Sassisailor’s Weblog

A description of my journey to improve my eyesight naturally

Feb 13 2009 February 13, 2009

Filed under: My Daily Progress — sassisailor @ 3:02 pm

I’m back!  Had family visiting for three weeks, moved to the country, and finally feeling settled! 

I wore my glasses much more than I would have liked for about a month and a half.  In Dec. and Jan. I had to drive a lot (wore -6’s frequently due to bad roads or driving at night), got in the habit of wearing them and it turned into me wearing my glasses (-5’s or -6’s) almost all day!! Agh, it was frustrating.  But that’s not a problem anymore because — YESTERDAY I THREW AWAY ALL OF MY GLASSES!!!   Every pair I’ve been using for the last year.

I still haven’t put up my Snellen chart at my new home, but am seeing well enough to type and read my text on the computer from at least a foot away — I think this indicates that my eyes are getting back to the improvement I had before I fell into the glasses trap in Dec/Jan.  I’ve been having tons of clear flashes since I threw away my glasses.   It’s been quite an interesting feeling already just this last 24 hours… sometimes I’m doing something and think “oh, I need my glasses” then I realize, “oh right, I threw them away” — and you know what?  I make do just fine.  I’m sure there will be hardships along the way, but I can’t have my glasses around anymore — they’re driving me nuts.  I won’t be able to drive so I still haven’t figured out how that will work, but I’ll figure it out.  Maybe I’ll start being more creative about my transportation.  Would be good exercise as I now live about 15 miles out of town…  Yikes!  Sometimes I wonder what the heck I’m doing, but I just KNOW it’s going to work out OK.  What can it hurt right?   

So literally, I am without any sort of visual aid.  It’s just me and my eyeballs now…   I think this will be interesting.  If my vision doesn’t heal quickly all I can gaurantee is that I will have many stories of what it’s like to navigate through my life without my “crutches” anymore.   I will no longer have my “emergency” glasses to bail me out.  I’m sure there will be many inconvenient and strange situations.  How do I explain to normal people why I can’t see something?  In this day people all can see, you just assume that unless someone is blind they can see — oh well. 

Thanks to everyone who has continued to post comments while I’ve been away.  I will be trying to get caught up, though it may take me a little while.  I hope everyone is doing well,  those who comment on my blog regularly have remained in my thoughts and have been the motivation for coming back to continue blogging about my vision improvement.


29 Responses to “Feb 13 2009”

  1. Nancy Says:

    Hi & welcome back; I’ve really missed you. I’ve been communicating with your sister a lot & she’s gotten me to measure my snellen twice daily & record the results, which is helping me a lot to be aware of what I could be doing to relax more. You are really brave to discard all your glasses; I’m just slowly getting rid of the very strong pairs as my acuity improves. I still need about -5.25 to drive at night & that’s when I know where I’m going & don’t have to read every single sign. I am getting a lot more confident with my daytime unaided vision, usually wearing no more than -2 to drive & no glasses at any other time. I look forward to your future posts. Welcome back again: I’m sending you a strong electronic hug!

  2. Otis Says:

    Dear Sassy,
    Welcome back.
    Yes those minus lense are “adictive” — and we all suffer the consequences. It is sooo impressive, and the OD will never say, “…yes this works, but avoid using them at all if you possibliy can”. That sort of statment would “kill” optometry as we know it. Since you “cleared” from -8 diopters to -5 diopters (a situation induced by that first minus), I truly advocate Bates/Prentice when the person is at -2 diopters. Using the SAME methods you have used, they could clear off that -2 diopters, and get their Snellens to excellent.
    Keep up the excellent engineering work.

  3. Otis Says:

    The “cost” of a recent “exam”.


    First, let me say that I ALWAYS support the MEDICAL part
    of the exam.

    Nor do I object to the cost of the MEDICAL part.

