Isn't it interesting, Lah, about the colors?

 

I had lasik 14 yrs ago. I will say I've noticed that my vision is doing weird things. My eyesight is better when I wear my orange glasses while working - but one things for sure I've definitely noticed that smaller text is harder to read. I think I'm beginning to approach the same issue @NeilBB is dealing with. I find I have better vision when I'm in natural light. Artificial light makes it harder for my eyes to adjust from Near to Far and back again.

I'm definitely interested in maintaining not only my eyesight, but that of Chaos and Havoc as well...

 

This showed up in my inbox today……


http://www.worldhealth.net/forum/th...ve-lenses-break-down-your/?page=1#post-100081

 

Sara, do you have a quantum email inbox, or is Google snooping again?

 

Lol,nonchalant.

I am having an extraordinary vision day,for me anyways. I just took off my glasses and found I had more detailed vision,still heavily flawed but improved to the extent that I would not be greatly upset if I had to go without them for the rest of the day which I will try. I tried the exercises in the article and had an immediate improvement of vision albeit for 20 seconds. Could be placebo effect though.
Thank you for posting @SeaHorse. I had just wondered what all the things are I could include in what is now my biohack it seems.

 

Hmmm. A trend here. Maybe getting glasses is like many other medical prescriptions in that they have side effects in some people and the intensity or manifestation may vary between individuals. Glasses may be "fixing" the wrong thing--not unlike Statins lowering your cholesterol when that isn't the real underlying problem. I'll have to think about this. I have noticed that although I wear glasses, my distance vision has improved over the last couple of years. I think that is normal with aging, but then again, the improvement does correlate to embracing a more optimal approach to life especially more seafood and CT. I wonder. We invent an approach to correcting an imperfection only to realize years or decades later that our technology was based on false science and so we need to look at the problem through a different lens. LOL. A pun.

If we only knew QED and its derivative knowledge, would we still come up with glasses (that particular technology) to improve vision or would the prescription be a regimen of CT, seafood, and reduced nnemf. I wonder. Maybe one of the really smart people on the forums can chime in and enlighten us (I did it again, LOL). Jack, Josh, Sally, Gretchen Sara, .... the list is long.

 

I got a pair of glasses in my mid 30s, I was slightly shortsighted in one eye, 2 days later refused to wear them, I was becoming dependent on them. I also had a torn retina (in the shortsighted eye) after a long period of studying and computer work. The shortsightedness in that eye had worsened, but the other eye seemed to compensate. After the scare with my retina, i've been concerned about a repeat, so I was interested in the grounded 2 video section on improved retinal perfusion after 2 hours of grounding .... Wow....

i'm hoping that the DHA (makes colours seem brighter), water, cutting down on blue light, grounding and outside CT whilst scanning the sky, clouds, watching birds in flight etc will make a big difference .....

 

It was meant to be a sensory experiment, but it turned into something that might be relevant here ..... I was sat in my outside bath, and had a silver ring on with a large faceted citrine ring. It had no back so I was playing around with getting photons through the stone onto the skin .... Suddenly decided to try looking through it .... Spent the next 20 minutes looking at grass, trees, buildings, sky, .....even the boring barn roof was a rainbow .....the clear blue sky and the grass were the only things that didn't seem to split the light much, but the outline of trees or the edges round a cloud .... It was difficult because of the size of the ring, but it was a crystalline eyeglass ...... crystalline eye cells ....(crystalline DHA?) .So I'm thinking that by wearing plastic lenses, our eyes can't act interact normally with light to see colours properly ... ?

 

I didn't realize I needed reading glasses for a year... and got terrible eyestrain because of it. I used the Bates Method of complete darkness and "thinking about black" to relieve it quickly and completely -- my eyes looked like they'd been drenched in beet juice. And I got readers.

But I swing between .75 and 1.25 depending on what I'm doing, and only for reading print. I've not worn sunglasses in years, since reading about natural light and the eyes.

I would say the Bates Method is worth looking into based on my experience. Even now, it's the best way of resting my eyes I've ever run across, and I was an early adopter of ergonomic IT practice... monitor arms length or greater from my face, frequent breaks to look up at clouds and distant trees, remembering to blink.

 

I have been varying my lens prescriptions and filters for several days now and experimenting with different tasks in different environments. Assimilating info and thinking about this a lot. I think Bates and Lieberman are partially but not completely correct about a lot of things. Bates knowledge of what the eye muscles do was not completely accurate. Lieberman is interesting, but prefers to leap into mystical preaching at times rather than scientifically exploring QED. I know a number of conventionally trained ophthalmologists and I think they are largely clueless about this whole thing.

The real issue involves optics, neurology, and QED among other things. Very few can integrate all that. Human vision is also a much more dynamic process than is generally recognized. A huge portion of the brain is involved in visual processing. I am very interested in particular in the difference between gazing at a luminous object versus an illuminated object. I think it's an enormous issue today. Hint: unless you printed this out on a piece of paper, you are looking directly into a luminous object right now, as we all now do much of the time, in fact. However, throughout history we evolved looking mostly at illuminated objects. It is not the same as, but is closely related to, the distinction between natural and artificial light. I think it's huge...

