_________________
"...As Dr. Bates advised, I always carry with me the memory of a small, round, perfectly black, inky, greasy, wet, sexy black period." - Krupnov

Subject: Intense bias against second-opinion Dr. Bates.

When some one starts by saying, "...one time reputable
Dr. Bates." -- I choke.

I have seen "studies" run by people who "think" that
way.

I conclude this:

Follow the money.

When the people conducting a study (bi-focals in a specific case)
and they have a "vested" interest in "killing" the second-opinion,
then believe me, scientific truth will fly out the window.

In other words, if you put the foxes in charge of the
chicken coop -- what do you expect.

The chickens welfare will be protected???

Go figure.

Otis

People like you keep erring that "faith is important for eyesight improvement." That's  not true. Dr. Bates method is purely scientific, no new age, no alternative medicine, no smelly stuff like that. You do need faith - the faith in yourself - but no more than for any other your intention to manifest in life.

The guy who wrote the opus is an idiot, who never really understood anything from the Bates method. That's why he used a completely wrong experiment and meausrement approach and arrived to ridiculous conclusions which are fairly refuted by our everyday practice. Discard and forget it, it's not even worth discussing.

Oleg... one simple Bates example is all it takes to show why your understanding is incorrect.

If faith is not important, then why did Bates even suggest imagining a letter as being more perfect? To imagine perfectly = to believe (faith). In fact, he also suggested imagining a letter as being "more black" -- which means to believe (have faith) that the letter is more black. Bates recommended such imaginary drills dozens of billions of trillions of times to improve eyesight. ;)

Yes, Bates method is scientific, but in a neuroplasticity sense. It is empirically measurable but involves addressing the brain in such a way that the imprints are still there after the drills are done. Vision can be "imprinted" in the mind if you "believe" you see something more perfectly--come on, you've experienced that several times (if you do visualization drills), so why state that faith is not important? Anyway, not trying to offend; you'd probably want to do the same if you want the "truth" to be protected and not distorted. Nothing personal.

******************************************

Regarding the .pdf experiment, the author Tomasz Zurek's credibility can be very easy questioned. Here's why:

1. "There has never been any research done on the ‘Bates Method’."  This raises question regarding Zurek's own research skills and credibility.  There have been a few studies conducted directly addressing the Bates Method in terms of improving visual acuity, including the M.C. McClay research papers.  http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.p ... 357.0.html and others which directly or indirectly address Bates Method are at http://www.iblindness.org/evidence/

2. There is only one participator. There is no control group present. It's easy for one person to fake his research results because they are subject to an individual's bias.

3. For palming to be 100% successful, it requires 'faith' not skepticism, and skepticism can lead to negative nerve impulses which maintain some chronic muscular tension. His results may be inconsistent because of his skepticism.

4. He should use a printed out Snellen eye chart, not computer screen. Do it the way Bates originally had his subjects test out their vision. Even if type of chart seems irrelevant, when you are addressing someone else's research you need to do it the way that individual did it.

5. My own palming experiences allow me to see any unfamiliar letter or object with increased acuity on a consistent basis--to such a degree (10/20 --> 20/10 instantly) that eye tricks used by a normal person cannot replicate unless the mind was used to change the vision simulateously. No one can say your direct personal experience is wrong if you can actually read all the letters at a line far down the Snellen eye chart from where you 'average' vision typically is. If you see the letters, well, then you just do.


If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time reading one opinionated individual's research paper; it's better to look at a research paper that has several randomized individuals within a control group as well as experimental group to reduce error, self-deception, and bias. Sometimes it's not possible for the experimenter to find randomly chosen subjects and have a control group due to things like ethics, funds, and logistics; but you have to use your own discretion to decide which studies are worth worrying about. This one isn't worth worrying about.

You erred about nothing. I have read a great deal of Dr. Bates' original works from his book to his magazine publications and I understand that the mental component of vision requires 'faith'. One such example is how Bates encouraged visualization of the letters on the Snellen eye chart. In fact, it is this 'faith' that has enabled me to have clear flashes of 20/10 and possibly beyond, despite my 10/20 'average' binocular eyesight. The extrinsic eye muscles relaxing is not 100% of what changes our eyesight. The mind plays a role too.

Tomasz Zurek, who wrote that biased research paper, said that Bates "claimed that perfect vision could only result from relaxation of these eye muscles." Why should I take his word for it? Where is the cited quote?