    Here are the detailed charges of and exam
    conducted on 7/16/08


    Frame: $149.00

    Single Vision Plastic Lenses: $65.00

    ov, nw, Comprehensive serv $155.00

    Determ. of refract. stat: $35.00


    Total: $404.00

    Glasses, lenses, Snellen (subjective) refraction: $249.00


    This seems to be a “standard” pricing for
    “services” in my neck of the woods.

    I would gladly DONATE MONEY to support a man who would give
    me warning about that minus lens.

    This should be part of the “profession”.

    Sadly, today, it is not.

    The result of those $249 over-prescribed minus lenses?

    Not only is the original issue not “faced”, but, according
    to Dr. Bates, those minus lenses will take your
    vision “down” far worse that the original “reason”
    for a negative refractive STATE.



  4. Otis Says:

    We all agree — that objection to the minus is the second-opinion. We may not always agree on HOW to prevent, but that is indeed a separate issue. It is good to know that even ophthalmologists OBJECT to the minus and advocate fundamental change as stated by this Finnish Doctor.

    Keep and open mind. Learn from others. Challenge youself to learn.


  5. helenacampbell Says:

    I’m so glad you’re back!
    I figure you just tell people your vision is incorrectible with glasses (it’s true, right? glasses don’t “correct” vision…so you’re not lying).
    My excuse is I tell people that my vision changes so abruptly that I need to keep around eight pairs of glasses and it is so much trouble, that I try not to bother with them unless necessary. This is also true as I sometimes have clear flashes.I was told I had “mutant eyes”, which I find to be a compliment :).
    Anyway, I will be interested in how you deal with things as you improve, seeing things far away. I often don’t wear glasses in class and then I can’t see the board, so that’s a trouble 😦 Sometimes I can, but then I find that I can’t comprehend it (I’ll be able to read something with my glasses or without, and yet I find I don’t understand it unless I read it with).

  6. Future Myopia Researcher Says:

    Best wishes with your new approach. I guess you’ve figured out how you’re going to function without drving. I hope it works and that you won’t have to end up buying a pair of glasses in order to drive. You still have the focometer, so it’s not like you couldn’t use it every few months to get an approximation if you wanted to. I got off-trackfor almost 6 months, although my vision didn’t slip much at all, because I didn’t wear glasses. It is possible to retrain yourself such that you no longer feel compelled to uses them. Remember to take advantage of the warmer weather this coming spring and summer, and to walk and exercise each day outdoors. It will definitely speed your progress. I probably won’t be commenting often.

  7. Future Myopia Researcher Says:


    One time when I was in a class, an instructor asked me to read something to the class off the board. I didn’t have my glasses that day. My heart started to really pound. I ended up reading it aloud, and no one ever knew. I felt really good after that. You have to do something you’re afraid of each day in order to grow. I wasn’t sure if I could do it, but I did it.

  8. Otis Says:

    Dear Sassy,

    You have been amazing! Your courage to by the
    expensive Focometer — as supply techical advice
    was of great value to me. Here are my “feelings”
    about these subjects.

    It is truly a shame that your type of “will” was not
    culitivated when you were at -1.5 diopter (and
    20/70) — probably when you were seven or eight
    years old.

    If I had an OD tell me scientific truth (i.e.,
    Bates/Prentice) i would gladly donate money
    to his “cause”.

    Had you had this support (at that time) and started with Bates/Prentice — you never would have gone below 20/40, and had this terrible “fight” on your hands to
    get out of it.

    My work with “InFocus”, and obtaining scientific lenes
    so I could establish my refractive STATE was inspired
    by your work.

    You are a true scientific leader — that is for certain.

    Science best,


  9. mark825 Says:

    I’m glad your eyes are reaching their previous clarity quickly so that you’re able to type and read comfortably. I’m also excited that you threw away all your glasses; it’ll be interesting to see how your daily life plays out without them.

    As for transportation to work, I know that God will provide a means for you to get there each day. Keep up the good work, and I’ll pray that this transition goes well for you. 🙂

  10. helenacampbell Says:

    Are you planning on doing the plus lenses thing? Perhaps for reading and computer work/ I don’t know the correct way of doing that and I guess it’s not really a Bates Method thing as he would advise against glasses entirely.

