Ortho C: vision correction without surgery?

[PaleoPhil]

I've been following David Lewis' vision correction experiment with interest, and his latest results are intriguing:

How To Reverse Nearsightedness Without Surgery, Lasers, Or Minus Lenses Part 2
By David Lewis
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 08, 2010
http://blog.modernpaleo.com/2010/12/how-to-reverse-nearsightedness-without.html

On August 31st of this year I wrote about how I was able to reverse my nearsightedness (myopia) using special plano (non-prescription) contact lenses. This therapy, called Ortho C, is a treatment developed by John Yee.

Since making my original post, I've received many emails requesting an update as well as inquiries from friends and strangers alike, all wondering if what I claim is true. Well, of course it's true! With that said, it's hard to demonstrate that it works because I can't show you what I am actually seeing. This kind of thing necessarily requires personal experimentation.

[kurite]

Thanks for posting this...I am doing research on it now and if all turns out well, I will be purchasing. If this happens Ill let you know the results.

[raw-al]

Why not try sungazing. It's free and easy and it works.
We have been doing sungazing for the past year and 2/3 and my GF has had the biggest transformation. 1.5 diopters improvement (3 down to 1.5) age 64.

Mine improved from 1.2 to 1.0 or none at all for reading.

The best part is it is free.
http://solarhealing.com/process/
Under the third heading is the process. Most people I know experience a drop in food requirements from the beginning but I am not sure all his claims are accurate.

[PaleoPhil]

Warning: people have died trying "breatharianism," aka inedia.

"Few breatharians have submitted themselves to medical testing; of those that have, including a hospital's observation of an Indian mystic surviving without food or water for 15 days,[6] none have undergone peer review with results independently reproduced. In a handful of documented cases, individuals attempting breatharian fasting have died,[7][8] and among the claims investigated by the Indian Rationalist Association, all were found to be fraudulent.[9]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia)

[kurite]

Warning: people have died trying "breatharianism," aka inedia.

"Few breatharians have submitted themselves to medical testing; of those that have, including a hospital's observation of an Indian mystic surviving without food or water for 15 days,[6] none have undergone peer review with results independently reproduced. In a handful of documented cases, individuals attempting breatharian fasting have died,[7][8] and among the claims investigated by the Indian Rationalist Association, all were found to be fraudulent.[9]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia)

Why did you post this?

[PaleoPhil]

Because the guy at http://solarhealing.com/process/ claims to follow a Breatharian diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia#Hira_Ratan_Manek), the most deadly of diets (anyone who sticks to it 100% is guaranteed to be killed by it). This is from his site:

"Food is not a necessity for the body to function, only energy is.  Conventionally, you are indirectly getting the sun energy while eating food, which is a by-product of sun energy. If there is no sunlight, no food will grow.  
 
Therefore, as you consume the original form of food, hunger goes down starting to disappear eventually.  By eight months, you should see hunger almost gone."

When I first saw Breatharianism mentioned a while ago I thought it was a joke, but some people take this dangerous advice seriously, and I am concerned that raw-al may be taking it slightly seriously:

Most people I know experience a drop in food requirements from the beginning but I am not sure all his claims are accurate.

[raw-al]

Because the guy at http://solarhealing.com/process/ claims to follow a Breatharian diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia#Hira_Ratan_Manek), the most deadly of diets (anyone who sticks to it 100% is guaranteed to be killed by it). This is from his site:

"Food is not a necessity for the body to function, only energy is.  Conventionally, you are indirectly getting the sun energy while eating food, which is a by-product of sun energy. If there is no sunlight, no food will grow.  
 
Therefore, as you consume the original form of food, hunger goes down starting to disappear eventually.  By eight months, you should see hunger almost gone."

