How one person improved his vision

One of the articles on this blog that has garnered the most interest and generated the most comments–both here and on the Discussion Forum–concerns the use of plus lenses and threshold focusing in order to reverse myopia. In my post “Improve eyesight— and throw away your glasses“, and the accompanying page on “Rehabilitation“, I showed how the principles of Hormetism can be applied to restore visual acuity and eliminate the need to wear glasses — without the need for laser surgery or other artificial measures. In essence, reading or viewing “at the edge of focus” for extended intervals over a period of about a year will stimulate the eye to physically shorten, substantially reducing or eliminating myopia. In my post, I cited research supporting research for the Incremental Retinal Defocus Theory of myopia and its reversal.

The article has generated a lot of interest, but also some skepticism.  People who otherwise recognize that weight lifting can remodel muscles and diet can change metabolism fail to appreciate how the same principle of gradually applied stimulus can change the focal range of the eye. Since I wrote the article, many contributors to the Discussion Forum have chimed in with their progress, their questions, and their success stories.  Quite a few individuals have been able to significantly reduce the strength of their optical prescriptions.  In a few cases, they have been able to return to 20/20 vision, or better.

Sometimes real success stories can inspire us to try a new approach.  So I invited one of our Forum members, who goes by the screen name “Shadowfoot”, to share his story with you.

Todd: Thanks for volunteering to do this interview, Shadowfoot.  For the benefit of readers, please tell us a little about yourself.

Shadowfoot:  I’m seventeen years old, and I live in the United States. I like to think that I have had an eclectic upbringing, and I suppose that is at least partially true. I have been home-schooled, public schooled, gone to a Montessori school, and will earn my associates degree from the local community college this Spring, in addition to being highly self educated. In many ways, you might say that I am not a typical teenager. Yet I also think that in other ways I am much more of a teenager than I would like to admit.

Todd:  Your passion and your motivation are evident in your contributions on our Discussion Forum, Shadowfoot. Tell us about how you came to start wearing glasses or contacts and how it progressed. What caused you to question the wisdom of continuing to wear corrective lenses?

Shadowfoot:  I’ve had imperfect vision for as long as I can remember. Even before I got glasses, I was often unable to read signs at the same distance as those around me. The distance which I was able to read signs was probably two to three times normal or so, at least in the years before I got my glasses. Yet it did not negatively impact my life in any major way, so I didn’t really see any need to get glasses. That changed a few years ago when I began to have trouble reading the whiteboard in school. It was then that I decided to get glasses.

Todd:  What was your initial reaction to wearing glasses?

Shadowfoot:  I remember that wearing them always gave me a feeling of power and satisfaction. There seems to be a human fascination with improving very quickly. A perfect example is the endless range of “Learn X in two weeks” products. Glasses are what these products wish they could do. They are what drugs wish they could do. “Here, put these on . . . and now you are perfect.” Basically, I could see SO much better. Imagine if you could put on a pair of shoes and run two times faster. That’s a little bit like how I felt.  So for a year, I wore glasses to school and when travelling, but not around the house or when reading. Sometimes I did, but I generally shied away from it for a different, and very important, reason: I seem to have a natural aversion to wearing things. For example, I am always happier in the summer in loose fitting clothing and no shoes. In the same way, despite the amazing vision, I did not like to wear glasses when they were not necessary.

Todd:  I had the same attitude.  I really did not like having to wear glasses.

Shadowfoot:  Yeah.  So I was caught between two ideals: the desire to have perfect vision and the desire to not wear glasses. One night, about two years ago now, in a fit of boredom, I turned to Google for an alternative. I quickly discovered the Bates Method. Despite that fact that it was labeled as pseudoscience and most of the sites I found talking about it seemed to be trying to sell me something, the allure was too great. I learned the basics and had some success over the next year.

Todd: Where did your vision start out when you came across the Bates Method and how did you progress from there?