  11. Otis Says:

    Dear Helena,

    Subject: When the “plus” should be used — as
    advocated by Dr. Prentice.

    As in the Bates 1913 study — prevention was argued as the BEST course of action. The kids were like 20/40 to 20/70 to 20/100. Bates advocated that they be NOT “corrected” — as I argue it. I believe his methods (and Prentice) are MOST EFFECTIVE at that point.

    But if you start with the minus (over-prescribed, full-time wear), the eye adapts to it (with is why Bates was so hostile to ANY use of a minus lens — ever).

    But, as Sassy states it, going with NO MINUS LENS — is the same a use of the plus — for the children in Dr. Bates 1913 study.

    This may be difficult to understand, but there is strong science supporting BOTH Bates and Prentice — with the intention of ALWAYS helping before any minus is used.

    I think that if Dr. Bates were alive today — he would reach that conclusion also. And would support it as a wise second-opinion.

    Many things have changed since Dr. Bates passed away in 1930.



  12. Otis Says:

    Dear Friends,
    Sassy is very brave to “throw away her minus lenses”.
    You have asked WHY Bates advocated this. Here is a video that might help you understand.


    Subject: This video a parent should be shown — before
    that first minus is applied.

    This would be a major professional responsibility.
    It would also be a major PERSONAL responsibiility — to
    take the bull by the horns and start this preventive
    process yourself.

    Let the parent and child make this choice.

    The “wrong” choice does have life-time consequences.

    Understanding the necessity of Bates/Prentice preventive measures is VERY IMPORTANT. This video could advance that goal.


  13. Otis Says:

    Here is a video organized and presented to make the various Bates methods clear to you.



  14. Nancy Says:

    Hi — I’m not trying to bug you, but I miss hearing about you & your progress. How’s it going, especially with no glasses at all? Get back to us (your fans!) when you can.

  15. Otis Says:

    I agree. We are minus-lens “objectors” — and that unites us. Our methods, Bates, Prentice, etc., may or may not be effective, but Sassy’s total commitment, and her obtaining a $500 Focometer have inspired me to obtain equipment to measure my refractive STATE(Snell) and do the best I can to publish successful results — as well as attempt to lead a true preventive effort at a four year college. It is time we all support this work — collectively in University as science and engineering.

  16. Otis Says:

    Dear Sassy,

    I always encounter the words, “…recovered from legal blindness”. Here is the best definition that I was able to find.

    I think you are “recovering” from “blindness” on the part of these ODs. But I think that was Dr. Bates argument also.


    I was wondering if it was possible to see what your vision is by your
    prescription. My prescription is -7.5, I know I’m not 20/20! Is there any way
    to say what I am?

    Doctor’s Answer

    by Forum-OD-MP

    Dec 07, 2005 12:00AM

    “legally blind” in my state (Texas) is defined as having worse than 20/70 vision
    with the BETTER eye thru the best possible rx. in other words, even with the
    best glasses or contacts on, your “good” eye is still not 20/70. people tell me
    all the time that without their glasses on they are “legally blind”. thats not
    possible. the definition of legally blind assumes you are wearing the best
    possible rx.

    of course it is certainly possible to be worse than 20/70 w/o your glasses or
    contacts on. if you really are -7.50, then you are certainly worse than 20/70
    at distance (but i’m sure you read 20/20 if the print is close enough!). so
    what is your actual acuity… who knows? 20/1000? thats just a guess.
    here’s how we do it in our office:

    if you cant read the largest letter on our screen (20/400) at 20 feet, then i
    walk toward you holding up fingers. as soon as you can tell how many fingers
    i’m holding up, then i write that distance down in the chart. so if you
    correctly identified the number of fingers i was holding up at 3 ft, then i
    write “counting fingers at 3 ft”. most rx’s over say -4.00 cant read the 20/400
    letters w/o squinting.

