I had a good friend in town for a few days and as a result have not been posting regularly. I’ve been continuing the same techniques I just oulined though with similar success. I’m starting to notice that my dim light acuity is improving pretty quickly. With only one lamp on in my living room, in the evening (pretty dim), I have been able to read 20/100 and sometimes during the day I will walk by my chart and notice that I’m seeing 10/20 without any effort! Of course my vision does fluctuate, but as I mentioned in a comment, the trend has had more “ups” than “downs” and so my vision is improving noticeably over time even though sometimes my vision is not as good. I’m getting clear flashes more and more often, lasting longer and longer during the days, to the point that now I don’t think it abnormal to have good vision!
One thing I wanted to note that I keep forgetting to mention is that at night lately I will be looking in the mirror from at least two feet away and my vision will clear up so well that I can see individual strands of hair, the creases where my eyelids are, and the dark outline where my iris’s are (including still being able to see my pupils!).
In keeping with my promise to accurately post about my vision improvement journey, I must publicly post that I have recently become a Christian (2.5 weeks ago) and spend time every day in prayer, including praying for my vision. Personally, I must give all of the credit to God for my improvement even though I know there will be skepticism about the validity of this. However, I must include this here because it is now part of my life and will inevitably affect my vision improvement and I would not be at peace unless I knew I had been truthful with those who are reading my blog expecting to know the truth of my progress.
Sassy — While I will not discuss it — I had a “religious experience” when I was 17 years old. I did not pray
for myself (that would be selfish), but for others. When I
review the work of “other” minus-lens objectors, I think they felt the same way.
Previously I posted the remarks of a “medical person” waving his arms in front of a picture of the eye, and saying that “Bates preventon” is ridiculous and impossible. That is of course not correct, although I do agree that prevention (properly understood) is difficult.
But then you also must add in “public ignoance” as posted by this “lay-person”. That, coupled with the “medical expert”, makes it impossible to even START a preventive effort. But
here is an example of hostility of the public towards Bates and plus-prevention.
Posted on sci.med.vsion ( to WARN you to not use Bates!!! )
WIth “friends” like this — who needs enemies?
=============
Bev>Executive summary by Bev:
There are a number of people here
with no medical credentials at all and a
lot of opinions bordering on religious
belief. The people trying to promote the
Bates Method, “The Plus” lens and pinhole
glasses are examples of this behavior.
Before acting, do some research.
————————————–
WELCOME TO THE SCI.MED.VISION NEWSGROUP
The purpose of this newsgroup is to discuss issues related to
eye health and vision care from a scientific viewpoint.
[ This is profoudly NOT a scientific "viewpoint". She takes "science" to mean some medical doctor waving his hand in front of a eye-drawing, and saying that Bates methods, and Bates "preventors" are idiots. Make your own judgment here. This is why we get NO support for scientific prevention. OSB ]
Issues for discussion include (but are not limited to): how
the eye works, vision problems and how they may be corrected,
eye health concerns, how they happen and how they may be
remedied, as well as items related to new research and
associated findings.
This group is the place to learn about these issues and
readers are advised that opinions expressed here may come
from eye care professionals (optometrists, ophthalmologists,
opticians, ophthalmic researchers) as well as the general
public.
[ She completely IGNORES successful people like Dr. Stirling Colgate, Dr. Bates, Dr. Prentice, Dr. Romano, pilots like Fred Deakins (airforce pilot). They are not "scientists" according to her limited opinion. OSB ]
Bev> From time to time we experience posters who espouse certain viewpoints that are hoaxes, mythology, disproven theories and outright scams.
Bev> If someone is desperately trying to convince
you of something or uses demeaning and abusive language,
[ Like that language is NOT used against second-opinion people who support true-prevention. Get real. OSB ]
Bev> you might be correct in assuming that they have an agenda and their views are not consistent with current science.
[ What a MOUTHFUL!!! If she restricted herself and said "not consistent with medical bias" I would agree with her. But SCIENCE says that the eye is dynamic, and with wisdom and fortitude you can avoid entry, and perhaps get out of it. There is such a thing as the arrogance of the ignorant. I think this is an excellent and sad example of it. OSB ]
Bev> If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
[ Science and fact are "too good to be true"? OSB ]
Bev> The people trying to promote the Bates Method are one such example of this behavior.
