Today I measured what I call my “refractive error” with the Focometer. I measured my vision from 20 feet outdoors (cloudy, but at 5pm so still good light conditions).
My refractive error is -5.25 D in both eyes! This is improved even from one month ago! For anyone who hasn’t been keeping up with my blog, I started out with the following glass lens prescription: OD: -8D, OS: -7.25D. The focometer is an instrument that can be used to measure the refractive correction required to see 20/20.
Sassisailor's Weblog 
Aug 2008
My refractive error is -5.25 D in both eyes! This is improved even from one month ago! For anyone who hasn’t been keeping up with my blog, I started out with the following glass lens prescription: OD: -8D, OS: -7.25D. The focometer is an instrument that can be used to measure the refractive correction required to see 20/20.
This change in refractive STATE is very important to me:
================
Sassy: Feb 2008
Measurements by Sassy, an Electrical Engineer.
Time Trial Estimated to nearest 1/4 Diopter
OD OS
1:11 PM 1 -6.5 -6.25
1:14 PM 2 -6.5 -6
1:18 PM 3 -6.5 -6.5
1:21 PM 4 -6.75 -6.5
1:25 PM 5 -6.5 -6.25
1:28 PM 6 -6.75 -6.25
1:31 PM 7 -6.5 -6
1:34 PM 8 -6.5 -6
1:36 PM 9 -6.5 -6.25
1:39 PM 10 -6.75 -6.25
Mean -6.575 -6.225
StDev 0.120 0.184
29-Feb-08
==========
I would truly like to START a preventive
effort at a four year engineering college
(aeronautics) with pilots. I you can do it — then
THEY can do it from -1.5 diopters.
Thanks, Otis
Hi,
I’ve been visiting your blog for a while.
These measurements are strange to me. At -5.25 you are now exactly at where I am. But my vision is at best 20/400, if that.
How is it that you can see so much better with the same prescription as me?
When you finally reach 20/20, what will your presciption be then? By the looks of it, you might have 20/20 while having -3.5D? Is such a thing possible?
Otis,
do you still wear glasses? How strong are they? How much improvement have you gotten over the years?
Hi Martin,
I understand your confusion 🙂 This has been one of the mysteries of my improvement and has been persistent since I began comparing my results from the Focometer with reading the Snellen chart unaided (without glasses). I have theorized in previous posts about the discrepancies between objective measurements and my Snellen chart visual acuity without glasses, but I honestly have no scientific explanation for this. I go without glasses for the majority of the day and as a result I think my eyes are better at seeing without glasses than someone else who may have a similar prescription. The other thing I can comment to is that the Focometer tests each eye individually (I read the Snellen with both eyes open) and the barrel containing the variable lens strengths is dark and narrow; this reduces visual acuity significantly (I have nothng in front of my eyes when I read the Snellen without glasses).
At this point all I can really do is report accurately what I’m experiencing. I try very hard to make sure I’m as meticulous as possible and reporting measurements during specified lighting conditions and consistently on specific charts for each test. Then when I am able to read 20/20 or better it will be interesting to compile these results and see what we can learn from them.
When I am able to read 20/20 there will be no need to test my vision with the Focometer, but yes, it will show my vision to be somewhat dimished if I look through the Focometer with only one eye at a time in the darker conditions. It’s impossible to say now what that value will be, but it would be impossible for my visual acuity to be the same given the differing measurement conditions. I’m really only using the Focometer so that I can keep track of an objective measurement as I go, as going to the eye doctor every month is prohibitively expensive and many people won’t believe my eyesight is improving if all I’m doing is reading a Snellen chart (it’s enough for me, but seeing the improvement via the Focometer is also encouraging and offers a “second opinion” in a sense). I’ll keep posting about my results and hopefully one day I can post what my Focometer result is when I can read 20/20 🙂
Does that answer your question? I realize it’s confusing. My opinion is that we hardly understand the visual system in its entirety and going through this vision improvement process has shown me this through direct experience. In my opinion it is the poor testing conditions (like I experience with the Focometer) that result in ODs overprescribing lenses for people which then result in progressive myopia. We definitely need to be sure we have lenses strong enough for driving in the dark (for safety of course), but we should never wear these stronger lenses all day, especially during full sun. Our vision is variable, and our acuity at noon on a sunny day will never be equivalent to our acuity at 10pm on a dark rural road. Unfortunately, most of us have been prescribed all-day lenses which correct to a prescription for the darker conditions. Our eyes adapt to this stronger lens during the sunnier conditions and then we need a stronger lens for the darker conditions; a vicious cycle indeed.
Sassy
Martin> Otis,
Martin> do you still wear glasses?
Otis> Yes
How strong are they?
Otis> Currently, about -7
Martin> How much improvement have you gotten over the years?
Otis> I avoided going down to -12 D, when I quit “accepting” any further over-prescription. But I was “screwed” by this system — that I object to.
Otis> I would rather devote my time to:
1. Helping Sassy — as much as possible.
2. Institute a PREVENTIVE effort as a 4-year engineering college, where the students were at 20/50 to 20/70, but
with refractive STATES from -3/4 to -1.5 diopters. I would assume that they have Sassy’s WILL, and technical excellence in making both Visual Acuity and refractive STATE measurements.
3. The past is the past. The present is the “will” of Sassy. The FUTURE could be prevention at a four year college as a scientific (not medical) study.