    there are of course more scientific ways, and someone could certainly quantify
    your uncorrected vision by showing you big enough letters. but what would the
    point be, really? just the shock factor, i guess. unless you are a “low
    vision” patient (people with permanent vision loss who ARE legally blind and are
    worse than 20/70 in both eyes WITH their glasses on), then it doesnt really
    matter exactly how “bad” your vision is w/o glasses. some professions require
    that you be a certain acuity w/o glasses…like fire fighters and police
    officers have to be 20/200 w/o glasses or contacts. you are not 20/200 with
    -7.50. again you are more like 20/1000.

  17. Otis Says:

    Dear Sassy,

    I still wonder why Bates 1913 study never “moved forward”.

    The result of no “follow up” for Bates/Prentice methods is
    that they MIGHT seem wrong.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    But any preventive work requires that the person
    take steps that are difficult.

    I have prepared the “math” for a Bates/Prentice study. These people would be at the START of myopia, and would make all the measurements themselves. They would be provided with a Focometer or trial-lens kit. They would be college students — able to follow instructions. They would be engineers — able to understand the concept of prevention.

    This would be Bates/Prentice with all the “new” knowledge — with your own experience added to the study.

    With your permission I will post they “core” statistics of the study.

    I always perfer a mathematical/scientific approach to problems solveing — if at all possible. That would breathe new live into these Bates/Prentice methods.



  18. Otis Says:

    Dear Successful Preventive Friend,

    I am glad you summoned the fortitude and wisdom
    to use the Prentice/Bates method “correctly”, and
    keep your Snellen clear for the last 30 years — ALWAYS
    passing the required DMV Snellen under YOUR control.

    I am often asked, “…well why has not (does not) the National
    Eye Institute ever supported a Bates-type of prevention effort.”

    For your sake, here are some of the reasons.

    Scientists like Bates, Brumer, Raphaelson,
    Prentice, Colgate, have always failed on a
    SOCIAL (but not scientific) level. Here are the
    reasons why we can not conduct a 1913 “type study”.

    The political “system” has no interest in you protecting your distant vision for life. Only your intellectual competence
    can do that for you, supported by your own measurements, of visual acuity and Focometer measurements (trial-lens).

    1. The art of science is presenting exact facts, and having
    the person HIMSELF make all measurements.
    Personal intelligence and motivation are crucial to any
    true understanding of preventoin.

    2. In the art of “protecting” your business, and “servicing”
    the public with a minus lens — money and power are
    totally dominating. Adverse effects of your “practice” are totally denied.

    Never make the mistake of assuming that people who
    are concerned with #2, have any competence
    with #1. Here some statements about these issues:


    “It must be considered that there is nothing more
    difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful in
    success, nor more dangerous to handle,
    that to initiate a new order of things.”

    Niccolo Machiavelli


    “Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.”


    While Dr. Bates and Dr. Prencie have proposed a solid preventive programs — no one has been able
    to even START these type of programs.

    I think the above “political” statement make this
    situation very clear.

    This forces you to “figure out” how to do is yourself — as
    Sassy is now doing it.



  19. Otis Says:

    Subject: Success story — 20/200 to 20/20 (sun) in five weeks.

    Sassy — your work it truly incredible. But I am posting these remarks to support YOU and all who follow Bates/Prentice methods. It is tragic that we are NEVER offered these methods BEFORE that first minus lens. THEN these methods would be much more effective, and we would never get stair-case myopia from that terrible minus lens.

    Chris is a 37 year-old pilot.

    David DeAngelis wrote: “I would like to know which Training are you following and which results you have obtained until now.”

    Chirs> Okay, I’ll confess, I’ve combined several ideas/programs into my own regimen,
    and I couldn’t be happier with the results so far. The first and prominent
    program is your’s David.