When I first saw Breatharianism mentioned a while ago I thought it was a joke, but some people take this dangerous advice seriously, and I am concerned that raw-al may be taking it slightly seriously:

PP
If you read the stuff he writes and watch his videos on Youtube he says that the breatharian part is something that happens naturally and is not something that you will yourself to do. He has been monitored as he did it in a hospital in India as an experiment.

I stated clearly that my hunger or need for food has diminished as does most people who do the SG. Diminished is not the same as eliminated. I also notice that I eat less with a raw diet but less does not = nothing.

There are breatharians in the world and I am not sure that someone is going to stop eating on a whim or after reading my post.

The point is that the sungazing works amazingly well. Wish I had learned about it earlier because the people that I know who started when they were younger retained excellent vision with none of the slow deterioration that happens post 40 to 50 years of age.

[PaleoPhil]

PP
If you read the stuff he writes and watch his videos on Youtube he says that the breatharian part is something that happens naturally and is not something that you will yourself to do.

Sorry, but I seriously doubt that what he does has anything to do with actual breatharianism, ie getting food energy from the sun to the point where his caloric needs are diminished to nothing or nearly nothing over many months and years. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not his hearsay or that of his cohorts. So it looks like we can agree to disagree on this one.

He has been monitored as he did it in a hospital in India as an experiment.

Here's what the link I provided reported about that:

The paper[35] published by Dr Sudhir Shah makes it clear that dozens of people had access to Hira Ratan Manek during the study and he went on at least one excursion: "Most surprisingly, he had himself climbed the famous Shatrunjay mountain (Palitana hill) on 4.4.01, on 401st day of his legendary fasting along with 500 fellowmen without anybody’s help, within 1.5 Hrs. only". The paper reports that the subject lost 19 kg of weight during the study period. Neither the experiment, as described in the paper, nor the paper itself have been validated by any other well-known scientific or medical journal.

There are breatharians in the world

And they have all reportedly proven to be either frauds or sadly misguided when investigated. As I noted, some have even reportedly even died as a result of misguided breatharian notions.

and I am not sure that someone is going to stop eating on a whim or after reading my post.

Like I said, the first time I heard about it I thought it was a joke and didn't take it seriously. Then I discovered that some folks were actually taking it seriously, which is concerning. It's the most dangerous diet (perhaps "non-diet" would be more appropriate) I've come across so far.

[raw-al]

Sorry, but I seriously doubt that what he does has anything to do with actual breatharianism, ie getting food energy from the sun to the point where his caloric needs are diminished to nothing or nearly nothing over many months and years. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not his hearsay or that of his cohorts. So it looks like we can agree to disagree on this one.
Here's what the link I provided reported about that:
And they have all reportedly proven to be either frauds or sadly misguided when investigated. As I noted, some have even reportedly even died as a result of misguided breatharian notions.
Like I said, the first time I heard about it I thought it was a joke and didn't take it seriously. Then I discovered that some folks were actually taking it seriously, which is concerning. It's the most dangerous diet (perhaps "non-diet" would be more appropriate) I've come across so far.

PP,
It appears that you have missed the whole point of the thread which had zero to do with whether there are breatharians in the world.

The thread is about vision correction and I simply suggested to the poster  something that I and a large # of people have tried and it was successful with zero problems.

It costs nothing, works like a charm and is not dicey (read Russian Roulette) like surgery.

[PaleoPhil]

PP,
It appears that you have missed the whole point of the thread which had zero to do with whether there are breatharians in the world.

No offense was intended, Al, and I would not have mentioned it if you had not brought up the subject here:

...Most people I know experience a drop in food requirements from the beginning but I am not sure all his claims are accurate.

And again here:

He has been monitored as he did it in a hospital in India as an experiment.

I had only good intentions with my warning and I tried to state it in a factual, inoffensive manner, but I know that some people will be offended by the facts no matter how politely they are stated. I'm more committed to the facts than I am to popularity contests, so if this sunlight guru is again recommended or the topic of food requirement reduction is again brought up, then I forewarn that I will likely again share a warning, in the interests of good will toward my fellow humans and distaste for fraud, of which breatharianism is a particularly egregious example. Having done my humanitarian duty in this case, which I felt some particular call to because I started this thread, I have no interest in discussing that specific topic any further if you don't persist in it.