That is my purpose — to STOP entry into nearsightedness before you get “into” it.
Otis
Thank you Sassy and Otis. My questions are answered! 🙂
Martin — let me also add that results are never predictable. Two people, you and Sassy, could do EXACTLY the same thing. Sassy will “see” the results she posts, and the next person will see absolutly no change. I do not attempt to explain this at all. But I do expect much better results, if a person would be offered these preventive methods befor that first strong minus is put on the face of a child. I think that is where you can have maximum success in clearing both your Snellen and your refractive STATE. But a person at that point is likely to be “convinced” that Bates and all preventive measures are a big joke. Tragically that minus lens has proven to be (in SCIENCE) a serious exacerbating agent — exactly as stated by Bates after his successful 1913 study. It is a shame that no one takes that responsibility seriously. Sassy and I do. Otis
Sassy, when you do wear glasses, how strong are they? You can see 20/50 unaided? Do you need -5.25D glasses to get from 20/50 to 20/20? Would you then need -3.00 glasses to get from 20/50 to 20/40, and -2.00 glasses to get from 20/50 to 20/30?
There’s something ironic about this: thinking about Otis’s comment at https://sassisailor.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/august-25-2008/#comment-655
“I think a lot of kids get “nailed” when they go to an OD with (nominal) 20/40 — and get prescribed a -2 diopter lens.”
… a -2.0D lens for 20/40 vision.
Phew… just trying to understand all of this… :-S
Dear Sassy.
Otis> Here is the “classic” concept (Donders-Helmholtz) theory
of the eye, by Mike (OD):
Mike> There is NO long-term benefit in avoiding the glasses. No harm will be done by wearing them.
Otis> Inother words, the eye is a “box camera”, and since an
external lens (-3 diopters) will not change the
refractive STATE of a box camera, therefore
a lens has no effect on the natural eye’s refractive STATE.
Otis> This is the conclusion that was “jumped to” by Helmholtz,
excluding the possibility that the natural eye is
dynamic (as shown in schematic form by the blue-tint
model.)
Otis> There “belief system” is so powerful, that even when the facts show the powerful effect that a -3 diopter lens always has on the eye’s refractive state — they deny it to your face. That is not SCIENCE — that is the most false belief possible. I regret the consequences for all of us because of the false belief they have — and practice.
Otis
Martin: There is no perfect way to “visualize” the effect of a minus on the eye. But this “blue-tint” model can be a start. It is the science behind Dr. Bates “fear” of that over-prescribed minus.
http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
So when some “majority-opinion” OD insists that a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the eye’s refractive STATE — look at the facts themselves. Also, while they sketch a “length -change” with an applied minus, what is actually, objectively MEASURED is a change of refractive STATE. Otis
This is one of the ways I would view it.
A refractive error as measured by the focometer is indicative of myopia. It means the rays of light that pass through the eyes lens do not fall directly on the retina.
What can the brain ( mind) do with the image on the retina? If the image is clear it interprets them ‘as is’. If it is blurred, the brain is not some automatic processing machine. Computer engineers know that there are many algorithms by which we can improve an image quality – methods such as a noise filter and by various operations in the spatial and frequency domain. The brain is capable of all these image enhancements very efficiently due to its massively parallel architecture , but the mainsream dumbly believes if the image is out of focus on the retina then we will see only blured images.
Sassy has managed to relax her mind so well that her mind is very efficiently enhancing the poor quality images on her retina, which would be quite blurred normally at -5.25D. As time passes, both image enhancement and actual change in the refractive power( which can happen only if the shape of the eyeball itself changes) will happen. Note that this is not just better blur interpretation but an actual image enhancement. The mind which is capable of many wonderful things has more abilities than what the conventional doctors assign to it.
As long as we do not record a zero refractive power we still have functional myopia and if we are not careful we could get back to myopic habits easily. But as long as the mind is at rest, it can see well even with the images out of focus on the retina due to its great image enchancement abilities.
It is obvious to me now that there are two distinct phases in NVI. Resting of the mind and resting on the eye muscles. Resting of the mind happens initially giving us better vision even when the muscles are not fully relaxed ( this is why focometer shows a refractive error). Later on with more practice, the eye muscles also fully relax thus giving both 20/20 vision and zero refractive error.
Therefore, the reading of the focometer and visual acuity do not go hand in hand initially but they should converge in the end when the full benefits of mental relaxation translates into its physcial counterpart – relaxation of the eye.
Ram,
I like your explanations, thanks for the input! I agree, they will converge.
Are you still seeing improvement with your vision? I haven’t visited iblindness in a while; perhaps I’ll check it out later today when I have more time.
Sassy
Hey Martin,
I just wrote a response to your comment, but when I clicked “submit” I lost all of my text! Agh! 🙂
I’ll summarize what I wrote:
My default lenses: -4.25D
Computer glasses: -3.75D or -3.25D (the lowest pair if possible)
I have a stronger pair, -5D but I only break these out if I’m driving, which is rare. I keep them with me (and the other 3 pairs) at all times, but luckily I don’t use them much. I think soon I’ll be able to move my -4.25D’s to the rarely used category.
I only wear these when I must, but I always choose the pair that are the weakest strength that will suffice for the situation; and again, only if absolutley necessary.
