Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Mercola - Natural Eyesight Habits

Rate this topic

Guest guest

By Guest guest
in Health, Medicine and Natural Healing 05

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Has anyone looked into this?? It seems similar to

other methods I've read about and some say it worked

somewhat, others say not at all, but no one I've

spoken with said it works as well as Mercola says it

will. Maybe it is a different technique than what I

think it is.

Any comments...

jafa

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Jafa:

I have signed up for the teleclinic course.

However, after I signed up I found out that I am not available on any of the

Saturdays that the course is being held on...so I might just cancel given

that the teleclinic is interactive so I will miss an important component.

I let you know how it goes if I decide to forge ahead and just listen to the

MP files after the fact.

vsp

On 11/2/05, jafa <jafasum@...> wrote:

>

>

> Has anyone looked into this?? It seems similar to

> other methods I've read about and some say it worked

> somewhat, others say not at all, but no one I've

> spoken with said it works as well as Mercola says it

> will. Maybe it is a different technique than what I

> think it is.

>

> Any comments...

>

> jafa

>

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

> http://mail.

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " "

> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A HREF= " mailto:

> -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Jafa,

I wish someone would comment, also. I'm so sick of glasses. The

explanation on the Mercola eyesight clinic is different than what I've read

about other clinics. The explanation of muscles being chronically TENSE, as

the cause for the majority of vision problems makes sense to me. I wore

hard contacts for 15 years. A few days after I quite wearing them, I awoke

one morning to absolutely perfectly vision. It lasted for several hours.

For someone who has always needed a pretty strong correction, it seemed a

miracle. It felt devastating to have to wear glasses again after having

experienced such freedom and clarity of sight. Of course, " brain tumour "

did cross my mind. After speaking to my opthamologist, who assured me that

it wasn't uncommon for people to have experience what I had, during the

eye's " muscle " adjustment period. So it makes me wonder if this particular

program would work. I'm still wading through all the marketing gibberish -

wish they'd just put the doggone price after their initial pitch without

making a person dig and dig and dig..

-Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

Re: Mercola - Natural Eyesight Habits

Has anyone looked into this?? It seems similar to

other methods I've read about and some say it worked

somewhat, others say not at all, but no one I've

spoken with said it works as well as Mercola says it

will. Maybe it is a different technique than what I

think it is.

Any comments...

jafa

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

the teacher of Mercola's course, Tom Quackenbush, has a fat book called

Relearning to See that you might want to check out. See also

www.naturalvisioncenter.com.

Sharon son <sharon@...> wrote:

Jafa,

I wish someone would comment, also. I'm so sick of glasses. The

explanation on the Mercola eyesight clinic is different than what I've read

about other clinics. The explanation of muscles being chronically TENSE, as

the cause for the majority of vision problems makes sense to me. I wore

hard contacts for 15 years. A few days after I quite wearing them, I awoke

one morning to absolutely perfectly vision. It lasted for several hours.

For someone who has always needed a pretty strong correction, it seemed a

miracle. It felt devastating to have to wear glasses again after having

experienced such freedom and clarity of sight. Of course, " brain tumour "

did cross my mind. After speaking to my opthamologist, who assured me that

it wasn't uncommon for people to have experience what I had, during the

eye's " muscle " adjustment period. So it makes me wonder if this particular

program would work. I'm still wading through all the marketing gibberish -

wish they'd just put the doggone price after their initial pitch without

making a person dig and dig and dig..

-Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

Re: Mercola - Natural Eyesight Habits

Has anyone looked into this?? It seems similar to

other methods I've read about and some say it worked

somewhat, others say not at all, but no one I've

spoken with said it works as well as Mercola says it

will. Maybe it is a different technique than what I

think it is.

Any comments...

jafa

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Has anyone any personal experience with his methods?

Sounds wonderful! I wear glasses, cannot wear contacts, and am soooo

sick of them!

Lynne

_____________

On Nov 5, 2005, at 11:09 AM, wrote:

> the teacher of Mercola's course, Tom Quackenbush, has a fat book

> called Relearning to See that you might want to check out. See also

> www.naturalvisioncenter.com.

>

>

>

--

Lynne Muelle

lynne@...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

>

> the teacher of Mercola's course, Tom Quackenbush, has a fat book

called Relearning to See that you might want to check out. See also

www.naturalvisioncenter.com.

>

>

This is basically the Bates method and there are many books on this so

it's not exactly the " secret that nobody wants you to know about "

What it does, at most, is superficial eyesight improvement. You

retrain your brain to interpret a fuzzy letter as the clearer letter.