Please also note that the topic of this thread I created is not reduction in food requirements or even sungazing specifically, but "Ortho C: vision correction without surgery?" I plead for no more tangents away from Ortho C and vision correction to controversial topics like breatharian food consumption reduction from sungazing. Thanks in advance for your consideration, which I hope for from a fellow like yourself who I have found to be generally polite and friendly.

As for the practice of sungazing irrespective of food requirements, I do a sort of sun gazing myself, though I don't want anyone doing it just because I do, for I don't know that much about it and I don't like prescribing in general. I hesitated to even mention it, except that perhaps this will help put you at ease that I'm not trying to take issue with all aspects of "sun gazing", but rather only with the sun guru's claim that it greatly reduces the need for food consumption and with his other breatharian claims, which also unavoidably call into question his overall credibility.

I should mention as a caution that I don't stare directly at the sun when it's strong, but instead off to the side and from my reading of the guru's website I seem to recall that he gazes at the horizon sun rather than the strong mid-day sun. It seems like the weakened horizon sun might be safe to stare at, though I don't know for sure. My optometrist warned me against staring at the sun (and he claimed that one of his patients burned his retina by staring at the sun too long while spaced out on LSD), though I presume that he meant strong sun. I know I get sunlight in my eyes even without looking directly at the sun, so I figure that I can probably get most of the benefit without having to stare directly at it anyway. Even just being outdoors during the day without wearing sunglasses enables one to get indirect sunlight into the eyes.

[raw-al]

We stare at the direct sun in the morning or evening within 1 hour of sunrise/set as HRM suggests. If the sun is partly covered with cloud we do it anytime. The trick is that the UV should be less than 2. Our experience after checking with 2 different UV meters is that 2 is comfortable and more than that is not comfortable, as in not possible to look at without discomfort.

When my GF had her eyes checked we were close to the 30 minute mark according to his (HRM) method of gradually building up. She did not mention the gazing to her eye doc and her doc was surprised with the results of the testing and said "sometimes a person's eyes will get better just before they get really bad". 

She's due for another checkup soon.

I've had 3 pilot medicals since I started with no issues.

When your eye doc said what they said, you have to bear in mind that they make a living from people with poor eyesight so since this is all free and it helps your eyes, they are not likely to look (pun intended) into it.

Kind of like the bacteria myth that high meat blows out of the water.

We don't do LSD and that story about the guy damaging his eyes while spaced out, is as old as Lysergic acid diethylamide.

It's like the other Urban Myth about Galileo going blind when staring at an eclipse. There is no proof of any kind that this ever occurred.

[PaleoPhil]

When your eye doc said what they said, you have to bear in mind that they make a living from people with poor eyesight so since this is all free and it helps your eyes, they are not likely to look (pun intended) into it.

Yes, and just as I apply healthy skepticism to the sun guru guy's claims I also do so to my optometrist's claims. Skeptical is my middle name and no one like me who takes a controversial therapy like Ortho C seriously and eats high meat could ever be mistaken for someone who takes all conventional claims at face value.

I don't see a great loss in erring slightly on the side of caution in this case because, as I mentioned, sunlight enters the eyes if they are uncovered, regardless of whether one looks squarely at the sun or not. That said, if the sun is sufficiently weak that it doesn't hurt to look at it I don't avert my eyes in fear or anything like that and I rarely wear sunglasses (the only time I do wear them is when the sun is blindingly strong and I'm driving or I'm out on the water and it's bothering me). One neat thing about the Paleo diet (cooked at the time) is that it made my eyes much less light sensitive. In the past I was so light sensitive that an optometrist remarked about it. It used to be hard to give me eye exams because the light from the examining device made my eyes tear so badly.