Vision is not linear in my opinion, so even if I were to tell you that I can see 20/20 while wearing a specific pair of glasses, this would not be true all the time, nor from day to day. The key for me has been to keep several reduced pair of lenses around so that if I need to wear glasses I can wear the lowest strength possible. Wearing glasses to see 20/20 is very addicting, so I never wear glasses through which I can see this well or better. For me, I must not allow myself to get back into my old habits and deny myself from seeing through glasses well. It has been difficult but I think it has been the key to my improvement.
Does that answer your questions? I don’t test my vision on the Snellen chart while wearing my glasses. I don’t do this because 1. I don’t want to validate my glasses’ existence 🙂 and 2. I don’t want to know. I think psychologically if I new I had to wear a pair of -5.25 D lenses to see 20/20 I would see worse through my -4.25D glasses. This may sound silly, but in my experience, the mind has a powerful effect on my acuity. But this may not be the case in other people’s experience.
Are you doing the Bates Method and seeing improvement? I’m always interested to hear of other’s people’s progress. I hope you are finding my blog encouraging and not too confusing. These discrepancies between seeing with and without glasses definitely create an invisible hurdle and I wish it weren’t so. I don’t fault people for thinking that improving our vision is impossible. It seems almost “too good to be true” for sure!, but I can tell you it’s worth exploring. Unfortunately, a person must experience this improvement for themselves to know it is possible and to know that the discrepancies are only temporary and not as big of a hurdle as they seem. Also, I would venture to guess that every person has a very different experience. I have never read of anyone else doing the Bates method while keeping track of their own “objective’ measurements as well, so I’m not sure if this is common or not.
Sassy
Thanks for your post Sassy.
(I’ve had it happen as well that posts disappeared. So nowadays before submitting, I “select all” and “copy” the message first.)
I’m not doing the Bates Method. I’m still trying to figure things out. Let’s call this the information gathering stage.
“I don’t test my vision on the Snellen chart while wearing my glasses. I don’t do this because 1. I don’t want to validate my glasses’ existence and 2. I don’t want to know. I think psychologically if I new I had to wear a pair of -5.25 D lenses to see 20/20 I would see worse through my -4.25D glasses. This may sound silly, but in my experience, the mind has a powerful effect on my acuity.”
But surely, seen how far you’ve come, doing that test shouldn’t be that big a deal? Also, you did buy a focometer, to measure your error of refraction. Why do that at all if test card performance is by far the most important? Also, I do believe the mind has a powerful effect on acuity, but it works both ways. Seeing how far you’ve come, I’d think no measurement could make you doubt that you can still get better?
“The only thing to fear is fear itself” is something I believe people say. (and spiders, I would add…)
“But surely, seeING how far you’ve come…”
(can we edit our comments somehow?)
Sassy: You have accomplished a historical FIRST.
While many people say “improve vision”, the ODs always say that it “never happened”, and your refractive STATE never changed at all. But you are the first who has confirmed by DIRECT, OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT that the refractive STATE of your eyes changed by 1 diopter in seven months by heavy use of the various Bates methods. That 1 diopter is highly significant (as far as I am concerned), and points the way to a more “organized” approach with engineering students who “object” to the minus, and wish to get their refractive STATUS to change from a negative value to a positive value (Snellen clears with this process). I will post an analysis of this type of “1913 Study” updated for mature engineers who know what they want in their life, and are willing to work intelligently to get it. Otis
Otis,
“historical first”… aren’t there many Bates teachers, who’ve written books and who offer courses in the Bates method, who have improved their sight and who would be able to prove it with prescriptions?
Sassy: I am an engineer — and have lost trust in the “conventional” OD. I quite frankly trust ONLY YOU and your Focometer. No one doing Bates has that Focometer. They can extrapolate that their refractive STATE changed, but it is only a best guess. It is not OBJECTIVE nature of your measurement that counts for everything. Others (very smart) has used these preventive measures (the plus) and verified the result on their Snellen (got from 20/70 to 20/20), but no refractive STATE check. (Not necessary, but the OD likes to throw it in their fact that their refractive STATE did not change. So I restate — you are a historical FIRST in the above context. Congratulations! Otis
Sassy — according to Judy you are still a -8 diotper myope, and you just have “clear flashes” to 20/50. Read her commentary.
Lisa> I couldn’t tell you about research. I could only tell you about my own experience, of being a -9 diopter myope who has gotten 20/40 and 20/30 and the rare 20/20 clear flash (measured on a chart).
Lisa> Most of the conventional explanations of clear flashes seem to assume that clear flashes don’t occur at that range. But, I know from experience they do.
Judy> You really can’t equate a particular acuity level with a diopter measure, as many things other than refractive error affect unaided acuity — 9D myope could see 20/40 with pinpoint pupils. I thought perhaps you had come across a piece of research in which retinoscopy was done during a clear flash to determine how much refraction changed.
Judy
====================
Sassy — this is the reason why you had to confirm BOTH your visual acuity AND YOUR REFRACTIVE STATE. (In my opinion.) Otis
Hey sister! that’s great! I’ll be around this weekend if you want to talk!
I think the focometer is measuring your eyesight with reduced peripheral vision, which is why you can wear a lower lens power to see just as well. If palming is working for you and you want to palm more, try the following, I’m having good success with it. When I’m at work, I take a bathroom break every hour, and during that break I palm for 3-5 minutes. It helps immensely!