    I do aggressive ocular stretches religiously every
    other day. I rarely take the weekends off, either, like you recommend in your
    book. Also, I veer away from your book just slightly concerning the +lense
    therapy–I don’t necesarily have time to do 2 hours of dedicated training, so I
    simply just wear my +glasses all the time (except for driving, where I don’t
    wear glasses at all).

    I carry around with me 4 glasses at all times: +1, 1.5, 2,
    3.25. I use the highest one available to where the text is slightly blurry but
    still readable.

    So, I’m probably on +lenses for about 8-10 hours a day. I
    haven’t noticed any difference with or without the CRB movements, and they kind
    of feel weird with other people around, so I’ve since stopped trying and just
    focus on strictly relaxing.

    NEXT, I read another book called “Relearning to See”
    an I have been doing all those habits constantly with and without my glasses.
    Brief summary of these habits: sketching, moving, blinking, NOT STARING (this
    was a big one for me to get over), and belly breathing.

    Next, I’ve taken advice
    from my wife’s hynotherapy expertise: I have affirmations that I say every day,
    like My vision is improving daily, My eye muscles are completely relaxed, my
    eyeballs are shaped like perfect spheres, etc etc. Next, I do sun therapy (like
    you suggest also).

    When I fly I don’t wear the issued sun screen for my helmet.
    I put on a +lense reading glass and so I get both therapies at once for about
    3.5 hours 3 times a week.

    Also, every chance I get I do some closed-eye sunning
    like Bates recommends. Finally, I read my Snellen every day to syncronize my
    eyes to the lowest line I can read.

    Putting that all together, the results to me have been startling to say the
    least. I started all this exactly 5 weeks ago.

    I was 20/200, had been wearing
    -2.25 and -2.5 glasses/contact lenses for over 30 years. I stopped wearning
    glasses cold turkey, even driving (okay, yeah, that wasn’t probably too safe,
    but I was determined to never wear glasses EVER AGAIN).

    Last night was the first
    time the 20/50 line came in fairly clear.

    After swaying and relaxing, within 2
    minutes I read the 20/40 line (still kind of hazy, but defintely readable). 2
    weeks ago, I took my snellen outside and saw 20/20 crystal clear in the sun.

    astigmatism MUST be really close to (if not ALL) completely gone because road
    signs aren’t distorted anymore, just a little blurry, but at least it’s all
    evenly blurred.

    Finally, as you might have gathered in other emails, my night
    vision is still lagging, although yesterday I finally read the Snellen’s 20/70
    without the chart being lit up with light.

    So that is at least improving too
    (previously, I wasn’t able to even see the 20/200 line in the same conditions).

    So that’s my program, and all I want to do is share it with other people.

    look at me like I’m crazy for giving up glasses, but all I want to do is to
    prove to them that I’m doing the right thing and I WILL succeed.

    I can’t wait
    for perfectly clear vision so I can show the world how mainstream medicine is a
    big crock of …..

    Do you see any area that I can improve?

    Despite my success, I’m still looking
    for more information. I’m a sponge for different techniques.

    Thanks for your book…it’s clearly (pun intended) changing my life.


  20. Otis Says:

    Subject: Why I object to the over-prescribed minus lens.

    If it were just SLIGH loss of distant vision — I would not object too much, If the minus had NO EFFECT on the eye — I would not complain. But when the minus lens is part and parcil of stair-case myopia — leading, for many to detached retina, the I strongly complain. In addition to Dr. Bates there are many sincere scientists, engineers, pilots, educators who have objected — but to no avail.

    Here is an engineer who explains why:
    1. Previous studies have failed.
    2. The consequence of neglect.
    3. Some suggestions for change.

    Here is the video:

    We need to “unite” — not fight each other on prevention.



  21. Otis Says:

    Dear Sassy,
    I deeply regret that Dr. Bates NEVER HAD A CHANCE. He was “shut down” by people who have NO SCIENCE behind them. They say that the “minus” is … perfectly safe. When asked to produce clinical trials, or even basic SCIENCE, the insist that, because the minus lens is in PRACTICE it MUST BE safe. This is the worst logic I have ever seen.