We don't do LSD and that story about the guy damaging his eyes while spaced out, is as old as Lysergic acid diethylamide.

Yeah, I was skeptical of it too, but he didn't say it was the only reason not to and I figured better safe than sorry, especially given my history of light sensitivity. I rarely wear sunglasses and I do sun gazing, which are already radical steps as compared to most people.

[raw-al]

Sunglasses are something to be very wary of. If you get cheap ones they will fool your eyes into thinking there is less light so the pupils will dilate allowing more UV in then your eyes can handle.

I would not buy cheap sunglasses period.

I stopped wearing them altogether since I started gazing. I think they are a hoax.

I have always had extremely good eyesight and when I started flying I could not wear sunglasses because I found they messed with depth perception and vision in general. It took me quite awhile to get used to them and I have to wear the best quality.

[PaleoPhil]

I stopped wearing them altogether since I started gazing. I think they are a hoax.

Again, the only time I wear sunglasses is in my car when the sun blinds me while driving so that I'll likely die if I don't, which is very rare (generally only when the sun is low and shining directly into my eyes and is stronger than usual)--death by car accident because I'm blinded is no joke--or when I'm on the lake in the summer and the sun is painfully strong because the rays are bouncing off the lake. I find that the longer I'm on raw Paleo, the less I need the sunglasses. I NEVER wear sunglasses out of fear of the sun's rays. I only wear sunglasses to reduce glare for driving safety and pain minimization, not to block UV rays.

[wodgina]

Stopped wearing sun glasses a few years ago, just slowly started to forget to wear them and felt in a better mood.

[raw]

My mom always believe in sun gazing and she also claims that her vision is better now. Sun is the best!

[Hans89]

I've been tinkering with Bates method, but no improvement so far, unfortunately.

However, I wanted to share something interesting. I know a pair of twins (one egg I think). They used to be near-sighted to the same degree till a certain point, but then the eyesight of one became better while that of the other twin became worse. The one who improved refuses to wear glasses most of the time, the other one always wears them. They also have somewhat different characters, the one who saw improvements is more outgoing and careless. She didn't do any excercise or whatever, and improved 2 diopters or so.

Not sure about the applicability, but it proves that the idea that poor eyesight is only due to genes is nonsense. Even my dad, who used to be staunchly opposed to 'nonsense' like the idea that wrong use causes poor eyesight (he was an ophtalmologist) recently told me that video games are being blamed for nearsightedness in Taiwan.

[PaleoPhil]

I'm highly skeptical of the Bates method, though I can't rule it out. He was at least correct that myopia can be improved, as can night vision. My own myopia improved a tiny bit after going Paleo and my night vision improved as well.

Loren Cordain has at least one research report on the fact that hunter gatherer societies have much lower myopia rates than civilized societies until the HGs themselves adopt a modern diet, at which point their myopia rates tend to exceed those of other populations, and that he hypothesized that diet and close vision interact and both contribute to myopia, IIRC. You can find Cordain's papers at his website. www.thepaleodiet.com

New research after Cordain's paper found that the reason people who read more get more myopia is more likely due to spending more time indoors and getting less sunlight, which ties in with the sungazing mentioned above.

[Hans89]

Well, I've had some very limited success in that my astigmatism got a bit better. I do get moments of almost clear sight sometimes, then I can read signs that are much further away than what I can read normally. Sometimes things also become clearer when I use eye excercises to relax more. But I think to make it work one has to permanently relax the eyes, and I just don't, especially when using the computer and when interacting with people I don't know very well. I think it takes very developed awareness to control oneself at all times or a change of character that makes one much more relaxed. Both anything but easy to accomplish.