Regarding Martin’s questions about why he can’t see as well as you even though he has the same prescription, it’s all in the psychology of glasses. People believe that they can’t see without them. As ram said, it’s about relaxing the mind and the eyes. As soon as you realize that you can see without glasses, then you can see quite well without them! I think that the reason both of us are having such good success even though we still wear glasses for work is because we’ve psychologically separated oru vision into two patterns. We have vision habits that we use without glasses and vision habits that we use when wearing glasses. As my eyesight is getting better and better I’m starting to notice slight personality changes when I take off my glasses, and I have a distinct stressful hesitation before putting them on when I need to see in the lab.
Martin – information gathering is fun, why not try some things on the way? There’s no risk 🙂 It only requires taking off your glasses, palming for 15 minutes, and seeing if you can see better afterward. Then you’ll be hooked. The Bates method is easy!
Otis, I think confirming the refractive state is arbitrary and that in general it has nothing to do with vision improvement success. In Liberman’s book he discusses how even after he reached being able to see 20/20 without glasses he would still be prescribed a -2 or something like that. It’s because the eyes are tested when they’re not working together and peripheral vision is almost completely restricted. He also gives examples of kids who wouldn’t be prescribed any glasses but who have serious eye problems, ie, they have ‘perfect’ accuity but don’t use their eyes together properly.
I think what you suggest again and again is great – that people should take responsibility for it themselves. Also, I think people should realize that a diopter measurement has little to do with the true state of one’s visual abilities.
Sassy,
My average vision has not improved over the last five weeks. But I have lesser durations of blackouts. Previously my vision would go down upto to 4/200 if i worked on the computer for a long time without break, now the valleys are in the range of 8/200.
I have been doing preparations to start a full fledged company on my own and this has led me to work two fulltime jobs per day, i.e 16 hours. This has prevented me from making the kind of progress I would like. Still I am amazed and surprised that I can work 16 hours without glasses and there is not much discomfort in the eyes. If I were still wearing glasses I wont be able to handle this work load. I should return to the normal 8 hr/day job within three months and slowly plan to quit my regular job. Until then I dont think I will make much progress coz I still strain on the computer.
But I have been able to get flashes of 20/70 occasionally but my average indoor vision is abt 17/200 and outdoor vision about 25/200 which are thrice where I began. I am not sure what the focometer would say and I dont think I am bothered with judy’s comments.
Judy> You really can’t equate a particular acuity level with a diopter measure, as many things other than refractive error affect unaided acuity — 9D myope could see 20/40 with pinpoint pupils. I thought perhaps you had come across a piece of research in which retinoscopy was done during a clear flash to determine how much refraction changed.
In order to test if the improvement is due to pinpoint pupils, try to test your improved flashes in low lighting. If pupil becomes a pinpoint it is unlikely that you will see anything and hence no vision improvement can be noticed. But I notice that I can even see better than with the pinhole glasses at times – this disproves judy’s claim.
Sassy — We can ALL agree that OBJECTION to the minus lens — is the second-opinion. But we always get “wraped around the axle about ANY AND ALL PREVENTIVE MEASURES. (This is not a criticism, just an observation. I am “voteing” on you and your Focometer. That is for your EMPOWERMENT, so you do not have to rely on ANYONE but youself. You have confirmed a change of 1 diopter in seven months. That means everything to me. But it also means that you your eyes will “improve” at that rate — if you can sustain that effort. (Truly difficult to do.)
Remarks to you sister.
Sorri> Otis, I think confirming the refractive state is arbitrary and that in general it has nothing to do with vision improvement success.
Otis> ANYTHING YOU DO — is the right thing. But, as an engineer I like to hear of Sassy’s OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS. But each of us must work this isssue out to our own “standard”.
In Liberman’s book he discusses how even after he reached being able to see 20/20 without glasses he would still be prescribed a -2 or something like that.
Otis> And I agree with Liberman. But for self-protection he should go pass the DMV – Snellen. That is the final measurement. In fact it will be good for Sassy to confirm this, for her own satisfaction.
It’s because the eyes are tested when they’re not working together and peripheral vision is almost completely restricted.
Otis> Oh, I agree with you. In fact these majority-opinion ODs PRESCRIBE by -2 diopters and that DESTROY’S THE CHILD’S VISION. But, for sheer self-defense, it is wise to personally confirm these issues by your measurements.
He also gives examples of kids who wouldn’t be prescribed any glasses but who have serious eye problems, ie, they have ‘perfect’ accuity but don’t use their eyes together properly.
Otis> Fine.
I think what you suggest again and again is great – that people should take responsibility for it themselves.
Otis> That would be my message. If I am “irritating”, it is only that I want the best for Sassy — and so all of us can learn from her.
Also, I think people should realize that a diopter measurement has little to do with the true state of one’s visual abilities.
Otis> My suggestion is to know the DMV Snellen requirement — and confirm this yourself outdoors and indoors. Obviously most people lack the TECHNICAL interest in the details — but engineers should be interested.
Otis> I am trying to build a “fire” under people to re-start Bates 1913 study — only this time do it RIGHT.
Best,
Otis
Sorrisi, regarding your #20 comment, I agree with your point about the emotional state or confidence affecting the vision. More than once now I’ve caught myself reading the chart & part way into a line I’ve never read before at that distance I realize it & think “Wait, I’m not supposed to be able to read this!” & then of course it blurs over & I can’t get it back right away. This is equally funny & frustrating.