Shadowfoot: When I first wore glasses, I was at 20/40, as confirmed by the Snellen chart in my biology lab. When I found your site, after a year of not wearing glasses, I was down to 20/30. I attribute that to Bates’ method of distance gazing and relaxation techniques. I don’t think the eye strengthening exercises such as making figure-eights with my eyeballs helped much though.

It was not until I discovered the plus-lens method and really began to experiment that I was able to improve my vision to the level I desired.  After six months of further experimenting, I reached 20/15. Presently, depending on what kind of work I have been doing and how diligent I have been about proper habits, I generally fluctuate between 20/20 on a good day and 20/25 on a bad day. In the future, I hope to reach 20/12, which I have reason to believe is my maximum possible acuity. But that’s not so much a matter of technique as diligence. It’s like, I could break the five minute mile mark and shave off those last twenty-three seconds from my personal record. But I just . . . haven’t. I don’t really have any need to. Unless I am feeling ambitious, 20/20 vision is usually “good enough.”

Todd:  I think getting from 20/40 to 20/20 is quite an impressive improvement in less than a year!

Shadowfoot: I suppose. I could probably get back to 20/15 or better in a few weeks if I was really diligent about it. At the same time, I could just as easily drop back to 20/40 in the same amount of time if I wanted to. That’s why it’s all about persistence over the long term.

Todd: You’re definitely right about that. Vision improvement is not a one-time effort. It’s about maintaining good vision with good practices. But I’d like to know more about your success.  Can you expand upon your experience?  What tips can you share about what worked well for you?

Shadowfoot: Before I answer that, I want to say a few things about the causes of myopia. Hopefully, this will help to clarify my methods and observations.

Todd: Sure, go ahead.

Shadowfoot: The powerful realization that I have come to is that there are actually two mechanisms by which myopia occurs. The first is an actual physical elongation of the eyeball. This causes light to fall before the retina, resulting in a refractive error. The second kind is caused by the eye remaining accommodated to close work even when viewing in the distance. Here the optics are a little bit more complicated, but the end result is the same. I think this accommodative myopia is related to sustained muscle tension rather than changes to the shape of the eye.  So it is much quicker in the onset, as well as the relief. It is this instability that probably causes the daily swings in vision often observed and noted on your forum. My approach has been primarily to minimize accommodative myopia, while at the same time slowly improving the true myopia aspect.

Todd:  Yes, I think that what you call “accommodative myopia” is sometimes called “pseudomyopia”.  It’s quite real, but unstable.  So how did you deal with that?

Shadowfoot:  I do a number of things. When reading, I try to give my eyes frequent breaks, even if it is only looking into the distance for a few seconds, and by making a habit out of distance gazing several times a day. I do this by tracing objects in the distance, such as tree branches or telephone lines, sometimes bare-eye and sometimes with plus lenses. They both seem to have advantages. And when I do that, I generally try to trace objects: the edges of houses, trees, etc, which I find more effective than just trying to “look” at things. Actually, just looking at things doesn’t really work at all, because your eye will tend to rest on things it can see well. That’s why you have to challenge the limits of your acuity. This has two purposes: first, to stretch and relax the eye muscles (essentially combating accommodative myopia); and second, to challenge my visual threshold, which is, ultimately what causes vision improvement. When I do these things, my vision improves, when I don’t, it flatlines or gets worse. Yet, I have a tendency to get absorbed in what I am doing and forget to do this. Haven’t figured out how to beat that one yet.

Todd:  I also like to do what you suggest – alternating my focus between near and far objects, and carefully observing the sorts of details and features you mention.  You make an excellent point that vision improvement is an active process.

Shadowfoot: There is something else I feel the need to point out, although it is a little hard to explain. When doing the exercises I just mentioned, I sometimes feel a kind of tension in my eyes, particularly if I have recently been doing a ton of reading without any breaks. Tension isn’t really the right word, because, to the best of my knowledge at least, I am actually relaxing the eye muscles. The best analogy I can think of it when you have been sitting for too long and you stand up. There is a period of time when your muscles suddenly feel tight in their new positions, as if they still want to be sitting. It is a little bit like that. So, in general, when doing these exercises, I try to go slowly if I feel any of this so-called tension, making sure to relax my eyes often by closing them for a few seconds.