    Objection to the minus is the second-opinion. I don’t care what method you use, but you should receive and education about the “risks” and dangers of the minus — before it is applied. Here are the reasons you will never hear that warning from the majority-opinion OD.

    The real tragedy, it that the N. E. I. ACCEPTS this “attitude” as science.

    Here is the explanation by Dr. Judy, and OD.

    I would be interested in your commentary:

    Dear Judy,

    I want to thank you for being very clear about your OD belief-system. I happen (for reasons of engineering and science) to disagree various items you state, but I always believe that is it possible to disagree about the behavior of the eye — without being disagreeable.

    It is just necessary that you be clear about what you believe and why you believe it.


    (Excerpt from discussion with Alex, I-see leader.)

    Judy> The (minus) studies were retrospective and the only patients who get prescribed excess minus are exotropes.

    Judy> Some long in use treatments are called “generally regarded as safe” despite lack of current standards clinical trials.

    Judy> Minus lenes fall into that category.

    Judy> We are confident that they don’t cause myopia due to a number of clinically noticed factors:

    Judy> People become myopic without using minus lenses.

    Judy> Uncorrected hyperopes, who accommodate excessively all time for all distances, do not become myopic.

    Judy> Myopia progression happens in myopes who don’t use minus lenses.

    Judy> Myopia progression usually stops in late teens/early twenties’

    Judy> The exotrope studies found that excessive minus, worn for up to 7 years, did not result in increased myopia

    Judy> Animal models strongly suggest that retinal blur not accommodation is the etiology (cause) for myopia with retinal blur in myopes existing whether or not they are corrected.

    Alex> > You complain about the Young-Oakley study only being on esophores,

    Judy> Not a complaint, just an observation that plus at near has been shown to slow progression slightly but only in esophores in other studies.

    Judy> This observation was in agreement with Young-Oakley.


  22. Otis Says:

    Dear Sassy,

    Subject: What Majority-opinion ODS believe

    Re: The minus is “Proven to be Safe – because it has been in
    use a long time”.

    This is a medical “attitude”, and should never be a
    scientific attitude.

    My arguments are that we must “lay in plans” for fundamental
    change – and that means organization of a truly preventive study.

    But Judy maintains that “modern optometry” is scientific – by
    HER definition, not mine.

    It is clear that no intelligent conversation is possible with
    Judy – but let us understand her “rationale” – as science.

    (Excerpt from discussion with Alex)


    Judy> The (minus) studies were retrospective and the only
    patients who get prescribed excess minus are exotropes.

    [ Very selective indeed. Retrospectives tend to be poor,
    when conducted by people who have already convinced themselves
    that a minus is “perfectly safe” and has no effect on the eye’s
    refractive STATE – at all – EVER. OSB ]

    Judy> Some long in use treatments are called “generally
    regarded as safe” despite lack of current standards clinical

    Judy> Minus lens fall into that category.

    [ This is the most total bull-shit statement you are ever
    going to find. It should be challenged, and that blue-tint model
    shows scientific truth, and WHY, a long-practice, MUST BE
    QUESTIONED ON A SCIENTIFIC LEVEL. Judy both denies the science,
    and then says that “her practice” in over-prescribing by -2
    diopters is “perfectly safe”. This is a perfect example of why
    you can not let EXCLUSIVELY the foxes control the chicken coop.
    OSB ]

    Judy> We are confident that they don’t cause myopia due to a
    number of clinically noticed factors:

    [ Confident because Judy’s un-supported opinion that a -3
    diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the eye’s refractive STATE. Science
    says the dead opposite. OSB ]

    Judy> People become myopic without using minus lenses.

    [ Primates placed in cages see their refractive STATE moving
    from a positive to negative value – EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE
    CHILDREN. No, a “caged” environment DOES NOT CAUSE THE EYE TO
    BECOME “DEFECTIVE’. This is simply a natural process for the
    natural eye. Hard to understand, perhaps, but we must work on it.
    OSB ]

    Judy> Uncorrected hyperopes, who accommodate excessively all
    time for all distances, do not become myopic.

