporary) success. Enjoy, Quote: > Hi everybody. > I started practicing Bates Method 2 years ago, with a myopic defect of > -3.00 and -3.25. I actually can have voluntary flashes of clear vision > (blinking). During these flashes I can read very well: 10/10 if light > is good (outdoor sunlight). > The problems are: > P1. the flashes last only a few seconds, and usually disappears if I > blink > P2. in low light it's practically impossible to have flashes > P3. even if during the flash I can see well, the image is still often > doubled (or multiple). Basically during flashes I can see multiple > focused images. > I have been thinking for months that these were only temporary > effects, but after so many months I'm quite tired. That's why I > started to make some research (I don't understand why I had't started > before...) in order to clear some points. Here my questions: > Q1. There is anyone who could succeed in resolving problems P1,P2,P3? > In other words to cure completely his/her sight. > Q2. I went yesterday to the optician and had an objective measurement > of my eyesight: -2.50 and -2.50. How can I see 10/10 during a flash if > my error of refraction is so big? > I started reading articles, and I found a study of 1952 by Elwin Marg > "flashes of clear vision and negative accomodation with reference to > the bates method of visual training" stating that even if the > refraction error is not changed by training, the VA improves of many > lines. This is exactly what I experienced. > So I am now trying to figure out what a flash is, and in particular if > it can be hold for a long period (that's why I ascked Q1). These are > my three hypothesis: > H1: "Bates theory of accommodation was right, the method works: and it > is just a matter of practice. With practice I'll be able to hold > flashes." What makes me uncertain about this hyp. is that I started to > read literature about Bates. I found out that ?Bates theory is stated > as the truth by the authority. Every time there was an inconsistence > between Bates theory and facts observed by other scientists, Bates or > Bates followers cited Bates book. Which basically means that he was > the only person who observed his reality... On the other hand, after > two years of practice, I improved my acuity, so Bates had to know > something. See next hypothesis. > H2: "Bates theory of accommodation was wrong, but the method works". > As in the literature I found that the ciliary muscle is the "thing" > that generates accommodation, and also Bates said that what was > important are the facts, not the theory, I think that it is possible > that it is really this the truth. Still, exercises of relaxation > proposed by Bates can relax the autonomous part of the nerve system > and let the muscle being controlled properly and accommodate in the > right way. In this scenario I still consider myopia as a functional > problem. The only difference between H2 and H1 is what is the real > factor in accommodation. > H3: "Myopia is not functional: depends on the shape of eye/lens and > can't be improved with training". This is the classical orthodox > theory. Many studies make me feel that this theory is right: in > particular the one by Elwin Marg 1952 and also many studies on > biofeedback (Gallaway) explains my flashes of clear view in terms of > improved VA due to the training. Refractive error according to these > studies is not changed. It all seem consistent: my VA was improved by > the training and made me able to "interpret better" the blur and read > more lines. Regarding flashes, they could just be due to tear film > that acts as lens. These flashes are also stronger during the day > because of size of the pupil and Depth of Field in different light > conditions. The feeling of rest and relaxation can be explained as > result of auto suggestion: basically one can convince himself that > will see well when will be relaxed, and what really happen is that, > due to improved ability to interpret blur, tear film lens, big depth > of field because of strong light condition, that person sees better > and "triggers" the "feeling of being relaxed" as previously auto > programmed (see also NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming). > This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my > improvement from -3.25 to -2.50. > I'd like that everybody that has any suggestion for me, material, or > personal experience help me to understand which one of the hypothesis > is closer to the truth. > I think I improved a lot, but if I don't discover what a flash is, I > really can't find the strength to go on with the treatment, and > neither to stop without feeling guilty. > The truth will free me, I don't really care if it will be that Visual > Training can heal your sight or not. > I am right now in New York until 30th June. Then I'll be in Italy. I > am available also to travel to meet people who obtained a good > improvement (permanent 10/10 even in low light condition) or to see > people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work. > Thank you to everybody. > ? ?Sebastiano
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:39:32 GMT

Zets #6 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years If you are going to Italy, FIND A MAN CALLED RISHI GIOVANNI GATTI lol
Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:41:30 GMT