There is also another kind of tension related to working at the edge of your optical range, either when using the plus lens or distance gazing. There was a whole episode I described on the Forum, when I discovered that tension, specifically from using the plus lenses too much, was causing me to get redeye. For that reason, I generally don’t use the plus for close work anymore. Distance gazing is generally less intensive and for shorter periods of time, so I don’t have a problem there.

Todd:  Yes, a number of people on the Forum have mentioned problems like eyestrain and redeye.  I agree with you that it is important to take breaks and rest.  Pushing too hard is counterproductive.

Another question:  Do you still wear glasses – either minus lenses or plus lenses?

Shadowfoot: I haven’t worn minus lenses in two years, except when I want to give myself motivation. A sort of, here is what you have to look forward to, why are you being lazy? But then it is only for a few minutes, as the prescription doesn’t fit anymore and they give me a headache pretty quickly. As for plus lenses, I like going for walks in the woods with those. But I don’t use them for close work.

Todd:  Thanks for the good discussion, Shadowfoot.  I hope your success will inspire others to take charge of their vision and take a closer look at how you, I and others have reversed our myopia and overcome our dependence on wearing glasses.

To my readers:  If you want to know more about how Shadowfoot and others improved their vision using the principles of hormetic stress, I strongly encourage you to read the thread called “Eyesight without Glasses” on the Rehabilitation page of the Discussion Forum of this blog.  Many questions you may have are already answered there. Feel free to post your questions and share your experience there.

September 6, 2012 update:

This blog article is now CLOSED to further comments. I think it has gone on long enough. If you wish to comment further or raise additional questions, please do so on the Discussion Forum linked to this blog.




  1. ZaneMiddleName

    I got my -1.50 glasses. I can makes out 20/30 but 20/40 better. I am glad I got these, I am definately going to be using these alot more while walking around. I am so glad though, now I will know even more if I am making progress, it will be easier to tell. But, I am going to be using my -1.50 lenses, and I can feel my eyes working, not just being cared, but working and trying to focus. That must be a good sign!

    • Hi Zane,

      Having your own brightly-lit Snellen set up – and reading it – is a major step forward. No one minimizes the amount of insight, motivation and fortitude prevention will takes.

      In my judgment, holding a -1.5 diopter up, and objectively SEEING what a -1.5 diopter does for your distant vision – is a major step forward for you to be in control of your life – as well as control of your distant vision. This is the type of “control” I seek in my life also.

      When I make a ‘recommendation’ – it is what *I* would do, given the chance to do it properly.

      It is clear that in school, to read the black-board, you will need that -1.5 diopter, no doubt about it. But equally, with personal disgression, you can work in many ways with no minus lens on your face. (This will be difficult at first, but in time you will get more comfortable working on your computer with no glasses on.

      As you get in this “no lens” habit, and do some other “things” of your own invention, you will see “slow change” in your distant vision.

      You will be able to check this “very slow change” with that -1.5 D. You will begin to notice, that where you are seening 20/40 now, then slowly you will begin to see 20/20 through the -1.5 D.

      I know you will have your own ideas – but being able to obtain and control the lens you use (for about $9 per glasses) gives you much better understanding of this difficult process. Keep on posting, and Todd and I will support your efforts.

  2. ZaneMiddleName

    Also, now I know what it looks like to see 20/40 so this takes the edge off of things now.

    • Todd


      I’m excited for you. I sense you are really starting to understand this technique. And your confidence is helping you to relax and trust in the innate ability of your eyes to retrain themselves. Keep at it diligently, and let us know how your progress.


      • ZaneMiddleName

        Thanks Todd,
        But I still am wondering one question. My whole moms side except some people all have glasses, my dad wears no glasses. Heredity must play some part. Do you think heredity plays part in bad vision? If it does, is it still possible for me to make my vision better?