    [ Invented words by Judy – from the Donders-Helmholtz theory
    – long discredited at science. There is NO EVIDENCE that a
    natural eye with a positive state is doing this AT ALL. OSB ]

    Judy> Myopia progression happens in myopes who don’t use
    minus lenses.

    [ A negative change in the natural eye happens (on the
    average) to primates that a placed into a “caged” environment, on
    children who put their nose on the book for long periods of time.
    This “progression” will continue if: 1. The keep on doing that,
    and 2. They are put into a -2 diopter lens when their Snellen
    still passes the DMV (20/40) line. The ADAPTIVENESS of the
    natural eye is the issue, not “failure” Difficult to understand –
    but we must work on it. OSB ]

    Judy> Myopia progression usually stops in late teens/early

    [ What EXACTLY does this mean??? From the song, “Don’t
    worry – be happy”. The more ignorant Judy is – the more I worry.
    OSB ]

    Judy> The exotrope studies found that excessive minus, worn
    for up to 7 years, did not result in increased myopia

    [ Judy is blind towards objective science. Look at the
    blue-tint model to understand objective facts and objective
    science. OSB ]

    Judy> Animal models strongly suggest that retinal blur not
    accommodation is the etiology (cause) for myopia with retinal blur
    in myopes existing whether or not they are corrected.

    [ Here we go with “cause” again. I don’t believe this and I
    never say this. It is the natural eye’s responsiveness (proven)
    and public ignorance that is the problem. OSB ]

    Alex> > You complain about the Young-Oakley study only being
    on esophores,

    Judy> Not a complaint, just an observation that plus at near
    has been shown to slow progression slightly but only in esophores
    in other studies.

    [ All eyes have phoria. It is normal and expected. It is
    measured by blocking one eye and watching the other eye “turn”
    slightly. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Osb ]

    Judy> This observation was in agreement with Young-Oakley.

    [ Frank mentioned this for “near”, as a casual statement.
    Judy must use this statement to throw out years of detailed
    scientific work. But she does this with all science. And that IS
    the problem. OSB ]



    The distant vision of our children is four fit for all of the
    above “reasons”.

    Just my engineering second-opinion.



  23. Otis Says:

    Hi Sassy,

    How you doing?


  24. Otis Says:

    Dear Sassy,

    Subject: The application of statistical analysis to prevention (by Bates or Prentice).

    It is incredible how few ODs, know ANYTHING about statistics and how to apply them.

    Dr. Bates did not keep good statistics in his 1913 study, but as an engineer I wll swear by them.

    Because of this “black hole” in the mind of these ODs, no follow-on of the Bates study WAS EVEN ATTEMPTED.

    Here are example statistics applied to Dr. Youngs study.

    Since you could change your refractive STATE by 3 diopters, you would far exceed the “change” in refractive STATE required for “highly significant results” — as described belown.

    The National Eye Institute is “brain dead” on ALL PREVENTIVE EFFORTS.

    I am certain that your statical analytic ability is excellent — so that is why I post these remarks to you.


    Dear Peter,

    cc: Dr. David Guyton (Ophthalmolgist) for commentary.

    Subject: Calculating the significance level of the Oakley-Young

    Majority-opinion ODs generally deny ANY significance for the
    Oakley-Young study.

    But the reality is that the results are highly significant.

    I have taken the time to go through Frank’s “Plus”, or
    so-called bifocal study.

    He stated that his results were significant — but hw did not
    supply the calculation nor some of the data to prove how
    significant his results were for the large number of individuals
    involved in this study.

    I wonder if you could review these calculations and either
    state your support, or supply questions about the data.

    Here is the data from the study:

    Nt = 225 wearing a plus (ages from 6 to 17)

    Sigma-T = I am forced to estimate this, but the standard deviation (from the Eskimos) was about 1.4 diopters, and is very reasonable under the circumstances.