Also, I agree with your point about glasses changing our emotions. Last night I had a dream of taking my weak glasses off to put them on top of my head so I could look at & really connect with a woman I was trying to console, & I got very frustrated because the frame kept folding under & they wouldn’t stay in place. I felt like I wasn’t really communicating with her fully & openly with my glasses on, like my deep caring was masked.
Nancy
Dear Sassy,
Your use of the Focometer protects you from some ODs. Some doctors “prescribe” to Focometer-like measurements (the “classic” method). I accept it that way, although they over-prescribe by -2 diopters — as we both understand.
But (you will find) there are some who believe that you should “drug” the eye to make the measurement. That can produce an over-prescription of -10 diopters in some children. (Children’s eyes react “differently” — but NO CONSIDERATION is ever made to that possiblity. I am certain that some people at -12 diopters — got that way through a “drugged” prescription. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing — and that is what these majority-opinion ODs are all about. Here is discussion for your interest:
=============
Re: How the ENGINEERING (accommodatoin) System works.
Dear Judy,
I think that when you “kill” an eye with a drug,
you get a measurement with no practical meaning.
I can agree that the use of the drug can be used
for an examination of the retina, for medical
reasons — but NEVER to prescribe any lens.
As you know (from previous discussions), we
found that a child had 20/60 vision (not great,
but functional).
When “freezing” the eye with a drug showed
-10 diopters — you agreed with this “prescription”.
I think that prescription will devastate that child’s
refractive STATE (same as the primates).
All this is due to the fact that you think that
a “frozen” eye is how you should measure it.
I disagree, and would say your misconception here
is dangerous — unless you inform the person of
a choice in this matter. (No prescription with
functional vision, versus a -10 diopter for
full time wear.)
But I know you are never going to change — regardless
of how much science shows that doing this is a grave
risk for the child’s welfare.
====================
— In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, “drjudy65”
> > Dear Judy,
Otis> > Subject: On designing a control-system that reproduces the eye’s ability to control its refractive STATE by sensing micro-blur at the surface of the retina.
Otis> > Here is the paper reproducing the behavior of a
sophisticated control system, where detected micro-blur
sensed at the surface of the retina, produces a total
change of power of the eye.
http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/cybernetic_model.html
Judy> This seems how to design an auto focus camera.
Judy> What has any of this got to do with the question of whether or not cycloplegia provides an accurate measure of distance refractive error in hyperopes, the starting point of this discussion.
> Judy
======================
I know that when I argue that you “must do it
yourself using Bates and other methods – I will
get “arguments”. We may not agree on “methods”,
but I think we agree that the minus is very-bad
at best. Otis
Hi otis!
Light the fire! I think it would be great to repeat Bates’s 1913 study and repeat it correctly. why not make some guidelines for repeating the study; say a formal research proposal. Use all contacts with NVI teachers and behavioural optometrists etc and encourage them to get with a local university research department (I think most medical, psychology, etc professions would have at least some interest) to do a collaborative study. The NVI teacher or whoever could approach them and propose doing it together with a student as a project with a local school. No money required, just the time of two people: 1. the NVI teacher (who will assumedly afterward get more business) and 2. the student (who is probably required to do some kind of project as part of their research anyway) or professor at the university (who is under pressure to publish).
Get these people talking on the same forum, sharing tips on how to get schools to agree to the study, etc, and make sure they are collecting the data in the same way. Then just wait, let them run with it. Even if no journal publishes the results, someone (seeing.org, isee, or …) will surely be willing to collect the reports on their website until they get enough notice to make a splash.
why not? It just takes someone to write the proposal and get people interested in doing multiple studies and reporting them to a central location.
S
Sassy> Hi otis!
Sassy> Light the fire! I think it would be great to repeat Bates’s 1913 study and repeat it correctly. why not make some guidelines for repeating the study; say a formal research proposal.
Otis> I have done this. The key element is clearly both the intelligence and (above all else) personal motivation.
Otis> Even more important is an ACCEPTED means of a person to measure his refractive STATE (or status). That is EMPOWERING for an engineer.
Otis> Since you have now demonstrated to yourself that you can change your refractive STATE by using Bates (and other methods) you know that a study that was restricted to only persons with a refractive range of from -.75 to -1.75 diopters (and Snellens from 20/40 to 20/70) has a CHANCE of being successful.
Otis> I have exhaustively reviewed Dr. Young preventive study. As a result, I (and other engineers) can figure out the number of educated engineers that would have to be involved. It comes to about 30 pilots (total of 60 eyes).
Otis> You represent a statistical value of ” n = 2″ (two eyes). I have done the calculations with the assumption that the test group (using preventive metods) will change their refractive STATE by at least +1/2 diopter. You have already proven +1 diopter — so you would accept +1/2 diopter in nine months as a “Highly Significant” result. Further, your Standard-Deviation calculations using your Focometer tells me that +1 diopter change is indeed a scientific “Highly Significant” result. What happens when I propose this study (as I have done it)?
Otis> I get endless rejections and fear. I get apathy. I get “attacks” that the proposed PREVENTIVE method will — somehow “hurt” the eye.
Otis> I will post the statictical “math” here — and then you can review it. Second-opinion best, Otis
Sassy,
Most people go “bonkers” if one equation is presented. That is why you need engineers and pilots involved in this. The math is “clean”. The ethical part is that I wish I was at 20/60, and had an organization to “build a fire” under me to do this job right. Here is the link, with the calculations.