Dan Abe #7 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years In article Quote: > Hi everybody. > I started practicing Bates Method 2 years ago, with a myopic defect of > -3.00 and -3.25. I actually can have voluntary flashes of clear vision > (blinking). During these flashes I can read very well: 10/10 if light > is good (outdoor sunlight). > P2. in low light it's practically impossible to have flashes > Q2. I went yesterday to the optician and had an objective measurement > of my eyesight: -2.50 and -2.50. How can I see 10/10 during a flash if > my error of refraction is so big? > due to improved ability to interpret blur, tear film lens, big depth > of field because of strong light condition, that person sees better > and "triggers" the "feeling of being relaxed" as previously auto > programmed (see also NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming). > This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my > improvement from -3.25 to -2.50. I'm fond of attributing everything to depth of field, which is a little extreme, but I'm seeing strong indications of this in the parts I've left in above. Testing of refractive error is done in "normal" light conditions, because that is often the light level when we need to see. It doesn't do any good to have the eye doctor find that you don't need glasses to see in bright sunlight, when you actually need glasses to see the television, or road signs at night when you are driving. Finally, as others have posted, it isn't unusual for somebody to have an improvement in myopia of 0.75D in one eye, over two years. Let me guess, you're middle aged? -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:07:14 GMT

seba #8 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Quote: > Finally, as others have posted, it isn't unusual for somebody to have an > improvement in myopia of 0.75D in one eye, over two years. Let me > guess, you're middle aged? > -- > Dan Abel > Petaluma, California USA My myopia started when I was 12 and increased up to the maximum (-3.25) when I was 24. Now I am 26. I have been practising between 24 and 26. Can this explain the improvement of my refractive error to -2.50?
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:34:40 GMT

seba #9 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Quote: > If you are going to Italy, FIND A MAN CALLED RISHI GIOVANNI GATTI lol I personally know him. What I am looking for are proof of bates method curing eyesight or proof that the method doesn't work (or can't improve more than a little bit the VA).
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:36:28 GMT

MsBrainy via MedKB.co #10 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Quote: >Finally, as others have posted, it isn't unusual for somebody to have an >improvement in myopia of 0.75D in one eye, over two years. Sometimes you may have such fluctuations within the same day, depending how tired you or your eyes are. -- MsBrainy Message posted via MedKB.com http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200806/1
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:51:30 GMT

seba #11 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Quote: > As you might know, the DMV Standard for driving a car is > 20/40 (10/20) -- and in some states 20/50 and even 20/60. This is not the point: I don't want to pass the driving test: I want to see clearly. With clearly I don't mean "being able to recognise letters" but literally see in focus. My experience showed me in fact that I can read 10/10 even with little blur or multiple image. This is not what I want to reach. This is not NORMAL VISION, or PERFECT VISION. I am here looking for people that can show me their improvement. Are you one of them? Quote: > But I am curious -- what is your AVERAGE visual acuity? Doing nothing in light condition it's 4/10. Blinking it gets 7/10 easily. Sometimes 10/10. In low light doing nothing it's 3/10 and blinking can improve to 5/10. Quote: > Do you wear your -2.5 diopters all the time? I have been living wothout wearing glasses for 16 months. Quote: > But that also must be a matter of your judgment. No 3rd party > can resolve these issues for you. Sorry but I strongly disagree. There is something called science, based on repetition and logic. It provides models that are correct until a better model is found. What I am researching for is Bates NEW model of eye: a theory that should explain more than orthodox theories, as stated by Bates. Bates science can be an improvement of science. Well, how can you confirm a theory or destroy it? Researching, finding examples of success or counterexamples. Sharing information: real information of real facts really observed. Even if they are so subjective as flashes. I wouldn't research if I hadn't my flashes. So... a newsgroup is a place where one can share information. I am looking for someone in my condition, someone who had improvements, but wants objectively try to understand what they are, thinking that this is still science. I did the mistake of thinking that Bates is right and that science is wrong. But even Bates is a scientist, so if what he says is true, he wouldn't be afraid of applying scientific method to his discoveries and statements.
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:52:27 GMT

