Re: Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years
- From: otisbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Sear Sebastiano,
Congratulations on obtaining 10/10 (20/20) vision (even
if short duration).
This is not the group to support further clearing work by you.
Why not join this group for further discussion of your
success (with some problems)?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/
Enjoy,
On Jun 24, 2:14 am, seba <sebastiano.bert...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi everybody.
I started practicing Bates Method 2 years ago, with a myopic defect of
-3.00 and -3.25. I actually can have voluntary flashes of clear vision
(blinking). During these flashes I can read very well: 10/10 if light
is good (outdoor sunlight).
The problems are:
P1. the flashes last only a few seconds, and usually disappears if I
blink
P2. in low light it's practically impossible to have flashes
P3. even if during the flash I can see well, the image is still often
doubled (or multiple). Basically during flashes I can see multiple
focused images.
I have been thinking for months that these were only temporary
effects, but after so many months I'm quite tired. That's why I
started to make some research (I don't understand why I had't started
before...) in order to clear some points. Here my questions:
Q1. There is anyone who could succeed in resolving problems P1,P2,P3?
In other words to cure completely his/her sight.
Q2. I went yesterday to the optician and had an objective measurement
of my eyesight: -2.50 and -2.50. How can I see 10/10 during a flash if
my error of refraction is so big?
I started reading articles, and I found a study of 1952 by Elwin Marg
"flashes of clear vision and negative accomodation with reference to
the bates method of visual training" stating that even if the
refraction error is not changed by training, the VA improves of many
lines. This is exactly what I experienced.
So I am now trying to figure out what a flash is, and in particular if
it can be hold for a long period (that's why I ascked Q1). These are
my three hypothesis:
H1: "Bates theory of accommodation was right, the method works: and it
is just a matter of practice. With practice I'll be able to hold
flashes." What makes me uncertain about this hyp. is that I started to
read literature about Bates. I found out that Bates theory is stated
as the truth by the authority. Every time there was an inconsistence
between Bates theory and facts observed by other scientists, Bates or
Bates followers cited Bates book. Which basically means that he was
the only person who observed his reality... On the other hand, after
two years of practice, I improved my acuity, so Bates had to know
something. See next hypothesis.
H2: "Bates theory of accommodation was wrong, but the method works".
As in the literature I found that the ciliary muscle is the "thing"
that generates accommodation, and also Bates said that what was
important are the facts, not the theory, I think that it is possible
that it is really this the truth. Still, exercises of relaxation
proposed by Bates can relax the autonomous part of the nerve system
and let the muscle being controlled properly and accommodate in the
right way. In this scenario I still consider myopia as a functional
problem. The only difference between H2 and H1 is what is the real
factor in accommodation.
H3: "Myopia is not functional: depends on the shape of eye/lens and
can't be improved with training". This is the classical orthodox
theory. Many studies make me feel that this theory is right: in
particular the one by Elwin Marg 1952 and also many studies on
biofeedback (Gallaway) explains my flashes of clear view in terms of
improved VA due to the training. Refractive error according to these
studies is not changed. It all seem consistent: my VA was improved by
the training and made me able to "interpret better" the blur and read
more lines. Regarding flashes, they could just be due to tear film
that acts as lens. These flashes are also stronger during the day
because of size of the pupil and Depth of Field in different light
conditions. The feeling of rest and relaxation can be explained as
result of auto suggestion: basically one can convince himself that
will see well when will be relaxed, and what really happen is that,
due to improved ability to interpret blur, tear film lens, big depth
of field because of strong light condition, that person sees better
and "triggers" the "feeling of being relaxed" as previously auto
programmed (see also NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming).
This hyp would save the orthodox theory, but still wouldn't explain my
improvement from -3.25 to -2.50.
I'd like that everybody that has any suggestion for me, material, or
personal experience help me to understand which one of the hypothesis
is closer to the truth.
I think I improved a lot, but if I don't discover what a flash is, I
really can't find the strength to go on with the treatment, and
neither to stop without feeling guilty.
The truth will free me, I don't really care if it will be that Visual
Training can heal your sight or not.
I am right now in New York until 30th June. Then I'll be in Italy. I
am available also to travel to meet people who obtained a good
improvement (permanent 10/10 even in low light condition) or to see
people who can definitely convince me that this method doesn't work.
Thank you to everybody.
Sebastiano
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years
- Next by Date: Re: Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years
- Previous by thread: Re: Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years
- Next by thread: Re: Bates - I am tired, I think I'll quit after 2 years
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
