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

Dear Sebastiano,

Dear Otis,

Seb> can you provide me more information about Fred and Stirling? I
don't
know anything about them.

Otis> Yes, click here:

www.myopiafree.com

and read the commentary by Dr. Stirling Colgate on the right side.

The issues is this:

1. They "woke up" to the need for prevention BEFORE ANY MINUS WAS
USED.

2. Obviously a pilot (who MUST keep his Snellen clear) will wear a
"plus" with
great intensity. Further,

3. He will keep on doing it until his Snellen.

a. Passes the DMV Requirement (20/40 or better), and then, continued

b. Pass the 20/20 line (with a refractive STATE of zero or better).

But this is like losing weight. You don't need a "3rd party" to do
it.

You just need the scales and resolve to DO IT.



Seb: Another thing:



6. But they had the motivation and ability to
trust their own results with no "third party" involvement.


I can't understand this obsession with the 3rd party:

Otis> Have you read the remarks of P.Clarkii?

Otis> Just call that the "majority-opinion", and look
for the second-opinion that says that ENTRY into
nearsightedness could be prevented by the person himself.


if some one is
sure of his results, he wouldn't be afraid of 3rd parties.

Otis> If you clear your Snellen yourself -- why bother
(or pay) for 3rd parties? They don't care about you
keeping your distant vision clear. All they care
about is attacking people who advocate prevention
AT THE THRESHOLD using second-opinion methods.
(Let me add that OBJECTION to the minus lens
is the second-opinion.)


This is precisely something I started to think about just one month
ago. Before I taught that the world wouldn't have understood how
genius Bates (and so me and all the other guys curing them selves)
was.

Otis> I truly object to the word "cure". I think it is a mistake to
use it.
I think that Bates (followers) make sweeping claims -- that are
impossible to verify. The majority-opinion ODs then used
these excessive claims to discredit Bates.

Otis> Other researchers like Dr. Prentice made very limited
"claims" about prevention -- and I think they were on to something.

Then, even after many good results in terms of flashes, I started
to think that I shouldn't be afraid of a comparison. After 2 years of
"isolation" I came back ready to face the orthodox truth with a pure
scientific attitude, without any pre-ideas.

Otis> This whole field is staturated with misconceptions, starting
with the word "cure".

What I discovered is that
my AVERAGE results are not so good. I then realized that we - the
Bates practitioners - tend to believe only at half the truth.

Otis> Just remember, the majority-opinion only has 1/2 the truth.

We try
to remember only flashes and think as if we are so close to be able
to
maintain them for hours. We think that even if we can't see well in
low light, we will soon be able.

Otis> But you at least checked -- and see 20/20 under specific
conditions under
YOUR CONTROL. That is a major first step in my opinion. There is a
great
deal of SCIENCE behind plus-prevention (read Francis Young's work on
my site for an understanding of these issues).

We are so afraid of making a
comparison with the orthodox world...

Otis> The "orthodox" world has a minus lens that works impressively
in 5 minutes. If you are a "service" person, that is the only thing
that works in that context.

WHY? Why, if we are so sure this
thing work?

Otis> There are only two sure things in this world, death and taxes.
All the
rest is a matter of YOUR judgment.

The point is that we are afraid that a rational simple
explanation of flashes can exist.

Otis> I would say a rational reason why, when you place a -3 diopter
lens on the eye -- it changes its refractive STATE by -2 diopters
in less than six months.

An explanation that will kill all
the magic of doing this, and will make evident that it is not
possible
to improve more than something. I think that a real Bates
practitioner
should do as Bates did: face the orthodox medicine.

Otis> As you please. I think that prevention (on the threshod)
is a matter of science, not medicine.

Because what we
all want is to be cured, which means to see clearly as when we did
before being myopic,

Otis> I don't use the word "cured". Only wise preventive method
on the threshold. (See the Eskimo study.)

when the eye doctor used to say "you see well".
Would you have started to practice the Bates method if they told you
that the best result you can get is 3 lines of VA, let's say 5 in
good
light condition?

Otis> If they showed me the scientific fact about the proven
effect of a -3 diopter lens on the natural eye -- I would have
been more inclined to take true-prevention seriously -- and
avoid any use of the minus.

Bates says that you can cure completely your sight.

Otis> I don't agree with "cure completely". Reasonable
compromise is wise. (As I discussed above.)


Which means that
you can face any orthodox check if you are cured.

Otis> The problem is the OPINION of the orthodox -- which
is not justified by pure science.

I am still looking
for someone to find the energy to go on.

Otis> I would sit down and ask yourself what your true goal actually
is.