That might help on a standardized eye chart (and perhaps books that

use standard fonts) but it won't help you find your glasses if you

drop them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hmm, that's not what the reviews of the book say. These people say their vision

really did improve - some of them with really bad vision improved a lot. I'm

willing to give it a try rather than face surgery and complications from it.

Are you saying this from personal knowledge?

Helen

Re: Mercola - Natural Eyesight Habits

>

> the teacher of Mercola's course, Tom Quackenbush, has a fat book

called Relearning to See that you might want to check out. See also

www.naturalvisioncenter.com.

>

>

This is basically the Bates method and there are many books on this so

it's not exactly the " secret that nobody wants you to know about "

What it does, at most, is superficial eyesight improvement. You

retrain your brain to interpret a fuzzy letter as the clearer letter.

That might help on a standardized eye chart (and perhaps books that

use standard fonts) but it won't help you find your glasses if you

drop them!

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

>

> Hmm, that's not what the reviews of the book say. These people say

their vision really did improve - some of them with really bad vision

improved a lot. I'm willing to give it a try rather than face surgery

and complications from it. Are you saying this from personal knowledge?

>

> Helen

my best friend is an optician...so I had this conversation before with

him. This isn't really new.

you can do a web search for the bates method. This link pretty much

makes my point that's it's all about interpretation

http://vision-training.com/Bates/Bates%20principles.htm

practicing with an eye chart will give you a good result on the test

but this is not transferrable to other eye tasks that you didn't

practice for and nothing in your eye is actually being fixed.

A myopic eye is damaged and damaged organs are pretty hard to fix. We

may be able to prevent future damage to the eye by eating more omega 3

and vitamin A rich food, and also see

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/32/1728_78749.htm

(ugh but I would rather have myopia than not read all day!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

The first clinic was yesterday and I could only attend 40 minutes of the 3

hour presentation.

When I listened to the pre-teleclinic presentation, I don't recall the Bates

method being presented.

That said, the snippets that I listened to yesterday did indeed refer to the

Bates method and this protocol seems to be predicated on the Bates method.

My understanding is that the Bates method is a *series of exercises* and

this teleclinic series focuses on *developing vision habits* that are

incorporated into one's daily living 24 hours per day.

On 11/5/05, arielb53 <aribhaviv@...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Hmm, that's not what the reviews of the book say. These people say

> their vision really did improve - some of them with really bad vision

> improved a lot. I'm willing to give it a try rather than face surgery

> and complications from it. Are you saying this from personal knowledge?

> >

> > Helen

>

> my best friend is an optician...so I had this conversation before with

> him. This isn't really new.

> you can do a web search for the bates method. This link pretty much

> makes my point that's it's all about interpretation

> http://vision-training.com/Bates/Bates%20principles.htm

>

> practicing with an eye chart will give you a good result on the test

> but this is not transferrable to other eye tasks that you didn't

> practice for and nothing in your eye is actually being fixed.

> A myopic eye is damaged and damaged organs are pretty hard to fix. We

> may be able to prevent future damage to the eye by eating more omega 3

> and vitamin A rich food, and also see

> http://www.webmd.com/content/article/32/1728_78749.htm

> (ugh but I would rather have myopia than not read all day!)

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " "

> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A HREF= " mailto:

> -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

On 11/6/05, arielb53 <aribhaviv@...> wrote:

> my best friend is an optician...so I had this conversation before with

> him. This isn't really new.

> you can do a web search for the bates method. This link pretty much

> makes my point that's it's all about interpretation

> http://vision-training.com/Bates/Bates%20principles.htm

>

> practicing with an eye chart will give you a good result on the test

> but this is not transferrable to other eye tasks that you didn't

> practice for and nothing in your eye is actually being fixed.

> A myopic eye is damaged and damaged organs are pretty hard to fix. We

> may be able to prevent future damage to the eye by eating more omega 3

> and vitamin A rich food, and also see

> http://www.webmd.com/content/article/32/1728_78749.htm

> (ugh but I would rather have myopia than not read all day!)

Yes, but this is exactly what Quackenbush/Bates/etc argued isn't true.

They say the eye isn't a damaged organ at all, but has rather been

misused through " improper vision habits. " Bates was using an external

method of verifying eye focus, so it seems unlikely that he was

misinterpreting letter-specific training for real improvement.

The " method of attack " is similar to Ravnskov's (sp?) argument against

cholesterol or the others against fluoride, etc etc: the original

study that made everyone believe X was wrong, but inertia/whatever has

kept everyone from questioning the assumption too deeply.

I have no idea whether it's true or whether the method works, so I'm

not really arguing with you. Just pointing out that they're

fundamentally refuting the standard interpretation of how the eye

works and what bad vision means. So they'd nod their heads and smile

if you said " an optician told me... " It's a similar concept to WAP

applied to vision. Pretty interesting anyway, and I'd love to hear

what people experience. I'd try it myself, except that they want you

to stop wearing glasses alltogether if possible, which with my

20/abillion vision would be impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

> > my best friend is an optician...so I had this conversation before with

> > him. This isn't really new.

> > you can do a web search for the bates method. This link pretty much

> > makes my point that's it's all about interpretation

> > http://vision-training.com/Bates/Bates%20principles.htm

> >

> > practicing with an eye chart will give you a good result on the test

> > but this is not transferrable to other eye tasks that you didn't

> > practice for and nothing in your eye is actually being fixed.

> > A myopic eye is damaged and damaged organs are pretty hard to fix. We

> > may be able to prevent future damage to the eye by eating more omega 3

> > and vitamin A rich food, and also see

> > http://www.webmd.com/content/article/32/1728_78749.htm

> > (ugh but I would rather have myopia than not read all day!)

>

> Yes, but this is exactly what Quackenbush/Bates/etc argued isn't true.

> They say the eye isn't a damaged organ at all, but has rather been

> misused through " improper vision habits. " Bates was using an external

> method of verifying eye focus, so it seems unlikely that he was

> misinterpreting letter-specific training for real improvement.

>

> The " method of attack " is similar to Ravnskov's (sp?) argument against

> cholesterol or the others against fluoride, etc etc: the original

> study that made everyone believe X was wrong, but inertia/whatever has

> kept everyone from questioning the assumption too deeply.

>

> I have no idea whether it's true or whether the method works, so I'm

> not really arguing with you. Just pointing out that they're

> fundamentally refuting the standard interpretation of how the eye

> works and what bad vision means. So they'd nod their heads and smile

> if you said " an optician told me... " It's a similar concept to WAP

> applied to vision. Pretty interesting anyway, and I'd love to hear

> what people experience. I'd try it myself, except that they want you

> to stop wearing glasses alltogether if possible, which with my

> 20/abillion vision would be impossible.

>

>

>

,

since I haven't seen anyone else reply here, whose vision has

improved, I'll put my $0.02 in here. I'm 42 years old, started wearing

glasses at age 19, and had my vision improve dramatically over the

last 3 years or so. Changing my diet from SAD to lo carb then NN

started the improvement. Once the improvement started, I would go for

periods during the day without my glasses because the prescription

wasn't right. (It was just vaguely uncomfortable to wear my glasses 16

hours a day.) I got the book " The Program for Better Vision " by the

Cambridge Institute about that time. Like you said, the book said to

wear your glasses/contacts as little as possible. So I wore my glasses

even less. I did get a new prescription during the improvement and the

optometrist was surprised. (I was wearing my glasses when I drove at

that point.) He said if the improvement continued at the

same rate, I wouldn't need glasses at all in a year. That was probably

2 years ago, and I haven't been back. My vision isn't perfect, but

pretty close. (For example, if I looked down my 500+ foot driveway, I

could distinctely see a person at my mailbox, but wouldn't be able to

recognize who it was.) I don't wear my glasses at all any more. I keep

a pair in the car, in case I get pulled over, because my driver's

license still says that I need corrective lenses.

I never have done the eye exercises in the book. I keep meaning to, to

try to get my vision perfect, but haven't found the time.

Have you thought of giving up glasses in stages? by getting glasses

that undercorrect for your vision problem?

Hope this helps!

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

,

I'd love to hear how the remaining clinics are and if you experience a

change in vision. I balked at the $333 or whatever it was, but if it works,

it's a great price. Thanks!

-Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

Re: Re: Mercola - Natural Eyesight Habits

The first clinic was yesterday and I could only attend 40 minutes of the 3

hour presentation.

When I listened to the pre-teleclinic presentation, I don't recall the Bates

method being presented.

That said, the snippets that I listened to yesterday did indeed refer to the

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

See below.

On 11/6/05, alangaud <alangaud@...> wrote:

<snip>

> ,

> since I haven't seen anyone else reply here, whose vision has

> improved, I'll put my $0.02 in here. I'm 42 years old, started wearing

> glasses at age 19, and had my vision improve dramatically over the

> last 3 years or so. Changing my diet from SAD to lo carb then NN

> started the improvement. Once the improvement started, I would go for

> periods during the day without my glasses because the prescription

> wasn't right. (It was just vaguely uncomfortable to wear my glasses 16

> hours a day.) I got the book " The Program for Better Vision " by the

> Cambridge Institute about that time. Like you said, the book said to

> wear your glasses/contacts as little as possible. So I wore my glasses

> even less. I did get a new prescription during the improvement and the

> optometrist was surprised. (I was wearing my glasses when I drove at

> that point.) He said if the improvement continued at the

> same rate, I wouldn't need glasses at all in a year. That was probably

> 2 years ago, and I haven't been back. My vision isn't perfect, but

> pretty close. (For example, if I looked down my 500+ foot driveway, I

> could distinctely see a person at my mailbox, but wouldn't be able to

> recognize who it was.) I don't wear my glasses at all any more. I keep

> a pair in the car, in case I get pulled over, because my driver's

> license still says that I need corrective lenses.

Alan,

Thanks for the story. I'm glad to hear directly from someone who's

used it successfully, rather than to read it from amazon.com comments

and such.

> I never have done the eye exercises in the book. I keep meaning to, to

> try to get my vision perfect, but haven't found the time.

>

> Have you thought of giving up glasses in stages? by getting glasses

> that undercorrect for your vision problem?

>

> Hope this helps!

> Jan

I've definitely thought about getting a lesser prescription and all

that. I just don't have the mental energy to spend on it at the

moment, especially since my contacts are relatively easy to deal with

at this point. Also, I've got a *long* way to go, so it was

discouraging to think of what a lengthy commitment it would be. My

contact lens prescription is -5.5 in both eyes. One day, though...

I especially liked Quackenbush's book because it doesn't ask you to do

any exercises. It's a method of seeing that you try to keep conscious

of all day. Kind of a neat meditation, though I found the need for

constant movement a little irritating and spastic. Could have just

been me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

THanks Sharon...I'll keep you posted.

My rationale was worst case US$333 and 21 hours of time....best case

improved vision.

On 11/6/05, Sharon son <sharon@...> wrote:

>

> ,

>

> I'd love to hear how the remaining clinics are and if you experience a

> change in vision. I balked at the $333 or whatever it was, but if it

> works,

> it's a great price. Thanks!

>

> -Sharon, NH

> Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

> have plenty to eat.

>

> Re: Re: Mercola - Natural Eyesight Habits

>

>

>

> The first clinic was yesterday and I could only attend 40 minutes of the 3

> hour presentation.

> When I listened to the pre-teleclinic presentation, I don't recall the

> Bates

> method being presented.

> That said, the snippets that I listened to yesterday did indeed refer to

> the

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

<snip>

> I've definitely thought about getting a lesser prescription and all

> that. I just don't have the mental energy to spend on it at the

> moment, especially since my contacts are relatively easy to deal

> with at this point.

I wore contacts for a long time, so I understand the issues with

trading them in for glasses. But I'll suggest it anyway: switch to

glasses. If for no other reason than you can take them off easily for

brief periods of time when good vision isn't critical. Also, since

glasses are such a pain in the neck, you'll have more immediate

incentive to work at correcting your vision. :-) Later, when you don't

need glasses any more, most people will just assume you switched back

to contacts.

> Also, I've got a *long* way to go, so it was

> discouraging to think of what a lengthy commitment it would be.

I don't know how long it would take for you to see improvement, since

I am a case study of 1. But my recollections are that my vision

improved pretty quickly. I could tell a real difference in 2-3 months.

And I just kinda 'fell' into it too - I wasn't working at it. Most of

the improvement happened because my glasses weren't 'right' so I just

took them off a lot. I couldn't have done that if I was still wearing

contacts. (When the optometrist noticed that my vision had improved

so much, he asked if I took my glasses off to read - I'm farsighted,

by the way. When I told him 'yes'. He said that was one way to tell if

your 'farsighted' prescription was too strong. It just isn't

comfortable to read with your glasses on any more.)

> My

> contact lens prescription is -5.5 in both eyes. One day, though...

I'm not sure what mine was - 3.4 or 4.4, does that sound right? It

wasn't horrible, but bad enough that I wore glasses/contacts all my

waking hours for 18 years. What a pain, especially outside in the rain

or snow or at the beach!

Another note since another post mentioned omega-3 oils. I do take cod

liver oil very consistently. I can tell in other ways if I don't take

it for a few days.

> I especially liked Quackenbush's book because it doesn't ask you to do

> any exercises. It's a method of seeing that you try to keep conscious

> of all day.

I'll look into that book. I haven't found the time to do the Cambridge

Institute exercises, even though I really would like perfect vision.

> Kind of a neat meditation, though I found the need for

> constant movement a little irritating and spastic. Could have just

> been me.

Hmm. Irritating and spastic don't sound good, but who knows?

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

> > my best friend is an optician...so I had this conversation before with

> > him. This isn't really new.

> > you can do a web search for the bates method. This link pretty much

> > makes my point that's it's all about interpretation

> > http://vision-training.com/Bates/Bates%20principles.htm

> >

> > practicing with an eye chart will give you a good result on the test

> > but this is not transferrable to other eye tasks that you didn't

> > practice for and nothing in your eye is actually being fixed.

> > A myopic eye is damaged and damaged organs are pretty hard to fix. We

> > may be able to prevent future damage to the eye by eating more omega 3

> > and vitamin A rich food, and also see

> > http://www.webmd.com/content/article/32/1728_78749.htm

> > (ugh but I would rather have myopia than not read all day!)

>

> Yes, but this is exactly what Quackenbush/Bates/etc argued isn't true.

> They say the eye isn't a damaged organ at all, but has rather been

> misused through " improper vision habits. " Bates was using an external

> method of verifying eye focus, so it seems unlikely that he was

> misinterpreting letter-specific training for real improvement.

Well you have to remember that the link I gave you was actually a

" pro " site simply describing the Bates method.

there are of course much more critical attacks. But you know what? You

can try this and at least if it doesn't work, it's not a big deal. Not

like surgery or strange unproven pills

But lasik does work and that implies that there is something damaged

that's fixable. whether it is worth the risk is another question.

> The " method of attack " is similar to Ravnskov's (sp?) argument against

> cholesterol or the others against fluoride, etc etc: the original

> study that made everyone believe X was wrong, but inertia/whatever has

> kept everyone from questioning the assumption too deeply.

>

> I have no idea whether it's true or whether the method works, so I'm

> not really arguing with you. Just pointing out that they're

> fundamentally refuting the standard interpretation of how the eye

> works and what bad vision means. So they'd nod their heads and smile

> if you said " an optician told me... " It's a similar concept to WAP

> applied to vision. Pretty interesting anyway, and I'd love to hear

> what people experience. I'd try it myself, except that they want you

> to stop wearing glasses alltogether if possible, which with my

> 20/abillion vision would be impossible.

>

>

>

I wouldn't compare this to WAP. WAP is based on the traditions and

wisdom of cultures that go back thousands of years. They knew from

experience what works and what doesn't. They were more in tune with

nature. This can't really be said for Dr bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Myopia and hyperopia are different things...myopia is usually due to the

eye being too long (one study a few years ago linked this to abnormal

growth due to a high-carb/grain? diet, very interesting) whereas

hyperopia is often due to the cornea/lens becoming inflexible with age.

If you became farsighted at age 19, though, maybe that's different.

If you're farsighted, your prescription would be a plus number. BTW

my prescription is -7ish so I had to laugh when you called your eyesight

bad. Anyway, I'd like to hear a testimonial from someone who had

moderate to severe myopia that was all or mostly cured by these techniques.

Tom

alangaud wrote:

> I'm farsighted,

> by the way. When I told him 'yes'. He said that was one way to tell if

> your 'farsighted' prescription was too strong. It just isn't

> comfortable to read with your glasses on any more.)

>

>

>> My

>>contact lens prescription is -5.5 in both eyes. One day, though...

>

> I'm not sure what mine was - 3.4 or 4.4, does that sound right? It

> wasn't horrible, but bad enough that I wore glasses/contacts all my

> waking hours for 18 years. What a pain, especially outside in the rain

> or snow or at the beach!

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

HA HA! Mine is -8 (right) and -10(left) !

Not only am I blind, but very unevenly so :-(

Take care,

Alice - HSing mom to Alice (DS) born Thanksgiving Day 1995 :-)

Hopewell Junction, NY

http://users.bestweb.net/~castella

castella@...

Re: Re: Mercola - Natural Eyesight Habits

BTW

my prescription is -7ish so I had to laugh when you called your eyesight

bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...