        • Todd


          Heredity plays some part. But heredity is not destiny. Many traits have behavioral components. You can be born in to a family with a genetic tendency towards alcoholism or cancer — and still avoid those fates by avoiding exposure to environmental triggers.

          Studies of Eskimos showed that those from older generations with less schooling did not have myopia, whereas those with schooling who read a lot had a high incidence of myopia. Clearly genetics does not completely determine eyesight.

          Good visual hygiene can prevent — or even reverse — myopia.


    • Hi Zane,

      At last, a few ODs acknowledge that a child at 20/40 to 20/50 – should be educated to 1) Wear a plus, and 2) NOT wear a minus lens.

      By your own measurement, you have proven to yourself that you have been over-prescribed by 2 diopters, i.e., 3.5 D (Sph-Equ.) and can read with a -1.5 diopter. We know that a child (with nose on book) goes down at -1/2 diopter per year. This is why it would be very wise for a child to START with the plus at the 20/40 to 20/60 level.

      What is tragic, is this OD needs to explain WHY it would be wise for a child to NOT wear an over-prescribed minus, but instead make a habit of putting on a plus for all close work.

      Zane – this was a bitter lesson for me to learn. I can only wish that all ODs (as professionals) could learn to respect our intelligence about this need for a plus (before they apply that first over-prescribed minus) to us. But given the NIH, NEI statements, it is obvious that they don’t take that “honest discussion” responsibility seriously. I am just pleased that Todd does.

      • ZaneMiddleName

        Ok, I used my -1.50 glasses for the first time in school.
        In school we have smart boards. Well, with the -1.50 lenses, when they pulled that down to take notes, I couldnt read it. So, when taking notes I will wear -2.75 lenses, but when I dont need those I will wear my -1.50 lenses. This mourning the 20/70 lines, 20/100 line and 20/200 line will these dark black letters, but within 30 minutes-1hour it went back to faded letters.

  3. ZaneMiddleName

    If I can read further then 13 inches even if its blurry does this mean my vision has improved?

    • Todd


      Can’t answer your question without knowing how far you could see when you started. But 13 inc focus is equal to about 39/13 = 3 diopters. So if you started with more than a -3 prescription, you’ve improved.

      The best test, however, is the Snellen. Keep posting you Snellen.


  4. ZaneMiddleName

    Can Todd or Otis read up on this?

    I know I keep saying this but I dont want me to suddenly not be able to see up close and far.

    • Todd

      Simultaneous myopia and hyperopia occurs mainly in older adults, when their lens hardens. It is rare in young people. You should not worry about it.

      Zane, I think you need to relax and trust your body and your eyes. Just as with muscles and exercise, your eyesight will improve in response to positive and moderate challenge. Keep at it, but take breaks and don’t tire your self. And have fun with eye exercises. Don’t stress out.


  5. ZaneMiddleName

    OK! Today at gym I was farther back on bags. Well, I looked in mear I could see an outline of my lips and eye brows! And lines seemed more crisp, and I feel like the world around me lost some blur too. Lines seem more crisp.

  6. ZaneMiddleName

    This mourning I woke up. I looked at 20/100 line and the P and somewhat of the F came in focus then the next line down T was noticable and I read O and Z. Then the 20/60 line D C came in focus then I looked at 20/50 line and I was able to read LP!

  7. ZaneMiddleName

    Hi, so Otis says I should go without wearing glasses when not needed, but can I get everyones thoughts on this. Last year I went without glasses and my vision got worse by -1. Please, can I get different ideas on why or why not I should wear glasses when not need.

    • Todd


      The issue is not whether to wear glasses or go without them. The issue is how to use your glasses. You should wear whatever you need to “just barely” see in focus. If you have a strong prescription for distance, going without glasses will not help you because your eyes will struggle. Better to wear reduced prescriptions, by about 0.5 diopters, so that you can still see things in focus but your eyes are made to work — stimulating them to change. In such a situation, going totally without glasses can cause your eyes to “give up” or strain unnecessarily.

      If your distance prescription is relatively weak — less than about -1 diopters — then you can probably go without wearing distance glasses.