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/studybas.txt
I think the 1913 study failed — because the kids had no idea what they were doing. But if a pilot has reason to believe he will succeed (with a study under HIS control) then I believe an “empowerment” effort would succeed.
But this type of study is always “killed” by the majority-opinion ODs (and MDs — tragically) who think true-prevention is a joke. Otis
It is not really difficult to get volunteers. There are so many people desperate to improve their vision that they simply do not try because they do not know there is a way. So many proffessions such as the military, navy, airforce, railways require ppl to have both minimum corrected vision ( usually 20/20) and minimum uncorrected vision ( usually 20/100) . Many people miss out because they dont meet these standards and they will do anything to improve their vision. Even I wanted to become a railway engineer when I was young but my application was rejected because I failed the vision test. There are thousands of volunteers out there who will be fully committed to repeat the 1913 study.
Ram,
I prepared that type of study for the Naval Academy. It was reviewed by Dr. David Guyton.
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/NAVAL.TXT
The same “factors” and “opinions” that killed Dr. Bates efforts — killed this effort.
That is why there is total FRUSTRATION with “medicine” about this subject. These “medical” studies NEVER involve the intelligence and motivation of the person himself. There is a judgment that the public is too “stupid” to be “involved” with a true PREVENTIVE study.
Best,
Otis
Otis,
I can understand that. “Medicine” is not synonymous with science and it has its own set of dogmas. If there is some financial incentive they will do the study. But then what gain do they have with this kind of trial which seeks to demolish their business of selling expensive glasses?
I had first hand experience with this kind of attitude. A few years ago we developed a diagnostic product and were explaining to a team of doctors how this product could help them treat patients better. But they did not seem too interested with that, the first question they asked me was ‘How much income will it generate for us?!!”. I was simply amazed. Patient care ranks below profit margins. So we can expect to find volunteers but not likely people who will sponsor such a study. Find out a way how Bates methods can boost the income of eye doctors and then be assured that they will repeat the trials.
Otis –
you and others mix up my sister and I quite frequently! It’s not a big deal though, since we both have similar ideas on this subject and have both improved our eyes about the same.
I don’t see the need for sponsors of such a study, there are simply no costs involved if a mass of NVI teachers and behavioural optometrists would unite under one umbrella to find their own volunteers, teach them to improve their sight report the result.
When my eyesight has cleared to 20/20 (I started at 5/200 or -8.00 lenses with 0.5 astigmatism, am currently at about 20/70) then I will consider doing the study you proposed in your link in the university where I’m at.
Sorrisi
Subject: Money — and false assumptions.
Ram, “medicine” has a reputation for getting small details “right” but totally missing the “big picture”. In short, they believe that their ONLY task is to satisfy with a crude quick-fix in five minutes. Tragically that is the ONLY THING the public “understands”. I say they have “office myopia”, or that they are “brain dead”, and self-brainwashed. There is no way that I can ever penetrate that type of arrogance.
Ram> I can understand that. “Medicine” is not synonymous with science and it has its own set of dogmas.
Otis> True, true, true. We are all victims of it.
Ram> f there is some financial incentive they will do the study.
Otis> Good guess — but I am afraid that the ONLY incentive is Sassy’s motivation to “use Bates”, and do it all herself. That is a very difficult task indeed, starting at -8 diopters. I give up trying to do anything “collective” — unless the person is EXACTLY like Sassy.
Ram> But then what gain do they have with this kind of trial which seeks to demolish their business of selling expensive glasses?
Otis> What Sassy is doing is SCIENCE. It is not medicine. That makes all the difference.
Enjoy, Otis
Sassy: I argue for empowerment. This means understanding an personally passing the legal Snellen. That gives the person some “wiggle room” to clear his Snellen to better-than 20/40. I classify true success to that standard. With your Focometer, if you get to -1 diopter by that measurement, your Snellen will be 20/40 or better. Since Bates, I think the person himself must do this. Here are some remarks about DMV (and your) checking.
Layman> It makes me shudder to think of those who are less scrupulous who are still on the road driving despite being visually impaired.
OD> Don’t blame the DMV. They don’t write the rules, and they can only work with the rules they’re given by the legislature.
OD> In Alabama (and other states) there’s no scruples involved. You can go into the DMV with a seeing-eye dog. For 25 bucks, they’ll hold your dog, show you
where to stand, snap your picture and hand you a valid driver’s license every four years.
[ That in insane. The LEGAL specificantion is that you read 1 inch letters at 20 feet. This OD is a liar. What I say is that working to clear your Snellen FURTHER, you should pass the explicit defined DMV test. The rest is up to you. OSB]
OD> Occasionally performing an examination I’m forced to say “What? You DROVE here?”
[ Because he LOVES to take a child with 20/40 and impress both parent and child with a -2 diopter lens. This is indeed dangerous — as Bates spelled it out for us. OSB]
OD> For those who say “I’m not restricted” I can only tell them “yes, but if you get in an accident, a smart attorney will come ask me about your uncorrected vision and boom – they gotcha.”
