User talk:Peaceful07

Welcome!

Hello, Peaceful07, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 11:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peaceful. I've left a comment about behavioral optometry at the article's talk page: Talk:Behavioral_optometry#Learning_related_vision_problems. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have replied to your comment on my talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Hi Anthony,[reply]

I left a long note about this subject yesterday. Peaceful07 Peaceful07 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you for this Lou. Let me know how I can be involved.[reply]

Just click the merger discussion and post your thoughts there. Lou Sander (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). It would probably be useful to have these optometrists' names and work as part of the discussion, but I don't think it would be a good idea to recruit them as editors, since they would have obvious conflicts of interest. Also, it would be best if you would make all your comments and questions in the appropriate place at Talk:Vision therapy. It's best if everybody can see everybody else's comments on matters like this. Lou Sander (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Peaceful07/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Fiddle Faddle 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vision therapy

I have some personal anecdotes on this, and you seem to be someone who might appreciate them. Do you read this page very often? Better yet, are you on Skype? Lou Sander (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lou, If possible I would like to contact you outside Wikipedia. I am interested in your anecdotes. Am tired at the moment as have been busy though Saturday would be good for me.Peaceful07 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lou, I will now be in the US for the NORA 2015 Conference in Denver, Colorado. I do not know where you are in the US perhaps we could get in contact. Given all that I have been through in the last two weeks I am sure that they will allow me talk to the board members and I will talk glowingly about the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you LouPeaceful07 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peaceful07. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Famous _dog (c) 18:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method

I don't know whether you will see this, but I just saw old comments you made at Talk:Vision therapy. From discussions at Talk:Bates method, it appears that a better source is needed to explain reasons why the Bates method might sometimes seem to work. If you know of such a source, or possibly could create one and get it published somewhere, that would be helpful. The essential points are pseudomyopia, blur adaptation, pupil miosis (possibly related to sunning), and "flashes of clear vision", which may have multiple causes. Occurrences which may simply be coincidental, such as temporary improvement related to cataracts or diabetes, are also worth noting. Aldous Huxley's case could be re-explored in light of a modern understanding of vision, but I realize that might be too tall of an order. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Hi Belteshazzar, I have found this forum not to my liking so have withdrawn contact. best wishes and peace.[reply]

Thanks for replying, and I understand. I was not asking you to resume participation in Wikipedia. I'm hoping to get someone (maybe you or someone you know?) to write and publish an article somewhat like this one, but also explaining pseudomyopia, pupil miosis, and "flashes" of clear vision. Such a resource could be useful not only as a source on Wikipedia, but also for optometrists whose patients ask about the Bates method. Pseudomyopia would seem particularly relevant to the Bates method, due to Bates' emphasis on relaxation, yet it seems that no valid source has made the connection (this source is rejected because it is not primarily about the Bates method, and doesn't directly connect pseudomyopia to the Bates method). Belteshazzar (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you seem friendly enough, there is nothing written that I am aware of as regards the Bates method or anybody who is likely to write anything about it. Bates in my opinion has some validity though not in the way you are talking about it.

Elwin Marg's report seems to be the best mainstream exploration of the Bates method, but is now very dated. I was encouraged to find the OPO editorial I linked above, but unfortunately it didn't go into much detail. I'd like to see an up-to-date resource which explains why the Bates method might work or might not work in a given case. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very political and in my experience there is not much interest in the profession in improving eyesight via natural methods or research related to it so anything within the peer reviewed literature would be challenging to find.

Do you think there is a limit to how much improvement is possible? Could someone at 20/600 get close to normal just by natural methods, if he knew what he was doing and was dedicated about it? Belteshazzar (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would want to know the uncorrected vision and corrected vision measurements for he or she and take it from there remembering to take each individual case on its merits.

I was just asking what you think is possible. A behavioral optometrist once told me that around two diopters would be the most that one could hope to improve via natural methods. Do you agree with that? Belteshazzar (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Again I would take each individual case on its merits.

Thanks. I keep thinking about what must have gone wrong for this not to become mainstream if it can indeed work, and how that could be rectified. But I guess my brainstorming probably gets annoying. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you have been very polite. Bates had quite a challenging personality so may not have made friends easily which may have been a factor. Useful people to contact would be Peter Grunwald, an Alexander technique teacher in New Zealand and Marc Grossman an optometrist based in New York or any Bates practitioner you can find on the internet. Good luck, wishing you every success.