      The same applies to close work. Wear glasses that make your eyes work, but not too hard.


      • ZaneMiddleName

        Thanks Todd. Yea I just been wearing -1.50 and the doctor says my eyes are -3.25 but I can see 20/40- sometimes 20/30 with them on.

    • Hi Zane,

      Why I had you obtain a “weaker” -1.5 diopter lens. That lens gives you about 20/30 vision – by your own checking. That is VERY important to know, and your objective testing helps all of us.
      You ask, “…should I go with out any glasses”. IF IT WERE ME, I would do this. 1) For all work on computers, reading, writing, I would not were any lens. 2) Since, in my judgment, your -1.5 D (for distance) indicates you could probably wear a +1.0 D, for all close work. This is the “push print” we were talking about. This will give you the BEST opportunity, over the next six months, to slowly get your naked-eye vision to the 20/60 – 20/50 range.
      As always, this is what *I* would do. I tend to go “all out” once I have the “idea”, and think I can succeed.

    • Hi Zane,

      Subject: What your 20/30 (through a -1.5 diopter lens) tells me about your “near” vision.

      Basic physics: If you read 20/30 through a -1 diopter lens, then your vision will be clear out to about 1 meter. Focal Length = 1 / Distance.
      With this math, Distance = 1 / 1.5, or 0.66 meter. (Clear vision to 27 inches.)
      Thus, you can do all close work WITH NO MINUS LENS ON. Further, you can use a “weak” plus of about 1 diopter for all close work. (Again, this is what *I* would do – but I have that “goal”.)
      You suggest that, “… last year, with no lens, my vision went down by -1 diopters.) Highly probable. In fact, exhaustive studies show that the “eye in school” (with no glasses) goes down by that -1 diopter. This is both TRUE and NATURAL.
      This is not at ‘threat’, but if you decline to start this “recovery” process now (as suggested) your vision will again “go down” by another -1 diopter.
      These are the reason why I *personally* would wear the plus (for near), and would keep the minus off my face as much as possible.
      This does require great insights and long-term motivation to succeed, but *I* believe *MY* distant vision is worth it. If you are going to college in the next few years, I think you will learn more about the science that truly supports this type of self-protective knowledge and effort.

      • ZaneMiddleName

        I use plus every day. No doubt. Every single day all close work I use a +1.25. I refuse not to wear a plus.

  8. ZaneMiddleName

    As you do plus lens therapy does your night vision get better? I am night blind I think, I am 90% sure. Night time is really hard to see…

    • Todd

      Night vision is more difficult for most people, and especially difficult for myopes. Vision is typically better in bright daylight. You are not alone. But the good news is that as your myopia decreases, your night vision should improve too.

    • Hi Zane,

      Your “night vision” is closely tied to what you read on your Snellen. Until you start getting towards 20/40 (naked eye) on your Snellen – your night vision will be poor. I know this is a concern – but first things first.

      In using the +1.25 for all close work (I am tying this by reading through a +2.0), you are doing the “right thing” for yourself. But it truly takes time for your efforts to produce results. This is the most difficult part of “plus-prevention”.

      Let me add this – since you know how to use that -1.5 diopter correctly. After about one to two months, of this self-discipline) you should begin to read the 20/20 line through that -1.5 D. (Maybe slightly better). This is the strongest INDICATION that your vision is improving. Further, this is self-proof, which is the only proof any of us will believe in. Keep up your persistence!


  9. SamFeiner

    Hi my name is Sam. I checked my vision with an online snellen chart a couple of weeks ago. My vision is 20/25. What can I do to bring my vision back to 20/20?

    • Hi Sam,

      It is very difficult to provide advice. You have taken to most important step – of setting up your own Snellen and reading it in bright light.

      For myself, personally, I use my own “test” minus lens – to verify I can read 20/20 through a -3/4 diopter lens – just to make certain that every other aspect of my eyes are OK. (i.e., I do not have any medical issue or problem.)

      Since you are on the threshold of “nearsightedness”, I would recommend getting a +2.0 to +2.5 diopter lens – and use it for all near work. It takes some getting use to.