[ Yet another OD lie. If you go in and read the REQUIRED LEGAL LINE, and the DMV passes you, then you can not be accused of driving illegally. More OD lies and bad logic. OSB]
But I do put it on the person himself to obtain the requied minus lens to pass the DMV himself. This is so simple that anyone (with a physics background) could do for himself. I think these ODs are arrogant, ignorant, and destructive. I do accept the requirement that I MUST pass the legal requirement, and would insist that each of us take THAT responsibility with full understanding. Always be LEGAL. Beyond that point — it is all up to you.
Bates best, Otis
-MT
Sassy: I argue (like Bates did) that in its early stage (before that first minus) the situation can be, at least, PREVENTED. Before I “accepted” and ODs involvedment, I would ask — is nearsightededness PREVENABLE. If the answer is NO — the FIND ANOTHER OD (like Liberman) or more importantly, plan on doing it yourself. Here is this “attitude” that even PREVENTION is IMPOSSIBLE.
Jean (Layman)> Many of us having permanent myopia once got pseudomyopia at the begining, so are you suggesting that we could have been prevented from myopia scientifically?
Judy> I don’t think pseudomyopia is all that common and I would not say that it is a prelude to true myopia. And no, I am not suggesting that myopia is preventable.
Judy
Sassy: I often wondered why more serious, consistent work was not done with Bates 1913 study. What was WRONG???
I am convinced that if an HONEST effort was made (as I have suggested) it would succeed in a scientific-engineering context. Your own work proves that point. Here is Judy’s opinion on why “prevention” has never been attempted.
Otis> Dear Judy,
Let me quote you correctly.
Otis> You are stating here that it is IMPOSSIBLE to even
avoid ENTRY into a negative refractive STATE — by any method, Bates or plus. Is that correct — so
I do not get you wrong.
Judy> I would not say impossible. But I would say that no method of prevention has been shown to be effective.
Otis> In other words, Dr. Bates in his 1913 study
was making false or bad measurements. It that
what you believe.
Judy> have no reason to believe Bates was making false measures.
However, his 1913 study was not a study of preventing myopia. He did
not measure refractive error in any of the subjects and he did not
have a control group for comparison.
Otis> Thus any preventive study — will fail in your
opinion — before any scientific effort is
even started to prevent.
Is that your belief?
Judy> No. I am not prejudging studies. If someone publishes a study
comparing two groups of non myopic children studied over 5-10 years
with one group having some intervention and the other not and finds
that the rate of children becoming myopic is significantly lower in
the intervention group, I would believe it. I would expect the groups
to be matched on age, gender, race and family history of myopia and
that refractive error would be detemined with cycloplegia.
Judy
===============
There you have it — prevention is not quite impossible.
Otis
Hi!
Thank you so much for your blog. It is really really encouraging. I myself am really nearsighted and I have slowily started to practice some of the bates techniques. I also try to do w/o glasses though this is diffulcult to do for long since I have to work at a Computer.
I wish you all the best and I hope you keep writing, I look forward to reading more about your progress.
Martin,
Unfortunately, there is no way to edit comments 😦 I can’t even edit mine! But, I guess that’s good because I’m sure on some sites that would allow people to change what they said; not that that is really relevant for a blog like mine.
You have some good points. I would agree that I have come a long ways and that testing my vision with my glasses on would be interesting. Though again I would say that the results will definitely change with lighting conditions so I would only be able to report what my acuity is for a given set of conditions on a given day; but that is the same with every measurement I take with or without correction. Depending on my stress level and the light levels, what I am able to see through my glasses changes quite significantly.
I hope reading my blog encourages you to explore the Bates Method. I can understand needing to research this method or any other. At the very least, I would encourage you to periodically take your glasses off and look into the distance. This one thing is very relaxing for the eyes and something I never did often enough for sure. Had I done this, I’m certain my vision would not have deteriorated as far.
The only reason I’m taking the focometer measurements is because I recognize that the scientific community, optometrists, and many people will not believe progress as reported by unaided VA as read on the Snellen chart (reading the Snellen chart without glasses). Many people will claim that there is blur interpretation or memorization involved. To a certain degree I could agree, as a scientific community we hardly understand all of the complexities of the visual system. So in order to add a level of objectivity to this process and track the refractive error as close as possible to what an eye doctor would, I bought the focometer. If it were cheaper to see the eye doctor and have a refractive measurement done, I may have done that. But since then I’ve learned of the importance (as Otis always says) of taking your own measurements. I believe in this whole-heartedly. So, if I were only doing this for personal reasons and didn’t care about reporting my progress to the world, I would not be using the focometer and would not be posting on this blog either. But in the long run I’m hoping to offer my experience as another piece to the puzzle in understanding how the Bates Method and NVI works (if it does down to 20/20, I don’t know that yet), how long it takes me given my circumstances to reach 20/20, and now to explore the differences between focometer measurements and my unaided VA as read on the Snellen chart. I haven’t been testing with my glasses only because I do have the focometer; but I will add this to my list of tests as you and others are interested in this. More data is never bad! I’m not at home now, but when I return I will test my VA with my -5D glasses.
Sassy
Thank you Sassy.
“Though again I would say that the results will definitely change with lighting conditions so I would only be able to report what my acuity is for a given set of conditions on a given day.”
Absolutely, but that shouldn’t necessarily be a problem. You just clearly mention under what specific conditions measurements were taken. In fact, trying under different conditions may help you get more control over the effects of conditions that seem detrimental to your vision? Supposing you do start taking measurements under different conditions, take enough of them. Better do a lot of it, or not do it at all. 🙂 I see the logic behind taking measurements with a focometer to provide a more objective means to show people that your vision did in fact improve. So make good use of it, and use it under different circumstances. (the more data, the better)
“I hope reading my blog encourages you to explore the Bates Method.”