It's nice to see you are back. Do you believe it is possible to shorten axial length? An optometrist on Youtube said that she uses syntonic light therapy to reverse myopia, and that she had a patient reverse four diopters of myopia in one year, and an ultrasound confirmed the shortening of axial length. Interestingly, she still wears glasses herself, but it sounds like she had high myopia to begin with. I had previously heard that it was impossible to shorten axial length, and thought that any improvement that did occur was likely due to some other mechanism, such as perceptual learning. I also read that syntonic light therapy might not actually do any good, and might only seem to work because of other things that are done in conjunction with it. 115.76.206.85 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you have read my thread you will know that I about to get started in earnest of a research project on Tuesday God willing. Anyway, I have some time now. Syntonic phototherapy is interesting. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that it works. (Go to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and search for J Optom 2023 Oct-Dec;16(4):305-314.doi:10.1016/j.optom.2023.03.002 Efficacy of optometric phototherapy: a systematic review Zaira Cervera-Sanchez, Pilar Cacho-Martinez, Angel Garcia-Munoz). This is a really good paper. They have done some really good searches and by their reckoning none of the people doing syntonics have done a good study. The people performing the studies into syntonics have not designed a good study as of yet. A couple of years ago I reached out to some people involved in syntonics that I know and respect such as Rob Fox in the United States and Simon Grbevski in Australia and they have not been able to produce any good studies as of yet. Simon has set up a bursary to fund some research in Australia though as he is now retired after a long and rewarding career I leave him to his own devices. When he publishes a good paper he will let me know about it. The colleague you mention is talking 'anecdotally' and as they say 'the plural of anecdote is not data'. Syntonic phototherapy does work in terms of increasing the size of perceptual visual fields as in campimetry. There are no references whatsoever that I have found that can explain campimetry to you. The idea of reversing four dioptres of myopia I can believe if the optometrist says that it happened however my question would be what happens to all their other patients? Have they reversed the myopia in just the one patient or have they reversed others as well. The most likely answer is 'no' because if they had, they would be lecturing about it. If you want to look into the Bates method, it is worth looking for Leo Anghart, an NLP practitioner who runs courses internationally on vision improvement. I met Leo and we were in contact for a while. He would email me to say that he has been running a course in Eastern Europe and that he had improved the unaided vision in two patients from 6/24 to 6/6. My question to him was how many people were on the course. He replied that it was about 30. My next question was what had happened to the other say 28 people on the course and he did not reply. It would be a challenge for any practitioner to promote a treatment regimen that had a success rate of two patients out of thirty. He stopped emailing me after a while. Another interesting person is Peter Grunwald, an Alexander technique teacher in New Zealand who is a lovely, lovely person. He finds that using relaxation techniques, visualisation and correction of posture improves vision. He did it to me and my vision clarified. It was amazing though challenging to maintain and he said himself that if you lived in a quiet part of the countryside you would be able to maintain the good vision relatively easily. However for people who were based in a major city such as New York or London it would be a real challenge because of the speed of life in a big city. Apart from that there is Marc Grossmann in New York though Marc keeps himself to himself. As regards changing axial length it would be a matter of finding a researcher with an IOL master or equivalent (device used to measure axial length via ultrasound scans primarily used before and after laser vision correction surgery or cataract surgery....not my field at all) and to link them in with a practitioner who performs vision improvement by natural means. As IOL masters or an equivalent are commonly found in laser correction clinics the clinic might not be particularly motivated to connect themselves with someone who is going to compete for their business. There is/was also a lovely lady called Lizzie May who is/was in Richmond in London who performed 'Bates method work' with patients. She actually had a link with Moorfields Eye Hospital where they would refer some patients to her where their methods had not been successful in improving their vision (probably amblyopes, people with a lazy eye due to a squint or uncorrected vision from a young age so that they have what is termed anisometropic ambyopia) with the caveat 'We have sent some patients to see this lady and she gets good results. We have no idea what she does or how it works though do go and see her.' Lizzie famously gave a presentation at Moorfields in 2006 about her work and had two patients who were in their mid to late twenties whose vision had improved markedly since seeing Lizzie. There were two eye health professionals in the audience, myself and John Lee, former head of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and John sticks his hand up and asks, 'What was the unaided vision before you started treatment, what was the unaided vision after treatment, what was the initial spectacle refraction and what was the final spectacle refraction?' Lizzie replied, 'I do not have any of that information. I did not take any measurements' to which John replied 'No further questions'. John was a great guy, very kind, very astute, very sharp. If you met him in the street you would never know what he did for a living. He wore his brilliance lightly. If I get to be anything like him that would be great. He was very smart and very humble and a pleasure to spend time with. I would say the same as regards Peter Grunwald and if you are interested in vision improvement I would track down one of Peter's residential courses. I hope that helps. Please do not contact me again after Monday as this research project will be my main focus. If there is anyway of letting you know when I have finished it (it will be later this year) let me know as I am not familiar with Wikipedia and I will message. I am making the assumption that you might want to contact me again. I apologise, you may not want to do so at all. Thank you for your 'polite' enquiry. Have a good weekend. 92.28.122.117 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the long reply. The optometrist I mentioned said that she has had other patients reverse myopia, but they usually don't get axial length checked, as patients don't usually care about the physiological reason for the improvement. She mentions it near the end of this video. She has also said that she uses several different lens colors for photosyntonic light therapy, whereas other practitioners only use two.