[PaleoPhil]

I would be amazed by those results if I got them. I have been amazed by other results I thought were impossible that I got from Paleo dieting, so I try to be extremely open minded about anything that isn't likely to cause serious harm. So I tried the Bates method but I unfortunately didn't get any results at all. That doesn't say anything about what it might do for others, of course, and a Bates promoter would probably say I did something wrong (but that's also what some vegetarians, vegans and Zero Carbers claim about anyone who fares poorly on their approaches and I'm not particularly interested in therapies which have to be done perfectly to achieve any beneficial results). Right now I'm more interested about what Ortho C, sunlight and nutrition might potentially do for my vision.

[raw-al]

There is another thread on the Bates Method. I know someone who experienced 2 or 2.5 improvement but when he stopped it went back somewhat.

I also know a guy who had psychic surgery done by a friend of his and he doesn't wear any reading glasses (age 60+)

I recall reading somewhere in an Ayurvedic book that there was some thing that if a woman did it while pregnant it would cause vision problems 2 generations down the line.

No one in my family wears glasses (prior to the usual age/reading glass issues) but my ex has glasses. Both my children wear glasses. The optometrist she went to was the type to over prescribe. She is the type that will go to a doctor and believe anything they say.

If I knew then what I know now I would have stopped that madness. I went to him in an effort to get prescription safety glasses and he tried overprescribing me for reading glasses because he said he was "saving me money" He laughed when I asked him what exercises were good for your eyes after I explained the ones I do. He said there is nothing you can do for your eyes. He wasn't a bad person just misguided.

[PaleoPhil]

There is another thread on the Bates Method. I know someone who experienced 2 or 2.5 improvement but when he stopped it went back somewhat.

Yes, the experiences I've seen reported were even less thrilling, with multiple people reporting no improvement at all. Granted, I was skeptical of the technique from the beginning and Bates Method promoters might claim that it requires belief for the technique to work, but truly effective techniques shouldn't require belief for them to work. I was open minded enough that if I had any positive result at all I wouldn't have dismissed it.

I also know a guy who had psychic surgery done by a friend of his and he doesn't wear any reading glasses (age 60+)

I mean no offense or disrespect, but as someone with a skeptical epistemocratic philosophy (one that recognizes that human knowledge is very limited and likely always will be and is highly skeptical of claims of ability to forecast or fully understand highly complex matters), claims mean nothing to me. I find evidence more persuasive. The more extraordinary the claims, the more extraordinary the evidence must needs be to support the claims. If the psychic surgeon can actually demonstrate his/her paranormal abilities, there's a $1 million prize waiting for him (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html). After he wins the prize I'll take some interest in his abilities, but I won't invest any time in it beforehand.

I recall reading somewhere in an Ayurvedic book that there was some thing that if a woman did it while pregnant it would cause vision problems 2 generations down the line.

This matches knowledge about the damaging epigenetic effects of modern foods on fetuses and Pottenger's cat experiment in which he found that a biologically inappropriate diet caused increasing problems with each generation that were particularly damaging starting with the third generation. Do you remember the Ayurvedic book title or author?

If I knew then what I know now I would have stopped that madness. I went to him in an effort to get prescription safety glasses and he tried overprescribing me for reading glasses because he said he was "saving me money" He laughed when I asked him what exercises were good for your eyes after I explained the ones I do. He said there is nothing you can do for your eyes. He wasn't a bad person just misguided.

Not surprising. You were asking him to give up much of his livelihood by claiming that there is something beyond prescription lenses or surgery that can resolve myopia. Did you really expect a different answer? Nutritional and lifestyle factors in myopia have been reported by scientists since at least the 1930s. Unfortunately, there's little to no profit motive supporting them, so they continue to be largely ignored.

[TylerDurden]

I have some sympathy for James Randi given psychic frauds, but I still think he is at the other extreme, a total sceptic who will never be convinced by things that aren't covered by mainstream science.