Absolutely! I’ve visited some groups as well, and I cannot say I’ve been very impressed with the amount of sucess stories: there are so few of them! But the success you’ve been getting seems genuine, and it’s encouraging.
The only thing I wonder about (and maybe Otis can help shed light on this): why does it seem to be so hard to go from 20/70 to 20/20, while Otis and others say that up to 20/70 (+/- -1.75?), it is certainly possible to go back to 20/20 without too much problems. (the “prevention” that Otis emphasizes so heavily)
Sassy,
Can I ask you what helped you the most in improving your vision? I’m sure I could find out by reading through the archives, but I think it might be more interesting if you wrote a comprehensive retrospective post on this, rather than me trying to interpret many posts that were written each at their own particular moment.
I’m rather new to all of this, and there’s a lot to digest. And I might make quite a few mistakes in how I interpret your older posts.
Thanks!
Concerning my question in my post before this one, it must have to do with diopters then? I cannot imagine otherwise, because again, why is vision improvement supposedly more easy and succesful when acuity/diopters are still quite good, and apparently quite hard when the amount of diopters was large (even if the acuity is already quite good). Why is the last diopter(s) the hardest to rid oneself of? Those people who only deteriorated to 20/70 and -1.75D, when they get to 20/20, have their diopters improved as well? How much? All the way? A little bit?
Hi Adele!
Thank you so very much for your post. I appreciate your comments. Best of luck with your vision improvement and do keep us informed of your progress. Do you happen to have a blog or anything where you are writing about your experience? If you do, please provide a link in a comment as I would love to follow your progress and offer any encouragement I can.
Thanks again and good luck!
Sassy
Otis,
I support a re-visit to the 1913 study and you know I support your study with pilots and engineers. Unfortunately I think it’s absolutely necessary that I get to 20/20 before I help with this type of project. I would like to have my own data and confirmed measurements, from the beginning (as measured by the focometer), until I have shown at least 3 or 4 diopters of improvement on the focometer. I am happy to help support in the meantime, but would not feel comfortable leading an initiative until then. After next August I should have much more time to devote to this pursuit (at least 10-20 hours per week). By then I will be finished with my PhD and hopefully have seen additional improvement as indicated by my focometer measurements. We will see!
Sassy
Ram,
I’m so happy to hear of your progress!!! This is great that you are seeing clear flashes of 20/70 and that your vision is improving. It shouldn’t be long before you can consistently read 20/200. Wow- I’m very impressed with your determination. If you’re able to work two jobs, one at starting your own company, you’ll have no problem with the Bates Method! You’re obviously a very dedicated person.
I agree with you that ODs will not have a vested interest in a Bates Method study because they won’t see how they can benefit financially. Like Otis though, I believe this kind of study has to be rooted in science for that very reason. It must be led by people who’s main concern is a true scientific study, unclouded by thoughts of financial gain or loss. You’re right though — this one thing (financial gain) is what has kept this method out of the main stream… sad but true 😦
Sassy
Hey Martin,
I will write such a post for you. Hopefully I can get to it today, if not I will do it soon I promise.
I’m not sure about these phenomena you refer to… unfortunately I think there is no one answer. It is easier for people to clear their vision if their refractive correction is lower probably because their vision has not deteriorated so far and for as long. most likely, for someone that has a high refractive correction (large negative diopter), they have been wearing glasses for decades. Wearing glasses for decades means that the person has gone perhaps 20 years (like myself) not using the vision correctly so it takes longer to learn these good habits again. Does that answer your question? I’ve never found a good source for explaning this and so this is just my opinion… could be wrong!
Sassy
Thank you Sassy! Hopefully you’ll get something out of it too! A re-evaluation of the past 9 months could be enlightening and encouraging to all of us.
Martin said:
The only thing I wonder about (and maybe Otis can help shed light on this): why does it seem to be so hard to go from 20/70 to 20/20, while Otis and others say that up to 20/70 (+/- -1.75?), it is certainly possible to go back to 20/20 without too much problems. (the “prevention” that Otis emphasizes so heavily
This would be one way I would answer it.
Most myopes who started withmuch less than 20/400( like me) have such terrible eyes that even a little doze of Bates can teach it some fairly good eye habits that can quickly help it to improve partially. Myopes like -7D use glasses all the while for all purposes and probably used it for many years that their eyes are practically stuck – complete lack of CF.
So when you take off glasses ( or minumize use of glasses) and practise some of the methods, it brings on such a level of relaxation that vision improves quickly initially. This is why I have progressed to 20/200 but since then unable to make that kind of progress.
If your vision is at 20/70 your eyes are not that bad and your visual habits are not very abnormal when compared with the the normal. So Bates methods take a while to start working for you because you need to do them correctly to notice any change. A high myope gains even from imperfectly done exercises because his eyes are so bad and any exercise is better compared to his natural ways of abusing his eyes.
Hope that makes sense. The only thing the high myope needs to adjust to is the unusually high amount of blur to which he has to adjust and learn to ignore. It is very hard for him to try not see with effort and squint and if he avoids them and does the exercises regularly he will notice some improvement easily.