MT >seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together.

It's still not the same as someone with perfect sight seeing, yes more
functional

and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.

Disagree look through any glass less quality of color

MAybe we just become accustomed to blurriness? Sure seems like a little
rebound effect. Who did without their glasses for 3 months, most people run
right out?

Ask them whether they'd rather see without them no problem. Yes most everyone
would prefer not to need glasses

them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome."

But people overcome them all the time.

People become accustomed and function alright, there is still changes in the
way things are seen compared to perfect sight

How well can you see out of corner of your eye with glasses. It's all blurry
and lose attention to this field focusing only on part glasses make
artificially clear.

I already posted the studies that it's not all the lens either.

Minus lenses make the eyes worse some of us think. Otis just posted about
this
better than I can.

Got to go don't have time to address any more, will do changes in refraction
later.

No but that wasnt' the argument. Bates said they
see better color and form worse
with glasses. Nonsense.

"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:iLVY
No but that wasnt' the argument. Bates said they
see better color and form worse
with glasses. Nonsense.

I meant "see color and form worse with glasses."

Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."

Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
objects are "drawn into" the field.

In article <2zEYa.1631$vo2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
mty...@mindspring.com says...

Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."
Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
objects are "drawn into" the field.

The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by
the simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual
field. To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the
point.

There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight
which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames
themeselves block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the
frames are no longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes
accustomed to working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus
lenses minify is quite correct, - they draw more information into an
area of sight that has been contracted.

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at
the very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.

Kevin

==============================================

Bates' assumptions and his leaps of logic are HUGE compared to "nobody has
significant accommodation after 60."

Bates: "That glasses cannot improve the sight to normal can be very simply
demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or concave glass.
It will be noted that the color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with the
naked eye; and since the perception of form depends upon the perception of
color, it follows that both color and form MUST be less distinctly seen with
glasses than without them." [emphasis mine]

I don't get the same results. Most of my patients see better color and form
_with_ their glasses than without them. Minus lenses minify and have barrel
distortion, but that doesn't outweigh seeing forms you can't see without them,
seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together.

Bates: "Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as EVERYONE
knows who has ever looked out of a window."

I don't get that either. There's a difference, but I don't think "everyone"
notices it. Maybe glass is better these days? Spectacle lenses are clear on the
edges, not green like windowpanes. Color distortion is measured by spectroscopy
and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.

Bates: "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or less
degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted. "

I don't get the same result. If you can't "note" improvement, where is it?
Refractive error simply does not go away when they take off their glasses. Ask
patients who lose their glasses and make do without them for three months. Their
refractions are not generally better. Every eye doctor can document anecdotes
that disprove this gross generalization, and very few to support it.

Bates: "That the human eye resents glasses is a fact
which NO ONE would attempt to deny."

I would. Ask a hyperope or presbyope if his eyes feel better with or without
glasses.

Bates: "The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all
objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex glasses enlarge
them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome."

But people overcome them all the time.

Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."

Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
objects are "drawn into" the field.

Bates: "It has been demonstrated, however, that the lens is NOT A FACTOR, either
in the production of accommodation, or in the correction of errors of
refraction. Therefore under NO circumstances can there be a strain of the
ciliary muscle to be relieved."

Patently false. No contribution at all? Ask any aphake. Ask yourself after
cycloplegia. Ask any eye surgeon - they pluck 'em out all the time and usually
the other parts still work.

Bates: "It is fortunate that many people for whom glasses have been prescribed
refuse to wear them, thus escaping not only much discomfort but much INJURY to
their eyes."

This is particularly treacherous if they drive. Bates didn't have to meet his
patients on a dark rainy highway with 120 mph between them. I can't find this
INJURY he's talking about.

Bates: "As refractive abnormalities are continually changing, not only from day
to day and from hour to hour, but from minute to minute, even under the
influence of atropine, the accurate fitting of glasses is, of course;
IMPOSSIBLE."

I don't share his experience. I have refracted people who remained consistent
over decades. I have frequently refracted without any knowledge of their
previous prescription, and later found it within a quarter-diopter of values
from previous years. I often repeat refractions when people have problems with
their new glasses, and to say they NEVER refract the same a few days later is
ludicrous.

A bunch of anecdotes can't prove a rule, but they easily DISPROVE this one, plus
millions of people who find their glasses work the same day after day.

Bates: "It has been demonstrated in thousands of cases that all abnormal action
of the external muscles of the eyeball is accompanied by a strain or effort to
see, and that with the relief of this strain the action of the muscles becomes
normal and ALL ERRORS OF REFRACTION DISAPPEAR."

I don't know of anything that provides relief such that "ALL errors of
refraction disappear". Nor did Bates, nor do you. Muscle imbalance causes
strain. Not the other way around.

Bates: "The eye may be blind, it may be suffering from atrophy of the optic
nerve, from cataract, or disease of the retina; but so long as it does not try
to see, the external muscles act normally and there is no error of refraction.
This fact furnishes us with the means by which ALL these conditions, so long
held to be incurable, may be cured."