[raw-al]

Yes, the experiences I've seen reported were even less thrilling, with multiple people reporting no improvement at all. Granted, I was skeptical of the technique from the beginning and Bates Method promoters might claim that it requires belief for the technique to work, but truly effective techniques shouldn't require belief for them to work. I was open minded enough that if I had any positive result at all I wouldn't have dismissed it.
I mean no offense or disrespect, but as someone with a skeptical epistemocratic philosophy (one that recognizes that human knowledge is very limited and likely always will be and is highly skeptical of claims of ability to forecast or fully understand highly complex matters), claims mean nothing to me. I find evidence more persuasive. The more extraordinary the claims, the more extraordinary the evidence must needs be to support the claims. If the psychic surgeon can actually demonstrate his/her paranormal abilities, there's a $1 million prize waiting for him (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html). After he wins the prize I'll take some interest in his abilities, but I won't invest any time in it beforehand.
This matches knowledge about the damaging epigenetic effects of modern foods on fetuses and Pottenger's cat experiment in which he found that a biologically inappropriate diet caused increasing problems with each generation that were particularly damaging starting with the third generation. Do you remember the Ayurvedic book title or author?
Not surprising. You were asking him to give up much of his livelihood by claiming that there is something beyond prescription lenses or surgery that can resolve myopia. Did you really expect a different answer? Nutritional and lifestyle factors in myopia have been reported by scientists since at least the 1930s. Unfortunately, there's little to no profit motive supporting them, so they continue to be largely ignored.

2 to 2.5 diopter improvement is quite substantial. Problem with Bates Method is that it requires effort, which most people balk at. Everybody wants a pill or a knife to make problems go away. Bates Method requires no belief and indeed no money as I have seen copies of the book online and downloadable. You have to persist and do it regularly. Last time I looked there was a forum on it but that was years ago.

Regarding the psychic surgery, the proof was in the individual whom I witnessed reading without glasses. It was done to him by a friend and required the exchange of no money and indeed his friend was not interested in doing it for others.

There is reasons for this. If a person has an illness/difficulty, it is due to their actions in the past (karma) and as such, if the karma is removed the easy way, then the person has not learned from the karma and it will be revisited. It is not important if you feel that you are a superior scientist and all this is hooey. It either occurred or it didn't. I witnessed it.

As far as a practitioner being interested in impressing anyone, think again. When the student is ready the teacher will appear. A friend of mine is capable of this stuff and he made the mistake of doing it for some people with a sob story. He regretted it as people started nagging him. They want an even easier solution than a pill or a knife.

In Yoga aspirants are clearly warned to resist using abilities as they are gained, as it is a trap. Your development stops if you do it, as you become a circus freak.

BTW I hope that I do not sound snotty as it not my intention, I was just relating a story. If there are people in larger cities who claim to do these things I would be wary.

Re the book, "Ayurveda Mother And Child" by Vaidya Bhagwan Dash. Probably in the first couple of chapters.

[raw-al]

I have some sympathy for James Randi given psychic frauds, but I still think he is at the other extreme, a total sceptic who will never be convinced by things that aren't covered by mainstream science.

Skeptics also are a dime a dozen. Rupert Sheldrake covers them quite eloquently and displays (some of them) as frauds themselves by in one instance pitting a skeptic versus a neutral observer at the same experiments. The skeptic actually influenced the experimental outcome as is predicted by quantum theory. Very fascinating discussion.

I do not mean by this that we should accept everything, simply that some skeptics actually make a living and or support their ego by being considered "experts". There is a whole field of "medical experts" who seem to be supported by an establishment of individuals or companies that stand to benefit by any improvement in their bottom line through the discrediting of other methodologies.

The AMA is well known to have waged many wars against other systems and indeed was set up to do precisely that.

The tobacco lobbyists in days gone by were perfect examples of this type of warfare when they hired the Doctor who claimed that tobacco wasn't bad for your health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics

The label "skeptic" indicates that the person is not neutral and to me that is the bulwark of scientific integrity.