      Since I work with pilots (who I KNOW will have the motivation), I know this can be successful, if you are at 20/25. The only real issue is your motivation to do this yourself. At the top of this post you will find a man named, “Shadowfoot” – who was in exactly your position. I would read his commentary to understand what he was able to accomplish. His vision is better-than 20/20 at this point.


  10. ZaneMiddleName

    I never use Minus for close work, I dont use it when I eat. As i write all my comments, as I do my homework, I use a plus lense.

  11. ZaneMiddleName

    I look at my chart today, blink and my left eye either got foggy until I rubbed my eye. I hope plus lenses arent creating cataracts, because I read they do that. Please, someone help.

    And, do plus lenses have a cloudy lense you look through? My plus lenses look cloudy. I am horrified right now.

    • Todd


      No need to panic. Plus lenses don’t cause cataracts. Where did you read that — it’s nonsense. Cataracts are caused by changes to the structure of the protein in your eye. Generally, this is a result of aging or specific diseases. Read this good article on the causes of cataracts — there is absolutely no basis for thinking that a plus lens could change the proteins in your eye:

      I also don’t understand your question about plus lenses being “cloudy”. Like any glass lens, a plus lens remains clear unless you get it dirty or touch it with your fingers. Clean it with soap and water, or better yet a surfactant solution for glasses, then dry carefully with a soft tissue to avoid scratching.


      • ZaneMiddleName

        I read it here. Read this, when I saw Otis name it surprised me.

        • Todd


          I read the link you provided. This is a comment in a Bates method forum by an individual named Clark Knight. It is nothing more than his unsubstantiated opinion — no scientific references are provided.

          Knight’s writing is somewhat rambling and ungrammatical — which should make you suspicious. Nevertheless, here is his stated argument.:

          Plus lenses are reading glasses, close vision glasses, magnifiers. They cause, increase presbyopia and myopia. It causes cataract, many eye problems, interferes with true natural healing. It is harmful to the eyes; I meet many senior citizens, younger people, all ages that have worn reading glasses for a few years and it often results in cataracts, other eye damage, always quickly increases the blur at the reading, close and eventually far distances. Eye circulation, lens, retina… health and the vision impair fast, immediately once the reading glasses are used. Stronger and stronger eyeglasses are then prescribed, leading to cataract… The Plus Lens method increases this problem. (Bifocals and astigmatism lenses increase all these conditions.)

          Replacing the minus lens (which is usually prescribed for unclear distant vision) with another type of harmful eyeglass lens (Plus Lens) is just as harmful as the minus eyeglass lens. Close vision eyeglass lenses, ‘Plus Lens’ is a main cause of cataract and other eye problems. Senior citizens and even young people that start wearing close vision eyeglasses develop fast, increased vision impairment, often cataract or retina health impairment. I know a few people that have developed cataract and other eye, eye muscle, retina impairment, strain, extreme tension in the visual system from using ‘Plus Lens Method.

          Knight provides absolutely no basis for any cause-and-effect relationship between plus lenses and cataracts. Does he cite any studies on this? Or any medical experts, such as the article I linked to you? No. His arguments seems to be that he has met senior citizens that wear reading glasses who also happen to have cataracts. But there is no connection between these two things! Cataracts develop as a consequence of aging of the protein in their eyes. Has nothing to do with what lenses they wear.

          Be careful what you read in “chat rooms” on the Internet. The internet is full of opinions and bad “information”. Don’t believe every random comment, but take time to look at the research on the underlying science and medicine. Do a search on “causes of cataracts” — look at Web MD, Wikipedia, etc. You will find absolutely nothing to substantiate a connection between lenses of any kind and cataracts. Furthermore, trust your logic! Ask yourself — how could wearing a lens actually modify and aggregate the protein inside the eye? It doesn’t even make sense.