    Nc = 192 were wearing a “single minus”.

    Sigma-C = Again, I am forced to estimate the standard deviation (Sigma) was about 2.0 diopters.

    Here is the classic equation from statistics:

    Xt – Xc

    Z = ———————————————-

    Square Root of [ ( Sigma^2/ Nt ) + (Sigma^2 / Nc ) ]

    Xt = 0 diopters (the Plus group did not go down)

    Xc = -1/2 diopters across the 192 people in the control group.
    (the single-minus went down at a rage of -1/2 diopters per

    After one year with 0.5 diopters difference:

    0.0 – ( -0.5 )

    Z = ——————————–

    Square Root of [ ( 1.4^2 / 226 ) + ( 2.0^2 / 192 )]

    Z = 0.5 / 0.172

    Z = 2.91

    Highly Significant above Z = 2.33

    This is substantially above highly significant after one

    After two years:

    Z = 1.0 / 0.172

    Z = 5.82

    This is in fact “off the map” of the Probability Curve. ***

    Pete, please check this math, and the significance level.

    If you agree with this analysis please make a statement to
    that effect.

    If you disagree, please let me understand WHY you don’t agree
    with these significance levels.

    In order to plan for FUTURE studies, (with motivated pilots,
    for instance) it truly necessary that they understand the real
    implications of this type of scientific test, and verification of
    the significance of these results.

    That is why selecting engineering students who know what they are doing is so essential.

    If we ever were to propose this type of study to the National
    Eye Institute, then this would be the “core” of the argument to
    support a preventive study or effort.




    *** Significance levels, from the text book.

    “Areas Under the Normal Probability Curve”

    Z is the horizontal. The probability is the area under the curve.

    Z Probability, or significance

    Z= 2.33 P= 0.01
    Z= 3.08 P= 0.001
    Z= 3.61 P= 0.0001
    Z= 3.86 P= 0.00001

    After one year, given the number of eyes involved, the
    results, in terms of science, were indeed off the map.

  25. sassisailor Says:


    I’m so sorry I’ve been away. Dial-up internet is just more than I can handle… I’ve decided to stop posting as I just don’t have the time anymore to do this. Things are going VERY very well. I am so glad you’re corresponding with my sister. She is very committed to writing on her blog (she loves writing), and she has so much to offer.

    I’m sorry I’ve not been keeping a better log of my progress but I’ve just been completely absorbed in my new found faith and starting up our farm. I’m so happy and content and being on the internet leaves me with a bad, empy, feeling that I just don’t like anymore… the internet is so wonderful, but having dial-up is really so amazingly frutrating that I’ve decided I have to get away from it 🙂

    I will try and visit Effortless vision once in a while to check in and we can keep in touch through PMs on that site!

    Take care and I’m sending back a HUGE electronic hug as well 🙂

  26. sassisailor Says:


    Thank you for the amazing tip, my sister told me about it when you posted it and I think it’s the most amazing and wonderful reason to give people for why I can’t see as well as they expect. Thank you SO much.

    I’m sorry I won’t be posting anymore, but I encourage you to keep up the Bates Method and read my sister’s site for encouragement and guidance. She is very committed to her blog and has SO much to offer. Like I wrote in my post, having dial-up internet is just too much of a time-sucker and I dont’ have that amount of time to maintain my blog…

    Thank you for your enthusiasm and support. I have really enjoyed your comments!

    Take care,

  27. sassisailor Says:


    Yes, God has been providing 🙂 He is so awesome and these past few months have been such a lesson in faith. Best of luck in your Bates Method endeavors. I feel so bad that I’m not going to be posting anymore. I hope things continue to go well for you and I’ll try and check your site every few months or so to see how things are going 🙂

    In Christ,

  28. sassisailor Says:


    Thanks for the encouragement and best of luck with your future career plans!!!


  29. sassisailor Says:

    Hey Otis,

    I sent you an email — wont’ respond here~


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s