Regardless of if Bates said such a thing or not, Bates' work still has to be looked at from a chronological perspective. If he said that earlier, maybe he corrected it later on? Such is the scientific world, going through a trial-and-error, 'hierarchy of fact' procedure. I'm sure Zurek didn't look through every page of Bates' own work, but people easily assume that just because Bates said one thing means he always believed in it that way. It's the people themselves that are partly to blame, because they don't realize that later observations can supersede previous observations.

In addition, you have to learn 'how to read' Bates' own language used in his own scientific studies... remember he lived in the late 19th century to the early 20th century when language instruction may have been a little different and as a child he may have not been taught not to use absolutes like the rest of us modern-day people... he may have had a somewhat different understanding of his usage of absolutes than we do when we read them.

Absolutes are words such as 'only, 'always', 'never', 'exactly' this long, etc. He uses them loosely, because sometimes he means it, other times he doesn't... I have countless examples I could show and others have agreed with me on how Bates sometimes has inconsistent usage of his absolutes in his language. Don't discredit him because of this. What's important is the ideas themselves. They are very original, and they obviously work, so I have no complaints... it's just that people are creating unnecessary problems and misconceptions by:

1) interpreting everything Bates says literally, and
2) not evaluating Bates' own statements from a chronological, trial-and-error, hierarchy-of-facts perspective

Now, when a renowned and brilliant scientist has written thousands of pages addressing his own scientific observations, it's very likely you'll find a change of mind here and there about a few things. It would be unfair to discredit Bates (or any scientist for that matter) under such premises, yet both 1 and 2 as shown above are Zurek's own mistakes in his research paper. 1 and 2 are needed in order to intelligently filter through the massive volumes of Bates' own works.

Simply put, Zurek isn't all that bright.

Dear Spock,

If this man wants ANY credibility, you do not
START by calling Bates a jerk, and then claim
you are going to discredit him.  That man is
a joke.

But, even so, I he wants ANY credibility,
he should test at the standard distance
of 20 feet, and recored his visual
acuity -- which he did not do.

That indicates he did not have a clue about
anything he was doing.

Hardly scientific credibility on any level.

Result:  No meaningful conclusion can
be reached, on way or the other.

The jury is still "out" on second opinion
preventive methods.

Best,

Captain Kirk

Actually, I did also have doubt in Bates method. At the beginning, I was the biggest skeptic out there. That skepticism made me throw Bates book away 15 years ago unitl I stumbled across it again and this time gave it a fair try. So I've got the right to say that "faith is not required". I'm analytical minded and I simply proved that Bates method works without ever pushing myself to believe in anything, basing on someone's pure authority. In reverse, I had to re-examine my current beliefs at that moment in "official ophtalmology", because I found myself silly religiously believing in it without having ever been given with a scientific argument, only its accepted "authority". However, it was easy to change my mind and change my beliefs after I had first true experiences from Bates method.

It's good that we have cleared it up on what kind of faith is needed for Bates method. The same kind of faith to lose weight or quit smoking or become an early riser. Nothing special.

The fact that you brought the link to that bullshit PDF file here really makes you look silly in sense that you revealed that you ain't got much experience and do keep erring in many things about Bates method. But it's OK.

Hi there,

This PDF file is another so called scientific non-sense out there. What is science?
One should first define it and then label something as scientific. Science today is unfortunately full of these types of non-senses! One of them is the belief in evolution of living things with those remarkable designs in them instead of their creation, which I have no doubt that most of the people in the early 19th century believed in it, including Bates and Alexander. The belief of "struggle for survival" put forward by Charles Drawin, led to the ideological foundation of the tragic World Wars and slaughter of innocent people. See http://www.harunyahya.com.
The fossil record clearly shows that evolution is nothing more than a myth.

Well sorry for changing the subject a bit but I thought it may be necessary for us to open our eyes and realize that many beliefs in the so called scientific world are unproved theories.
Palming, is not only the act of putting the palms of the hands on our eyes, but the most important aspect of palming is the imagination. Also one should learn not to lose the relaxed state after a palming session. I personally think that the research of Tomasz Zireck is a waste of time, not plaming.

There is something very important here, Bates method will work only if one has sincere belief in it! If you sometimes think that Bates might not be right, then your vision will degrade!!
As Bates says, refusing to accept the truth or telling lies will also lower your vision too.
There is an important thing in our sub-conscious mind which makes our progress of vision improvement so slow. This is the quackery fed to us in schools about vision. Children are always very fast at learning and when we teach wrong things to them, it becomes difficult for them to put it aside.