(Sorry about the changing ip. I couldn't get back on to the one I was using.) 2603:8000:E800:3644:C3C:B018:3547:CB2 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs, I have never heard of her and have not found anything that she has published (doesn't mean that she hasn't published something, just that I have not found it in the places that I would normally expect to find such papers). I have emailed a colleague in the US asking about her. Ok, three structures within the eye which influence how and where light is focussed in the eye, the cornea at the front of the eye, the crystalline lens within the eye and the axial length, that is the length of the eyeball. Any study where the spectacle prescription changes due to a treatment strategy would measure the curvature of the cornea, the diameter and curvature of the crystalline lens and the axial length, all these parameters being measured before and after treatment to see which parameters had altered. Now, I have acted as a medico-legal witness in the past so know that any treatment strategy has to be backed up by peer reviewed scientific papers. As Dr Steinhauer has not been published as far as I can see (does not mean that she hasn't) it would be very challenging to defend such treatment from a medico-legal point of view in the UK. In 2002/3 I was approached by Derek Barnes of Aston University Optometry School to design a myopia control study and Aston is a centre of excellence as regards studying myopia. Initial studies into myopia have been done by Bernard Gilmartin, an excellent researcher and top guy and then continued by Nicola Logan, his PhD student who is also an excellent researcher and a lovely person. So the study I design for Derek is outside the work of Bernard and Nic. So I go for an 'n' number of 60 (n= total number of patients in study), two treatment groups of 30, one for treatment and one as a control group, patient age range 18-35 years of age, (lower age set as regards consent issues and upper age range to ensure that patients are not as likely to have cataracts developing which have caused their vision to alter - I think that Derek came up with the age range, another good researcher and top guy, also an intervention strategy that was thought to reduce myopia and an intervention strategy thought not to reduce myopia. The people administering the treatment would not know which treatment they were receiving. The people receiving the treatment would not know which treatment they were receiving. Length of treatment for duration of the study 4 weeks. Derek said that the study would not get passed the 'ethics committee' at the University which has to given permission for any research. This is because 'ethically' the researchers would be considered to be 'wasting the time of the people receiving the treatment which was thought to be ineffective'. By all means arrange a holiday in Illinois and see what Dr Steinhauer is doing. The medico-legal issues in the US are different to those over here so she can do what she is doing. If you go, let me know how you get on. Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...ahhhh, typo, the people administering the treatment would not know which treatment they were giving and the people receiving the treatment would not know which treatment they were receiving....apologies... Peaceful07 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the resources or the credentials to do that, but it seems like it should be done. I can see the problem with a double-blind or even single-blind study for this type of method. Surely there must be other ways of testing such claims. I suppose the placebo effect couldn't be totally eliminated, but if the results are decidedly better than random chance, I'm not sure how much we should care about the placebo effect. 99.68.179.117 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My colleague has heard of her though does not know her. This means that she probably has not written anything which is what it is. Having been on her website there does not seem to be any way of contacting her apart from scheduling an appointment. As regards testing such claims ideally the practitioner doing this work would collate their data on the parameters I have mentioned. I would also add corneal mapping with a corneal topographer to the data for each patient. Then they would publish their findings as a single case study (the report on one patient) or ideally a case series (report on a number of patients) detailing their findings and their treatment methods in a good quality peer reviewed journal such as the 'Journal of Optometry' mentioned previously as regards the syntonics paper. 'Journal of Optometry' was set up by Professor Ken Ciuffreda from the State University of New York (SUNY) who is a great researcher (recently retired now). They could also consider getting published in the Italian journal, Rivista Italiana di Optometria which is also peer reviewed and is considered to be of a good academic standard. The editor is Anto Rossetti. However the practitioner has to have the motivation to do all of that. Once published, they would have the opportunity to lecture and teach their treatment protocol to fellow practitioners. Anybody deciding to replicate such treatment here in the UK would in my opinion be being 'very brave' as from a medico-legal standpoint the treatment would be considered to be 'experimental'. However before deciding to replicate the work ideally a practitioner would get medicolegal advice as to whether their legal defence union would defend them in a case where the patient decided to litigate against them after being treated. There is also the issue of 'duty of care'. This means that if a practitioner starts seeing a patient and the patient starts being abusive and/or aggressive towards the practitioner and their staff the practitioner can with agreement from the patient (written down) decide to stop treating the patient. However having started the treatment the practitioner has to then find another practitioner to whom the patient can be referred to continue the treatment. This is because they are considered to have a 'duty of care' to ensure that the patient's treatment is continued with a practitioner of similar standing despite their behaviour. In my opinion it is often best to look at such situations in advance so that you do not take on such cases in the first place. They call it 'defensive practice'. And by the way, if you decided to sign a waiver of your rights this would not be admissable in court and the case against the practitioner would still go to trial. My colleagues in the US and Canada do not have to think about such issues. Such rules are put in place here in the UK to protect the public. Optometry does not have as many regulations in some European countries such as France, Switzerland and Portugal. In Switzerland for instance you could call yourself an optometrist as the rules on who can use such a 'title' in Switzerland are not as stringent as they are over here. You could choose to see practitioners in these countries. They will know that you will find it challenging to litigate against them certainly when compared to over here. And at the same time you could get treatment. You could also email anyone performing syntonics in this country and ask if they are willing to take you on as a patient. I wouldn't though I am not able to speak for my colleagues. Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Peaceful07. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]