Whaaaat? ALL these conditions? Relaxation cures ALL cataract, optic atrophy, and
histoplasmosis? That's faith-healing, and its frankly cruel and anxiogenic to
tell people these problems are their fault because they can't relax.

Bates: "Myopes, although they see better at the near-point than they do at the
distance, NEVER see as well as does the eye with normal sight.."

Myopes do not see WORSE up close than emmetropes. At age 50, they definitely see
BETTER up close than everybody else. And a macro lens doesn't have lower
inherent resolution than a telephoto.

Bates: "The remedy is not to avoid either near work or distant vision, but to
get rid of the mental strain which underlies the imperfect functioning of the
eye at both points; and it has: been demonstrated in thousands of cases that
this can ALWAYS be done. "

So how come nobody but Jesus matches his success rate? No I DON'T want to read
all thousand stories. I want to hear averages, before and after, with a treated
group compared to an untreated group with the same demographics. Why hasn't it
been done?

Because every believable attempt to modify refractive error with
lenses, training, and mental effort has shown such limited success that the
noone will invest the effort and expense to prove that if we re-hash it just
right, it WILL work. That's what the COMET study attempted to do.

Bates: "Fortunately, ALL persons are able to relax under certain conditions at
will."

Well, "at will" means they would have to be conscious, so that rules out death,
coma, narcosis or sleep. So why isn't the "Natural Method" used for other
anxieties? Yoga and biofeedback would outsell Valium and Xanax combined, if they
worked. Which professional would you expect to use the Natural Method - a
psychologist, or a psychic?

Bates: "In ALL uncomplicated errors of refraction the strain to see can be
relieved, temporarily, by having the patient look at a blank wall without trying
to see."

Um, OK I'll buy that one. Closing the eyes works, too. Bell's reflex 'n all
that.

Bates: "The fact is that when the mind is at rest nothing can tire the eyes, and
when the mind is under a strain NOTHING can rest them. ANYTHING that rests the
mind will benefit the eyes."

So will Xanax or meditation or spiritual enlightenment make my astigmatism
better? Never worked for me. My K readings didn't change appreciably.

Bates: "After looking at the sun most people see black or colored spots which
may last from a few minutes to a year or longer, but are NEVER permanent."

My textbooks beg to differ. But what do they know?

-MT

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.

Kevin

In article <MPG.199ecb5f8066fe68989...@news.ntlworld.com>,

Kevin <sevenths...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.
An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.
Kevin

BatesCultist:

Your statements are absolutely scientifically false.

1. ALL myopes DO NOT have deterioration of the retina. Some do, some
don't. For that matter, so do hyperopes. Some do, some don't. For that
matter, so do people with no optical correction. Some do, some don't.
And some people are born with a predisposition, and some people are
simply born that way.

2. Lattice degeneration, peripheral holes and tears have nothing to do
with whether a person has worn glasses or not, and hardly to do with
whether or not there is a refractive error. The only FACT we know for
certain is that SOME people with enlongated axial length or who have a
physical growth anomolgy thining the peripheral retina, or those who
have had head trauma are at higher risk for "deterioration". Wearing
glasses has nothing to with it. Hitting your head on the windshield
because some loonatic crashed into you because s/he was Bate-d into
not using optical correction is a definate potential cause.

3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.

4. It is not a fact that a myope wearing glasses is trained into using
a smaller area of the retina. The perihperal retina gets plently of
stimulation----and whatever, it has nothing to do with peripheral
retina anomolies.

SO....

Your statements are absolutely scientifically false. Like most
everything Bates. But, your a zealot, a fanatic and nothing contrary
to your position means a damn thing to you.

--LB

3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.

So you blame glasses for lattice degeneration? That's new.

-MT

I'm coming from the experience of teaching people the method, and one of
the most common improvements is in the sensitivity of the peripheral
vision. There needs to be some controlled studies done to verify/negate
this observation, but in due course that will come about.

In article <2zEYa.1631$vo2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
mty...@mindspring.com says...

Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."
Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
objects are "drawn into" the field.

The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by
the simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual
field. To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the
point.

There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight
which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames
themeselves block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the
frames are no longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes
accustomed to working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus
lenses minify is quite correct, - they draw more information into an
area of sight that has been contracted.

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at
the very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.

Kevin

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
astonishing raeaction!

I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.

Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
your words won't sound so hollow.

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
astonishing raeaction!

I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.

Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
your words won't sound so hollow.

In article <MPG.19a0267a83607f95989...@news.ntlworld.com>,

Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is
still OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat?
I heard it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all
spacecraft that make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon
isn't made of cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?

--LB

On 30 Mar, 13:46, LarryDoc <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

In article <MPG.19a0267a83607f95989...@news.ntlworld.com>,
Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is
still OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat?
I heard it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all
spacecraft that make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon
isn't made of cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?

--LB

The question is, Don't YOU really want to know? Since you are the
ones treating people, shouldn't you research this more instead of
mocking and ignoring something that you know nothing about. If there
is a cure for myopia, hyperopia, etc.; is it not in your patients
best interest to find this out?