Someone else's own words:t...@dgbt.doc.ca
(Ted Grusec) wrote:
>This Bates thing has been around for 50 years that I know about, and
>probably a lot longer than that. Surely, if there was something to
>it, there should be lots of evidence by now. If not, why not?
This is a good question. It is not a good reason to dismiss Bates
therapy out of hand, but it is a very good question. I would like to
offer a guess or two:
Scientific studies are made difficult by the very nature of the
technique. Changing habits (i.e., visual habits) is a slow difficult
problem, and challenges different people in different ways. It requires
motivation, mental focusing, consistency. The habits of strain that
we are trying to correct may well have a psychological source. It may
be that the "disease" called myopia, is the tendency to handle stress
by straining eye muscles. Changing a tendency (or habit) is not the
same as administering a drug and waiting for a result. It is not the
same as performing a surgery or prescribing a lens.
That paragraph was unclear. The point is that these techniques
may not work the same for all people and there are so many factors
involved in changing a habit over a long term that it is difficult to
create a "scientific" study.
Perhaps this is not a good reason.
Another guess. There is a strong bias in the medical community
that makes it favor attack-the-symptom, drug-based medicine. Since the
Bates method involves quite a bit of psychology, it may be dismissed by some
out of hand. [Western medical] "Doctors" do not deal with pshychology.
Dr. Bates, who was at one point in his career a well respected
member of the optical community, was discredited as soon as he came out
with his "unorthodox" theories of focusing and the nature of most visual
error. [I can't remember the exact history as I sit here, but this
happened back in the 1910s] I believe that the entrenched orthodox
doctors have a vested interest in NOT looking into these techniques.
Am I being too cynical?
I honestly do not understand why there are not more Bates doctors
around, because it has been my experience that his assumptions are true.
Another problem with Bates therapy: (this is not reason why there
is little scientific support of Bates' work, but rather a reason why
it remains a little used therapy) it demands that glasses be used as
little as possible during the therapy (which could last for months and
months). This is a very difficult obstacle to deal with in this society.
Driving is a must, etc.
In any case, I believe that it is worth looking into oneself. There
are numerous historical examples of long-held medical beliefs (held by
the experts of the day) that were later shown to be false. If you are
interested in trying to restore health to your vision, I hope that you
will consider this unorthodox method and judge with your own personal
experience as to its truth.
Refution to Dave:t...@dgbt.doc.ca
(Ted Grusec) wrote:
>Look. It's really very simple. Either the Bates method can improve
>your vision or it cannot. Nothing mystical. An eye chart pre- and
>post-test is all that's needed to substantiate efficacy in this case.
>Forget the "theory". Bates proposed a training procedure over 50
>years ago. Either it substantially works or not, and its verification
>should be as straightforward as anything can be. So why has there
>been no investigation? No fancy instruments or hocu-pocus is needed
>here. It would be a very doable science project for a high school
>student. One control group (no Bates), one experimental group
>(Bates), with the two groups chosen to be as similar as possible in
>terms of degree and kinds of visual defects, and statistically
>assigned on unknown or uncontrollable variables. There is absolutely
>no reason in the world this can't be properly investigated for those
>of us that demand some simple logic.
And then in response, bsi...@elvis.stsci.edu
(Bernie Simon) wrote:
>Thanks for the posting. This is the kind of thing I would like to see
>more of on this group. Either actual experience of improvement with
>some alternative treatment or clinical results. Let's see more facts
>and fewer abstract statements like "alternative medicine is all
>fraudulant" or "Western medicine is a conspiracy to make sick people
Dave's reply to #4:
I doubt you would accept my personal anecdotal evidence: that my
eyes (since Bates) produce clear (20/20) flashes on a regular basis. It
is true that on my worst days, when I am stressed or down, my vision gets
fairly poor again. But the fact that it is POSSIBLE for my eyes to focus
clearly, is sure evidence to me that the western belief that myopes have
unalterably misshapen corneas is false!
There are vision therapists out there with patients who pay to have
training in Bates-type techniques. Is this evidence for you that there
is something to it? <---- (note by me: I'd omit this paragraph before
showing to skeptics because it's not a good argument. There are people
who will pay for anything. This is not good evidence (independent of whether
the therapy works or not). We don't want to give the skeptic a way out,
an excuse to "act out" even if it does work.
Bates vision therapy is a slow, demanding process producing results
that depend entirely on the consistency and self-discipline of the patient.
It is a method of changing habits. ...is there proof that those nicotine
patches help people to quit smoking? Well, that depends on the person
and his psychology, his self-discipline, etc. And so it is with the
Bates method. Are people who have success with the method proof that it
works? I think so---I think they are proof that the premises are true;
that the method CAN work. But nothing is guaranteed in terms of results
because so much depends on the effort produced by each individual patient.
Unlike the mask-the-symptom quick-fix that glasses are, Bates offers a
theory and a technique which I am convinced shows a way to correct visual
M. Simon, I am offering you my "actual experience of improvement with
some alternative treatment". I am sorry to see the Bates method passed
off so easily by M. Grusec. I understand and certainly admire the fact
that he is seeking truth. But my inability to point to some study that he
would find acceptable proof should not be a reason to dismiss the Bates
method out of hand. I have offered some evidence; my experience has been
enough to convince me. I have offered reasons why it is hard to prove, in
a black and white manner, that Bates' ideas are correct because results
are not guaranteed. I hope that minds have not been closed to this subject.
Discussion located at:http://groups.google.com.vc/group/misc. ... 86f731806e