seba #12 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Quote: > It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Suppose every > swan that you ever see is white. Does this prove that there is > no such thing as a black swan? No, you can never say that. All > you can say is that every swan you have seen is white. I agree with the philosopher about the swan, but still I think thateven if we cannot DEDUCE that the method doesn't work with some syllogism, still the fact that after 100 ears no one can provide documentation/studies that someone can retain a flash for more than seconds and see 10/10 is a proof -if not that the method doesn't work- that it is not as easy as stated in Bates book. We can empirically INDUCE that there are not big results. This INDUCTION can be source for a theory if NO COUNTEREXAMPLE is found. So... I am looking for the counterexample. I wanted to be the one, the person who could see 10/10 in every light condition, as long as I wished, thanks to Bates method. After 2 years I have to admit I am not. I feel I made some mistake (this is a common result of positive thinking) and I'd like to find that person that can confirm me that. Quote: > When an idea is put forward, the proponents of the idea must prove > that it is valid. It is not our responsibility to prove that the idea > is invalid. That's true, but you also have to consider expectations and hope. If there is still a little possibility that something great is true, it is difficult to abandon the idea saying "okay, you invented this thing, I think it is wrong until you show me it is right". If you were sick and going to die, wouldn't you try every chance to be healed? You would, I guess, until you can say "okay, this doesn't work for me" or "I am not willing to pay the price that this cure has". I am not saying that it is my responsibility to prove the world that the idea is invalid, but yes it is our responsibility to understand if we are refusing a chance or if we are trying 100% to improve our condition.
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 03:07:36 GMT

otisbr.. #13 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Dear Sebastiano, Subject: EXCESSIVE CLAIMS of "easy" or "quick" -- by anyone. There are a lot of "caims" out there. I certainly don't make them. Further, admitedly, the minus is very easy and quick. Further, Bates is NOT THE ONLY ONE ADVOCATING PREVENTION -- but he is certainly the most vocal about these issues. But let me add this commentary: documentation/studies that someone can retain a flash for more than seconds and see 10/10 is a proof -if not that the method doesn't work- that it is not as easy as stated in Bates book. Otis> While I respect Bates -- you must remember that in his first 10 years, he only published the fact that SOME kids cleared their Snellen from 20/70 to normal. I wish he had NEVER made any claims beyond that point. Otis> Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained it by their own verification. We can empirically INDUCE that there are not big results. Otis> You are correct. But they are results, and you can function with no minus lens on your face. In fact, you might consider getting some weaker minus lens and checking yourself. This INDUCTION can be source for a theory if NO COUNTEREXAMPLE is found. So... I am looking for the counterexample. I wanted to be the one, the person who could see 10/10 in every light condition, as long as I wished, thanks to Bates method. Otis> And we all wish you the best with your efforts. Enjoy, Quote: > > It is logically impossible to prove a negative. ?Suppose every > > swan that you ever see is white. ?Does this prove that there is > > no such thing as a black swan? ?No, you can never say that. ?All > > you can say is that every swan you have seen is white. > I agree with the philosopher about the swan, but still I think > thateven if we cannot DEDUCE that the method doesn't work with some > syllogism, still the fact that after 100 ears no one can provide > documentation/studies that someone can retain a flash for more than > seconds and see 10/10 is a proof -if not that the method doesn't work- > that it is not as easy as stated in Bates book. We can ?empirically > INDUCE that there are not big results. This INDUCTION can be source > for a theory if NO COUNTEREXAMPLE is found. So... I am looking for the > counterexample. I wanted to be the one, the person who could see 10/10 > in every light condition, as long as I wished, thanks to Bates method. > After 2 years I have to admit I am not. I feel I made some mistake > (this is a common result of positive thinking) and I'd like to find > that person that can confirm me that. > > When an idea is put forward, the proponents of the idea must prove > > that it is valid. ?It is not our responsibility to prove that the idea > > is invalid. > That's true, but you also have to consider expectations and hope. If > there is still a little possibility that something great is true, it > is difficult to abandon the idea saying "okay, you invented this > thing, I think it is wrong until you show me it is right". > If you were sick and going to die, wouldn't you try every chance to be > healed? You would, I guess, until you can say "okay, this doesn't work > for me" or "I am not willing to pay the price that this cure has". I > am not saying that it is my responsibility to prove the world that the > idea is invalid, but yes it is our responsibility to understand if we > are refusing a chance or if we are trying 100% to improve our > condition.
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:09:56 GMT

seba #14 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Quote: >Otis> Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have >cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained >it by their own verification. okay, this can be the example I was looking for. Where can I find documentation about them?
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:20:00 GMT

John Sherid #15 / 48	Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years Quote: >>Otis> Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have >>cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained >>it by their own verification. >okay, this can be the example I was looking for. Where can I find >documentation about them? Just remember one thing: anecdotes (which are all you are likely to get from Otis, Zetsu and Rishi) do not constitute science. You can find lots of people who are absolutely sure that they were abducted by space aliens in a UFO. Despite the fact that not one shred of physical evidence has ever been found that supports their stories.
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 05:10:14 GMT

Page 1 of 4

[ 48 post ]

Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4]