[ People who are attempting to HELP you with preventive methods are condemmed by Bev -- for attempting to help you. Some "logic" this person has. OSB ]
Bev> When reading and gathering information, be aware of the source and use good judgment. Do not base vital health care decisions on information obtained in this forum without
consulting a practitioner who can clearly understand your
issues and examine the situation first hand, in person.
[ i.e., consult with only people who put your child in a very strong minus -- like majority-opinion Judy. No thank you. I prefer science to the distortions of science by these "obtuse" majority-opinion people. OSB ]
I will not post the rest — I am certain you get the idea.
Enjoy,
Otis
I have also noticed a slight improvement when looking in a mirror. I can now tell a small difference between the whites of my eyes and the irises. Before, the entire eye just looked like a dark area.
I also pray for my vision every day. I believe the idea that if something is not worth praying about, it is not worth doing in the first place. Also, as a side note, I do not believe it is selfish to pray for oneself. Many of the Psalms are prayers by and for their writers. Further, the most important prayer a Christian says (the person’s first prayer that allows them to become a Christian) is for that person.
While I don’t like to discuss my “beliefs”, or my “religion”, I will state that my prayer was for “pure knowledge”. I would include the statement, “pure SCIENTIFIC knowlege”, or the nature of science and scientific proof. (But NEVER “medical” proof, where some person stands in front of a picture of the eye, waves his hands around, and proclaims that a -3 dioper lens has NO EFFECT on the eye’s refractive state and therefore is “perfectly safe”. But I also know that my belief in pure science is badly mis-understood by most — in in particular, the remarks of “Bev” as per the above statements. Scientific best, Otis
-Otis- I agree with your ideas about what those two examples (the video from your comment in Sassy’s last post, and the words said by Bev) convey. The people in those two examples say how the eye cannot change with such conviction and with the implication that they are sharing THE TRUTH about the eye, that it is not difficult to see why so many people (who have done no other research) would believe them. Examples like those you have shown demonstrate how closed-minded some people are (although, I’m sure most of them have good intentions; they are just ignorant on the issue).
Dear Mark,
Subject: Identifying BOTH problems (intellectual blindness towards the proven behavior of the fundamental eye).
There is a tendency to “blame” the OD for this mess. We thing “THEY” should “solve” the “problem. Thus, there is an under-current of distrust of the majority-opinion OD.
But then you have a person like “Bev” who is a “true beliver” in “medicine”.
Thus she must “protect”, no only the “arm waving MD who believes in his picture of the eye (box camera), but she must also “protect” you an I “against” anyone who advocates preventive change as I do.
Thus, no only Bev is “damaged” by her ignorance, but also her children, her grandchildren, and no doubt her great grandchildren.
All this stems from a “touching” belief that “medcine” can “do no harm”.
But that is truly what “blocks” any and all efforts at Bates-prentice prevention.
So the FIRST issue to address, is the person’s FEAR and IGNORANCE. Unless that issue is addressed, we can only perpetuate the ignorance that got us into this mess in the first place.
I hope I don’t sound to “harsh”, but sometimes “tough love” requireds and “honesty” with Bev that she can never understand nor accept.
Engineering and scientific prevention best,
Otis
More “medical” arrogance.
i.e., Engineers and Scientists can’t make accurate measurements. They can only make “subjective” (read INCOMPETENT) measurements. Here is a review of that Objective/Subjective issue.
Both Sassy and I are Electrical Engineers. I make and objective check of my Snellen (20/20) and my refractive STATE — OBJECTIVELY. Sassy does the same thing using her own technical competence and her Focometer — that we both proved has a standard-deviation (for 10 measurements) of about 0.18 diotpers. Judy tells us that we are incompetent.
=====
Otis> > Sorry, Judy, the English dictionary does not
agree with you.
[ Definion of the word OBJECTIVE. The word "subjective" is not used in engineering and science. Engineers don't say I made a SUBJECTIVE measurement of a resister at 120 ohms. ]
Judy> The inventors of the Focometer say that it is a device for
measuring subjective refraction. Are you suggesting that they do not know what their invention does?