Otis> Substantially passing the DMV test, with 20/30 to 20/25 vision
under
"room" illumination conditions? Would that be "acceptable" to you
(self
confirmed?) I don't know -- only you can set that goal.

Maybe you are one of them.

Otis> No, I don't think so. It is you alone who must be the leader in
your
effort.

Just my second-opinion,

Otis








On Jun 25, 12:18 am, seba <sebastiano.bert...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Otis,

can you provide me more information about Fred and Stirling? I don't
know anything about them.

Thanks

Another thing:

6.  But they had the motivation and ability to
trust their own results with no "third party" involvement.

I can't understand this obsession with the 3rd party: if some one is
sure of his results, he wouldn't be afraid of 3rd parties.
This is precisely something I started to think about just one month
ago. Before I taught that the world wouldn't have understood how
genius Bates (and so me and all the other guys curing them selves)
was. Then, even after many good results in terms of flashes, I started
to think that I shouldn't be afraid of a comparison. After 2 years of
"isolation" I came back ready to face the orthodox truth with a pure
scientific attitude, without any pre-ideas. What I discovered is that
my AVERAGE results are not so good. I then realized that we - the
Bates practitioners - tend to believe only at half the truth. We try
to remember only flashes and think as if we are so close to be able to
maintain them for hours. We think that even if we can't see well in
low light, we will soon be able. We are so afraid of making a
comparison with the orthodox world... WHY? Why, if we are so sure this
thing work? The point is that we are afraid that a rational simple
explanation of flashes can exist. An explanation that will kill all
the magic of doing this, and will make evident that it is not possible
to improve more than something. I think that a real Bates practitioner
should do as Bates did: face the orthodox medicine. Because what we
all want is to be cured, which means to see clearly as when we did
before being myopic, when the eye doctor used to say "you see well".
Would you have started to practice the Bates method if they told you
that the best result you can get is 3 lines of VA, let's say 5 in good
light condition?

Bates says that you can cure completely your sight. Which means that
you can face any orthodox check if you are cured. I am still looking
for someone to find the energy to go on. Maybe you are one of them.

On 24 Giu, 19:39, otisbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



Dear Mike,

As always (you will agree) this is a matter of your majority-opinion.

I certainly agree that AFTER a child induces a negative refractive
STATE in
his natural eye -- well a strong minus is VERY CONVINCING.

But that does not make it science.  It just makes is easy.

Prevention is indeed difficult, no doubt.  But both Fred and
Stirling had the intense motivation and persistence to:

1. Start before any "minus"  was "prescribed" (i.e.,
they verified their Snellen at 20/50 to 20/70.

2.  Then, avoiding the minus, they went all-out
with a plus the neutralized their near enviroment.

3. Kept at it, until their refractive STATE moved
postive and their Snellen cleared.

4. In the case of Stirling Colgates, he realized that
if his refractive STATE began moving negative (after
a long period of time on a radar screen) he would have
to re-start this preventive process.

5. Since they were BOTH successful, there was no
need for a minus at all -- and no need for
your involvement.

6.  But they had the motivation and ability to
trust their own results with no "third party" involvement.

Second-opinion best,

Enjoy,

On Jun 24, 6:25 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<otisbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

Using other methods, some scientists and pilots have
cleared their vision to normal from 20/70 -- and they retained
it by their own verification.
We can  empirically INDUCE that there are not big results.

You can also ASS.U.ME that their efforts were more effective than placebo.

In my sample it's common for adults to get a little less nearsighted.

In your sample they happened to be trying.

In my sample they weren't.

Your "prevention" and Bates' "cures" are no better than placebo.

They *are* the placebo.

-MT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unofficial Biography of Dr.W.H. Bates, By Rishi Gatti
    ... Subject: Bates credibility. ... Otis> Further, he spent 10 years getting kids to read their Snellens, ... Just wanted to let you know, that these posts about Bates have inspired ... Of course it's against established practice (which is why I ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: How to perform retinoscopy
    ... called Otis Brown. ... But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys ... against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses). ... I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: How to perform retinoscopy
    ... called Otis Brown. ... But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys ... I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I ... your eyeglasses and follow my quick directions. ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: The Logical Problem with Bates
    ... Zetsu's posts where Bates came right out and said words to the effect that "not all ... Otis has a nephew, Keith, and a niece, Joy. ... success story for his method. ... than the control group -- that group of individuals who do NOT use the ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: Who Killed the Bates Successful 1913 Study?
    ... subject and claimed to restore vision, cure cataracts and glaucoma, ... Otis> Further I hate the word "cure". ... relieve headaches etc etc etc with low plus. ... the true, original Bates System. ...
    (sci.med.vision)