 

I think it is huge too Neil. I have lately been shocked at what a difference it is when i look at the screen (being outside with my laptop) and then when i move my eyes from it and look at my surroundings. I have done it plenty of times and it is always as strong. It is a huge difference how my eyes feel when I do that - it just have to have some consequences?
it kind of scares me a little
what does that staring into the screen does to me?

 

I would say that artificial light has at least 3 distinct classes of problems I can think of right now (aside from other non-visual EMF considerations):

1. Temporally inappropriate. Use at night (after sun is down). Circadian disrupter, of course.

2. Frequency/Intensity inappropriate. Unnatural thinband artifical frequency spectrum, which is very different from natural sources. Newer "energy saving" bulbs even worse, and higher in bright high-intensity blue light, of course. This is biologically novel and likely damaging to body's protective processes because its light-sensing mechanisms are likely "confused" as to how much "light" is really there.

3. Luminous vs Illuminated. In many cases the optical target is the source of the light itself. All monitors, phones, TVs, etc. But also much of what you see in a city at night. Illuminated signs. Street lights, etc. This is very different from the condition in which the sun saturates the environment with full-spectrum light and we look at purely reflected light between different objects to discern distinctions. With luminous objects, beams of limited frequency light are projected directly onto the retina, without environmental "tempering," so to speak. The contrast between the brightness of the screen or light and background environment is often dramatic and unnatural as well. Not too different from just shining a low-intensity blurry laser in the eye all the time. Who would shine a laser in their eye knowingly? Is what we are doing now qualitatively different or only quantitatively?

I think the eyes and brain evolved to sense background ambient light conditions and adjust focus, rod/cone activation, neural processing accordingly to discern objects bathed in light in the environment. This adaptation process does not occur instantaneously but is designed to occur gradually, as the sun sets and rises gradually. It seems to me that the above mechanisms would clearly over time be capable of disrupting those systems quite significantly and that this may contribute to all forms of eye disease including myopia, presbyopia, as well as cataracts, glaucoma, and retinal problems.

And when people look into computers, phones and TV's at night in dark ambient surroundings, all 3 of these mechanisms would be in full force simultaneously.

 

As far as practical implementation, I am experimenting and working on that. It would seem obvious that replacing DHA and avoiding computer screens, especially at night and in dark interior environments should play a huge role. As much natural sunlight as possible should help.

I think there is a place for certain eye exercises-working on that. I think it makes sense to reduce corrective prescriptions when and if it is possible to do safely for the task at hand. I'm experimenting heavily with that now...

I think that in refractive problems, the brain may be "confused" as to how far away the target object actually is. If so, this may be able to be improved through training, at least in some cases. Corrective lenses would likely exacerbate, rather than help this problem.

I think background lighting when working on computers could be a big deal. I think there may be a role for protective eyewear when looking at screens, especially in low-lit ambient conditions. Paradoxically, I think maybe increasing ambient full spectrum incandescent lighting in the room when on TV or computer may actually be helpful. So as to reduce the potential contrast, which I think may be quite harmful. Looking at screens outside whenever possible should theoretically be best however. Will update more later when I have more results...

 

Neil, just totaled up my hours of VDU/Pc exposure and came to a staggering 65000 hours.Add leisure Pc hours easily another 10-15k on top. Lets call it 100k ....Terrible and my glasses are - 6.25 ....

 

I am also experimenting with going without glasses. As I need them quite a lot I use them now as other people.
use reading glasses,only when I really need to see. I do eye exercises and found out that. I cannot roll my eyes.

 

If I close my eyes and imagine rolling my eyes, or looking left or right, within a short time my eyes seem to respond and want to follow ...... I think it's because I'm not trying, either to move my eye muscles, or to see.

 

It just occurred to me that the Bates eye exercise I liked most, which was the "eyes completely covered and thinking about black" is now what I use to get to sleep at night, with my sleep mask.

Perhaps good sleep (no light in the bedroom, however you work it) is good for the eyes, too!

And yes, Bates says to imagine the deepest, darkest, black one can... because seeing is also in the brain.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1463571933/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Healing is Voltage: Healing Eye Diseases - Jerry L Tennant M.D.

Edward Kondrot M.D. uses energy microcurrents to heal the eye and gives some other really great tips:
http://www.healingtheeye.com/10_essentials/10_Essentials_Improving_Eyesight_ep.pdf

zinc is *huge* for the eyes... vitamin c + e supposedly will reduce mac degeneration by 50% in studies - also, keeping glutathione high - and inflammation low -

zinc helped me when I had eye strain and burning when looking at a screen -

 

I went to the eye doc today, and he was very surprised at my positive vision changes. In the past two years (I skipped going last year) my vision has changed from -3.50 (R) & -4.25 (L) to a current -3.25 (R) & -3.50 (L). But he was more surprised by my focusing ability. He said my range is very large now. He had me put on my old glasses and put on additional lenses. He said everything should be a blur, but I was able to focus through them. And I can focus very close to my eyes.

Wow, all this, and without even exercising! I told him it's all the seafood and hydration. He said he has been increasing his fish consumption lately also.

 

The optometrist asked about my blood sugar, because large quick changes in eyesight are usually caused by diabetes. I assured him I see the my doctor every 3 months. He asked me to be sure to come back in 12 months. I think I'll surprise him again next year.