• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Eyeglasses and retail optometry are scams

No it doesn't. Tippit previously claimed he had some improvement, but not strong enough to be useful to him. He subsequently said he claimed it doesn't work.

Science says the Bates technique does not work.
That's what he/she claimed. Some improvement but not enough. How much is some and not enough remains unidentified.

What has been identified is that the Bates method is useless.So the "some improvement but not sufficient" claim is obviously bogus.
 
His eyesight might have improved while exploring the Bates method but not necessarily because of it...

Correlation, causation and all of that..
Yup. Now that I am in the 50s, I am likely to experience ocular degradation. I accept that as sort of inevitable.

It hasn't started yet, so I am lucky. But I harbour no illusions. It will happen at some point and there is nothing I can do about it. And when it does, I will be off to the optometrist pronto.

Tippit seems to believe that sheer stubborness can put that off. Not a clue why. It appears to be an unsupported belief of some sort. Not one I have encountered before. It is a rather odd CT to propose.
 
I thought this thread was nonsense, but then *they* caught up to me.
After nearly 5 decades of not needing glasses, they must have snuck into my bedroom at night and replaced my good eyes with ones that now need their glasses to see lines in the distance more clearly.
On the plus side, they did reward me by removing the chemical they put in my water making me have more frequent headaches.
They *claim* this is because I need to strain less to see, but clearly that can't be right.
 
I thought this thread was nonsense, but then *they* caught up to me.
After nearly 5 decades of not needing glasses, they must have snuck into my bedroom at night and replaced my good eyes with ones that now need their glasses to see lines in the distance more clearly.
On the plus side, they did reward me by removing the chemical they put in my water making me have more frequent headaches.
They *claim* this is because I need to strain less to see, but clearly that can't be right.

That wouldn't happen to be "dihydrogen monoxide" would it? A known killer.
 
It might be, it might be. We should lobby to have that removed from tap water.

I only buy naturally grown water though. The ingredients are listed, but my all natural eyes have some issues seeing what is on the label lately. Even more proof of the conspiracy.
 
Yup. Now that I am in the 50s, I am likely to experience ocular degradation. I accept that as sort of inevitable.

It hasn't started yet, so I am lucky. But I harbour no illusions. It will happen at some point and there is nothing I can do about it. And when it does, I will be off to the optometrist pronto.

Tippit seems to believe that sheer stubborness can put that off. Not a clue why. It appears to be an unsupported belief of some sort. Not one I have encountered before. It is a rather odd CT to propose.

It comes with age. Your eyesight gets weaker, hearing loss is common, and eventually you begin to smell bad, too. :p
 
And that's what comes of wearing glasses.

Stop being a cowering wimp, and be a man, and fling away your mask, I mean your glasses.
 
I don't visit this forum much anymore, but I wanted to update my progress. My vision is phenomenal, and quickly approaching 20/30 on the Snellen chart. I still have some astigmatism in my right eye, and as a result I do eye patching for about 2hrs a day, a couple days per week. This is a vast improvement from when I started, with OD -2.00 CYL -0.75 and OS -1.75, and the remaining astigmatism is improving rapidly due to the patching.

All of this is the result of the reduced lens therapy/endmyopia method, which is based on science, as opposed to retail optometry which is based on lies (progressive myopia is genetic, eyeglasses treat myopia versus causing and exacerbating progressive myopia).

For those of you who have myopia and were skeptical of Jake Steiner's youtube videos describing this topic, I urge you to check out Gemily Mez's channel where she documents her own experience!

 
I don't visit this forum much anymore, but I wanted to update my progress. My vision is phenomenal, and quickly approaching 20/30 on the Snellen chart.


But last September you were already at 20/30 (quoted below). What happened?
I have prescriptions verifying my original diagnosis, which converted to Snellen is roughly 20/300 and I can read a Snellen to about 20/30 now, uncorrected. I still have most of my original pairs of glasses.
 
But last September you were already at 20/30 (quoted below). What happened?

I would say I was closer to 20/35 or 20/40, and my astigmatism was worse. I have absolutely improved. The astigmatism resulted in double vision at closer distances, and now it only manifests farther away. My vision isn't perfect yet, and it will probably still be a matter of months, but it is getting better. And 20/30 is much better than 20/300.
 
How does 'eyepatching' fix astigmatism?

I don't know. I suspect it works in a similar way to how it corrects amblyopia in children, neurological stimulation. It's not prescribed because it takes a very long time, requires a lot of patience, and maybe carries even more of a stigma than it does in children.

*EDIT* I do not believe eye patching will improve some forms of astigmatism, such as corneal birth defect or permanent injuries to the eye. It definitely improves lens-induced astigmatism which comes from years of wearing glasses, and subjecting your eyes to hyperoptic defocus.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom