Alternative, complementary and holistic health care

f…@ecst.csuchico.edu (Kevin Haddock) wrote:
>I wonder if anyone has had any luck with those ‘lazer’ glasses
>with all the little pinholes cut in blackout lenses?  From the
>little I know about optics it would seem to make sense.  Basically
>I think what happens is the pinholes make any image focus regardless
>of what your lenses are doing so it allows the muscles to find
>thier ‘home’ (i.e. relaxed) position.  What happens after a while is
>your brain ‘remembers’ which way to go to correct the image by
>reinforcing a correctly focused image at the ‘home’ position instead
>of glasses which reinforce a correctly focused image at in incorrect
>position.

I am curious about these glasses too.  The optics is a mystery to me:
how can pinholes correct any kind of visual error?  
And if one assumes that focus will be achieved independent of the
muscular condition of the eye, I would argue that still, this is not
enough to guarantee that your eye muscles will find their relaxed
"home" position.  

In these terms, it is the goal of Bates therapy to help you learn the
habit of keeping your eye muscles in their (dynamically) relaxed
home position.  For those of us who have worn glasses for years, this is
no easy task to achieve!  Even in sleep (and for me personally I would
say moreso in sleep) your eye muscles are far from relaxed.  One of the
ideas behind "palming" (covering your eyes with the palms of your hands)
is to help block out all light which might help make it easier to relax.
So even if these pinhole glasses somehow allow clarity of vision, I
would find it hard to believe that they alone would cause the brain to
coordinate the muscles into a healthy relaxed condition.

This is not to say that I am not considering the possibility that these
glasses could be a useful tool in conjunction with relaxation techniques.
The major drawback for me in my work with Bates techniques is that the
wearing of glasses must be avoided (as they reinforce bad habits which
are most desperately trying to be unlearned), so much time is spent not
seeing clearly off in the distance.  Perhaps these pinhole glasses
could allow clarity while not reinforcing bad habits (?!)  This is an
interesting exciting possibility!

Could someone please send me some more info on these and/or where to
look for them?

———————–

hu…@waterloo.hp.com (Chris Hudel) wrote:
>But seriously folks, don’t buy them ‘lazer’ glasses.  A good ophamalogist  
>friend of mine (I hope medical doctors can act as a source of concrete
>information, even in this forum!) told me that they just don’t work.  It’s
>true that your vision gets better _while you’re wearing the glasses_ but
>your eyes don’t "learn" to see correctly.  

This could be taken to support my notion that just because clarity of
vision is (somehow!) allowed by these glasses, your brain need not be
moving your eyes towards their "relaxed" healthy state.

>Which makes sense if you think about it since your Rx glasses makes your
>vision better _while you’re wearing the glasses_ but obviously not over
>long periods of time.              

And I would argue even more: that Rx glasses can reinforce bad visual
habits preventing a healed relaxed condition!

>Probably the muscle-thingy is a good theory but I really thought the majority
>of eye problems result from mishapings in the cornea.  I guess this is not so?

If you were referring to what I said in my previous post, I did not mean
to be making any kind of statement on behalf of medicine or the like.  But
the evidence I have seen leads me to agree with Dr. Bates about the
true cause of eye problems.  
For example,  there are cases of people with split personalities cited
by Dr. Bates who, while in one personality might be myopic—and medically
test so, then boom! in the other personality the same person seeing thru
the same physical eyes becomes hyperopic—and medically tests so!
This would be impossible if the cornea was permanently misshapen.
He is convinced, against the wisdom of current medical thinking, that the
muscles which surround the eyeball can fully control its shape and that
it is these muscles, and not the ciliary muscle (which pulls on the lens)
that are truly responsible for focusing.  (Evidence for this includes
patients who could focus up close who have had their lenses removed in
cataract surgery.)
I tend to wonder if both sets of muscles are not involved, but the point is
that there is much evidence to suggest that near or far-sighted folks do
not have permanently misshapen corneas.

And finally, my personal non-provable evidence: that I get clear flashes
of vision on a regular basis after having thought I was permanently
visually impaired has demonstrated to me beyond doubt that, at least, MY
cornea is not permanently misshapen.

I strongly encourage anyone interested to look into this stuff!  I feel
like it is a great scandal on the part of the optical community that we
do not hear more about it.

Good health to everyone!

Dave
(shree…@deadbeat.ece.orst.edu)