          • ZaneMiddleName

            At this point I feel helpless. I feel lost. Vision is the most important thing. But, from me reading many sights alot of people are saying they know people that used the plus lense, and it made their eyesight worse or it caused cataracts. I do not know what is true and what is not true, but I just feel like now I will go blind. I just need hard evidence whether it proves plus lense therapy works or it doesnt work. I have seen improvements in my vision, but for me now it is not enough. I need complete hard evidence that proves plus lense therapy works. I need more then stories. I need recorded data, and more then just line drawn charts. I am not trying to put down plus lense therapy, I was almost 100% sure, until I did more research, and tons of people from many sights are saying its not safe. I feel like I am in a corner right now. It is truely depressing.

            • Todd


              I suggest you pick up a copy of David DeAngelis excellent book, “The Secret of Perfect Vision”. In the appendix, on pages 213-218, he provides a list of 64 academic studies in animals and humans that support the effectiveness of plus lens therapy in preventing or reversing myopia including both animal and human studies. Since you are interested in the research, you should go to your library and obtain the journals and read these studies. Many can be downloaded on the Internet. DeAngelis reviews some of these studies in his book.

              To my knowledge, none of these studies identified any health risks, such as cataracts, associated with plus lens therapy.

              You can also visit his website and forum for the Power Vision System, where you will find not only hundreds of success stories, but a link to several additional research articles:

              You mention that there are “tons of people” saying it is not safe. But you provided me only with a single person — Clark Knight — who made some claims without any evidence. Did he provide any scientific studies that show plus lens therapy causes cataracts? Or is this just his opinion?

              Have you read through the accounts on the Discussion Forum for this site?

              There you will find more than a dozen success stories — including me, Shadowfoot, Patrea, Jansen, Rajeev, Andrew, Sutefeni, Gustav, PeterG, Nate, PROH, SoulEyes.

              If somebody had a bad experience or developed cataracts, don’t you think they would have posted on my forum or David DeAngelis PVS forum?

              So you have 64 academic studies and a large number of testimonials favoring the effectiveness and lack of safety issues with plus lens therapy. On the other side all I’ve seen is a comment from a guy named Clark Knight on the Bates forum. Who is Clark Knight and where is his scientific evidence linking plus lenses to cataracts? Where are the studies and names of people who developed cataracts from using plus lenses? I’m sure there are old people who use plus lenses for reading (the opposite use of plus lenses advocated here — which is to reverse myopia). That’s because plenty of people get cataracts from natural aging, and they independently wear plus lenses to correct their hyperopia. Old people also use canes and wear dentures. But that doesn’t mean canes and dentures cause cataracts! In science, it is important to remember that correlation is not causation. You need scientific hypotheses and studies to prove a casual relationship.

              Zane, it is good to do the research to convince yourself. I’m not sure I can provide anything more to reassure you than what I’ve written here.


              • ZaneMiddleName

                Funny part is I was bout to buy David’s book, and you said how it talks about plus lense therapy. As I read online, this is the only book that works. Ill get you links just let me type this, I read that doctors provide people who are starting to get cataracts, they give them higher plus lenses to make the cataracts grow quicker, so they can perform the surgey quicker. Maybe, they did not mean plus lenses, maybe they meant different types of lenses.
                The fact is I got 90% of my information from the Bates Method Site. I am just wondering this, not to put down these methods here, because I know for a fact plus lenses worked, I seen it in myself. But the side effects. From what I have read from multiple sites, its saying that Otis has undergone somewhere around 2 cataract surgeries, and some other surgeries for his eyes, but the part that got to me was that they said “It was from the use of plus lenses” now, this quote here made me question. I am going to look over this book.

        • Hi Zane,

          If you wish to believe in this man (woman) then listen to her – in her in this video.

          She promotes “Bates” – but does a poor job of doing so. But if the “plus” scares the hell out of you – then stop at this point and never return.

          Prevention is indeed difficult, and requires that the person learn enough to over-come his fears about wearing it. I can not help you with that issue – nor do I think anyone else can. The minus is profoundly easy – and I can see why NO OD WILL OFFER NOR DISCUSS plus-prevention with you.

