Subject: Monthly Refractive status post.
Dr. Bates was a very passionate man about his cause -- of true prevention.
Maybe all his ideas were not "perfect", but he was the first to believe it was possible, and to organize people to follow his leadership. His success is "against" the opinion of his day, and today also. See:
The official "medical" position is exactly this from "Medline":
Read this site under "Prevention".
From "Medline Plus", "Trusted Health Information for You". Click:
This is a biased, "office" majority-opinion, not a "checked" or verified
But it does suggest why no true PREVENTION study has ever been
conducted, except for Dr. Bates 1913 successful effort.
Dr. Bates' great strength was that he could not accept that a negative state of the
eye COULD NOT EVEN BE PREVENTED -- by his means or any method.
If you agree with this "Medline" statement, I would wonder why you bother to read our evalutation of the eye on I-See.
If anything, I think we should augment Bates "attitude" that with proper science
and support of the person himself, prevention would be possible.
What I recommend is that the person himself be taught to make this basic measurement of his own eyes -- as part of a true preventive study.
That would greatly reduce the cost of the study (intelligent self-control and understanding) and contribute greatly to the success of the study. (i.e., each person would be able
to confirm his own successful result, of clearing the 20/40 line, and then, gradually the 20/20 line)
That is the reason why I post this "how to" of making these measurements.
They will work regardless of which method you choose to clear your vision, Bates or plus.
Therefore, I post this as friendly support for all of you.
For me this is always an enjoyable learning process where we help each other
with these issues.
WHERE I BELIEVE DR. BATES WAS SUCCESSFUL.
1. This is the "range" were Dr. Bates was successful with children in 1913.
(I recommend reading his 1913 report -- as listed below.)
NOTE: They cleared their Snellens from 20/70 to normal -- but it took about nine months. I just advocate that they also measure their refractive STATE also.
2. I finally "gave up" on going to an "OD" to determine my refractive STATE.
Better that I do this myself, and save $400 for each visit. It is
more accurate, objective, and more repeatable than anything an OD could, or would do.
3. Getting a few "check" lenses from Zennioptical would be helpful in a
number of ways. (I will explain wny -- if you decide to "enhance" your
Whatever method (or methods) you choose, to clear your Snellen,
I consider measuring your vision improvement to be essential for your
long-term visual welfare as well as understanding of your success.
Here is how I make these mesurements, with a video to show how.
Using Alex's chart, I suggest marking each line with a felt-tiped lens.
That is a big help to see what line you are reading at 20 feet.
(You don't have to walk up to the chart to find out.)
Also, be consistent in this work. Use a bright light on that Snellen.
Putting a Snellen in a "dark corner" gives a false reading.
For those who wish to measure their refractive status, you can obtain
some low-cost minus lenses (for scientific testing) from Zennioptical.com,
for about $15.
I obtained a "classic" test-set from In-Focus, consisting of lenses and frames.
With this set-up I could indeed "prescribe" for myself if necessary -- thus
saving the cost of some "third-party" doing what I do better myself.
This idea came from SassySailor who is a true Bates follower.
She obtained a $500 "Focometer, and measured her refractive STATE
on a monthly basis. It was my goal to "reduce" the cost of the Focomter
to a reasonable level, so we could do a proper study under our control.
(Sassy "recovered" from about -8 diopters.
Her visual acuity checked out at 20/40 or better.)
MY CURRENT STATUS:
I pass the required DMV test, which is to read 3/4 inch letters at 20 feet.
Of all the important tests you can do, that is most important.
My Visual Acuity at this time:
20/20 in my better eye (as required by the DMV)
Practical range of accommodation (stop-to-stop).
I test this by determining the about of plus needed to blur the 20/20 line
(+1.0 diopter), and the amount of minus needed to blus the 20/20
line (-1.0 diopters)
[ This is to CONFIRM what Dr. Bates insisted on -- that the entire eye
"accommodates" NOT just the lens of the eye. I had cataract surgery,
so the lens in my eye can not change AT ALL! ]
This is the FUNCTIONAL RANGE -- which is all that I care about.
MY ACCURATELY MEASURED REFRACTIVE STATE:
(The amount of plus needed to blur the 20/20 line).
(If you are slightly "negative", then it is the minimum minus you need to
"clear" the 20/25 to 20/20 line on your "home Snellen".)
Refractive STATE: Plus 1.0 diotpers.
Ability to read "at near" with no lens at all.
29 inches. (This is consistent with my range of accommodation of
ABILITY TO READ AT 20 inches:
I use a weak +3/4 diopter plus (which I obtained myself).
How important is a clear Snellen to me? -- about 95 percent.
My concern about "near" vision? -- about 5 percent.
My need to do all of this myself? 100 percent.
If there is an "engineering" trade-off, and I use +3/4 diopters for reading,
but my distant vision is excellent -- then doing this myself is worth
it -- in my opinion.
But the big advantage is the degree of personal confidence and freedom you obtain
from taking control and being responsible for your own long-term visual welfare.
(I have found out that optometrists have no interest in YOU keeping your Snellen
clear for life.)
Subject: How do you objectively measure your Snellen?
After all, we only TRUST the measurements WE MAKE OURSELVES.
That is the purpose and goal of the above Engineering/Scientific measurements.
I HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO TALK ABOUT "ME" BY LISA.
Lisa> If you don't make this clear every time you report your vision status,
you might mislead people into thinking that you attained your distant vision
through some other means. Best wishes,
Otis> Fair enough! Through no fault of my own, I had cataract surgery that
changed the power of my eyes by 8 diopters.
Otis> I have never claimed that anything other than prevention in a certan rage
(see Bates 1913 study) was possible. (i.e., Snellen clearing
rom 20/70 to normal -- in about 10 months.)
Otis> But, again, with respect to Bates 1913 study (and a FUTURE PREVENTIVE STUDY)
I would add that each person in a preventive study should measure (monthly) BOTH his
Snellen and refractive STATE.
Otis> One person, posting here, insisted that Bates-prevention was a failure,
because the person did not measure his refractive STATE also.
Otis> The purpose "me" posting these two measurement is to suggest how a successful
prevention study could be conducted -- in my opinion.
Otis> Also, I think it very wise to inist that your child read her Snellen, and NEVER
wear a minus, consistent with passing the 20/60 line.
I wish you success with your child -- so that others may "follow" your use of the
Bates (and other) methods with your own children.