Judy> Quote from the Focometer information page:
Judy> “The FOCOMETER was developed by Drs. Ian Berger and Larry Spitzberg at the University of Houston College of Optometry in Houston, Texas to provide a subjective refraction without the need
for electricity or complicated protocols.”
==============
Dear Judy,
Yes, Judy, I understand perfectly the biased
words used in optometry.
But, in engineering and science (i.e., objective
science) we just call a “spade” a “spade”.
I am certain that in any true scientific review — that
issue would be of considerable importance.
========
Bottom line — only Sassy can judge both her
measurements (Snellen and Focomter), and
judge whether she is competent or not.
Otis
Dear Engineer,
Thank you for reading your Snellen with “Office illumination — and confiming 20/20.
If you ask me why I do not “trust” an OD making a so-called “objective” measurement — then here is the reason.
Recently my wife went it for an “objective” exam. Remember, I have no problem with the MEDICAL part, that checks for honest to God medical issues, like glaucoma, detached retina, R.P., etc. But once the medical part is cleared off the table, then comes the “over-prescription” of these presumed ‘COMPETENT’ ODs. For instance.
My wife was told that her “vision” was 20/60 to 20/70 in the ODs office. She was told that she would FAIL the DMV in our state. The requirement is that she read 2 cm letters at 6 meters. (or 20 feet). Naturally I was concerned.
I had already set up a Snellen, to confim my own visual acuity — and know how to do it.
The OD exam was $200, and the glasses were $200. (They were +3.25 diopters, spherical, both eyes.)
I had reason to doubt the “objective” 20/70 vision. If her eyes were THAT BAD, she should not be driving a car. (She never failed the DMV test — ever.)
But after I set up my “office” Snellen, I had her read the Snellen at 20 feet with the required illumination level.
20/40 reads all letters
20/30 reads all letters
20/25 gets 1/2 correct.
There are many myopes who would LOVE TO HAVE THIS VISION!!!
So, when I suggest to a person (at -1 dioper) that should read his Snellen — then that is the reason.
When these ODs tell me that my objective measurent of 20/20, and a refractive STATE of +1/2 diopter, I have to ask. Who is more technically competent — and engineer or an optometrist who is working too fast to do a competent measurement.
Otis
Otis,
Interesting comments. Well, the interesting thing is that through this logic Judy would have to admit that every measurement done by and OD at the doctor’s office is “subjective”. When used correctly, I believe the focometer is as “objective” as it gets when it comes to measuring our own visual acuity. And I will NEVER let anyone else measure my acuity for me ever again, now that I know I can be in control of it and I never plan to go to the eye doctor again with the intention of getting a prescription…
Sassy
Hey Mark,
That’s how my eyes used to be too! Just big dark blobs
Isn’t it so fascinating to start “seeing” ourselves. I think I actually look different in the mirror without any correction. I think my facial expression is noticeably different, probably because I’m not straining!
Sassy
I feel like I’ve been transported to a different planet…
Dear Sassy,
As an engineer — I believe in technical “problem solving”.
But, that is with technical people — who can rise to the “challenge” of prevention. But I mean ALL THE PROBLEMS — with major emphasis on Bev’s attitude. It should be obvious that her “attitude” is the same (sorry to say IGNORANT) attitude of most. As an engineer, interested in science, and objective facts (above all else), I can not deal with Bev, or her children or her grand-children. The truth is that she is “setting them up” for a strong minus (with the child on the threshold), and stair-case myopia to follow.
It is people like Bev and Neil Brooks (who filed “charges” against me) for advocating prevention (by Prentice/Bates methods) that truly “lock” us into this terrible situation.
Only after a second-opinion OD SPELLED THIS OUT TO ME, did I realize that “practice” is not based on science, but rather in suppling an “instant” quick-fix to people like Bev and Neil Brooks. It is for that reason that I don’t use “medical terms” — to avoid conflict such as the comments that Bev creates. We are all victims of a practice that has “worn out” in terms of honest, objective science. I “vote” for a “new” 1913 study — to be directed and led by a engineers and scientists. Otis