          For comparison, here is a man who taught himself to wear the plus, (at the threshold) and slowly got out of it:

          I don’t know where you are “in school”, but I do know the facts of people who reject the “plus” and wear the minus. Their vision goes down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. That is what is certain to continue with you.

          This is how and why I “explained” the need for the plus to my nephew. This is the reason why “monitoring” his distant vision was so important. But of course when he did, he always CLEARED his distant vision – when necessary. I WOULD NEVER HAVE PUT HIM ‘AT RISK’. In fact, I would RATHER PUT MYSELF AT RISK. But to be effective, he personally had to wear the plus.

          You have an un-resolved conflict – and no one here can help you with it. When I “encounter” that situation, I would “quit” for the next six months, and go do your own agonizing research, until I make a choice.

          That is what *I* would do at this point.


        • Hi Zane,

          Subject: Your talk about “me” and what I think and what I do.

          Yes I have done exhaustive research about the natural eye (always referring to facts that I measure – if possible). I also interview those “insightful” ODs who recognized that, while the minus is “effective” on the general public, it truly has a “secondary effect”. But since you mentioned my name – I need to respond.

          Zane> The fact is I got 90% of my information from the Bates Method Site.

          Otis> Bates was GOOD. But even he said, that, if it gets beyond 20/70 – it is incurable. He said that if no “prevention” at that point, the minus lens induces “axial myopia” – that is indeed incurable. This is why you will find that I restrict what I say, to PREVENTION, respecting Bates’ wise judgment. You start wearing a minus – and you probably can’t get out of it.

          Zane> I am just wondering this, not to put down these methods here, because I know for a fact plus lenses worked, I seen it in myself.

          Otis> I trust my objective measurements – because I am an engineer, and know what I am doing. That is why you see me in videos making these measurements myself – for those who wish to prevent at the 20/60 (naked eye) level.

          Zane> But the side effects.

          Otis> Before you go down that path – you should understand the proven side effect of minus lens on the natural eye. (It is not “good”.)

          Otis> I am old enough to develop “standard” cataracts. The ONLY solution is surgery. I had two – one for each eye – of course. The result was good – and I have no desire to “drift” back into nearsightedness – which is why I personally wear the plus as I type this. Am I in “fear” of the plus. NO! I am in fear of getting back into nearsightedness. You bet I am.

          Zane> …and some other surgeries for his eyes,

          Otis> Since you wish to know – because of my myopia – I started to develop a detached retina – and had that patched with Laser. In fact, you can go blind from minus-lens induced severe myopia – which is the real “fear” I have about the minus lens – and why I asked my nephew to “protect” his vision with a plus.

          Zane> …but the part that got to me was that they said “It was from the use of plus lenses”

          Otis> They want to believe in “something”? No, it is simply age effect. That is just plain dishonest of them. But most people are thrown into a state of severe fear from such statements.

          Zane> …now, this quote here made me question. I am going to look over this book.

          Otis> The reason why you will not be successful, is your fear – justified or not. The reason pilots like Severson were successful, was that he wanted his distant vision “clear” and worked with the plus until he changed his refractive state by about +1 diopter – and exceed the 20/20 line.

          Otis> This is not an easy approach, and you have a lot of fear to overcome – with all due respect to you.

  12. ZaneMiddleName

    Thank you for you time to type. I believe the Plus Lense THerapy Works, because I was able to read part of the 20/50 line. Its just the side effects of the plus lense therapy. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe it is possible to gain cataracts from plus lense therapy, or even more. That scares me the most. Like I said, I believe it works, but its just what will happen in a long run.

    • Zane, there is no connection at all between my use of plus lenses and my eye surgery. Plus lenses did not cause me to get cataracts.

      We need to shut off this silly speculation that got started in the Bates chat rooms.



  13. Todd

    This blog article is now CLOSED to further comments. I think it has gone on long enough. If you wish to comment further or raise additional questions, please do so on the Discussion Forum linked to this blog.



2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Is Nearsightedness a Reversible Condition? 28 08 14
  2. Homepage 08 05 21