For example, I get a clear flash, and I start thinking? Is this true? Then why does everyone wear glasses, if this is true? If you can convince yourself that this is true and you do not need glasses anymore, while your clear flash has no gone away yet then it may probably last for a long time, But if you start thinking that this is a mistake, I shouldn't have seen a clear flash, or how can this be true, it will disappear!!

This is a psychological issue which all of us swimming in the opposite direction of the flow of beliefs in the visual system, must face.
I think that we must come to a conclusion in our INSIDE and our sub-conscious level. We must regard those people who wear glasses and doctors who prescribe glasses as deceived people, to succeed in vision improvement.
If we feel any kind of respect to these incorrect ideas of eye doctors, we will fail and strain. We must convince ourselves that there are many false facts that so many people consider as facts.

Elias,

Thank you for all your superb responses!!

See, the PDF file containing the experiment I posted was written and conducted by a couple of my old friends, and my uncle Dr. Zurek (as you can figure, he really doesn't approve of Bates methods); they will certainly be surprised to see all this feedback (it has been a long time since this was carried out).

-Kaze

_________________
"...As Dr. Bates advised, I always carry with me the memory of a small, round, perfectly black, inky, greasy, wet, sexy black period." - Krupnov

never trust an article that has spelling errors 
Plus it's certainly biased.  A person not expecting improvement from the Bates method is not likely to get one.

I overlooked something earlier. The author described how he would do palming as this: "A beanie would be worn over the eyes to eliminate any light entering the eyes."

That is not even palming...

LOL yes! I didn't even notice that.

This fact alone, invalidates the study.

Hey guys,

Well, I am the author of this “study”. Don’t worry too much. It was simply a 2nd year practice research thing and so of course there was only one subject. I cannot imagine getting any volunteers to palm +1 hour each day for any meaningful amount of time. When I sent this study to the website it is on, I told them it was a simple 2nd year project so it is not a thesis or published study. It's kind of a blight on my name now that many websites link to it as a scientific study and it is the google result for my name haha.

As for there being insufficient studies? This kind of study requires no special equipment, skills or knowledge. I have detailed my experiment procedures in that document and the flaws I found (in hindsight). Nothing is stopping anyone from doing this again. It seems many people here are actually quite dedicated to this so if it work, please do a study yourself. Have an eye specialist (or 2-3) asses your eye sight at the beginning and end (and possibly in between) and see if everything you try works. I think the beanie was fine as a substitute for using one's hands. The object is to eliminate all light so I don't think it was too much of an issue. Not sure if I mentioned it but I also used plastic eye patches to prevent the beanie compressing my eye.

I am personally a skeptic of all alternative therapies and think many who encourage those that have been essentially disproved should be punished. However, it seems that the Bates method has not been properly tested and the claimed improvements can’t easily be attributed to the placebo effect. It seems there has been some kinds of studies on alternative therapies for eyes which showed similar results to mine but I don't have access to them so I cannot know if they were done properly or tested your methods. Hence, despite being skeptical at the moment, I have a relatively open mind with this and would love someone to do a proper study and prove me wrong. A quick read through some other sites on the net and some of the posts here which talk about faith and say evolution is making me a lot more skeptical.

If I recall correctly, I think that the way eye muscles work when focusing may be compatible with a successful study’s results. Muscles inside the eye relax when we try and focus on a distant object.

Tomasz Zurek

PS
I have no idea who Kaze is. I have no nephews (being 23 years old atm) and did this study entirely on my own. I am also not a Doctor never having done a PhD or anything higher than honors. Makes one wonder what kid of a person would say what he did.. and why :S

Hi Tomasz,

Your experiment using a beanie is not what Bates called "palming." In all his writings, he never recommended a beanie or an apparatus (other than the hands) over the eyes while palming. When you duplicate the findings of another person, your credibility as a scientist is highest when you repeat the process exactly the way it was done. This allows you to be on factual premises of how it was done.

But you made the careless mistake of allowing an "assumption" of why palming worked and from that assumption you erected a shaky foundation for getting any favorable results. Did you consider that even Bates may have not known, or mentioned, every factor that goes into why palming works? This alone invalidates using another process than the one he taught, for experimental replication.

Examples of why palming might also work: moisture from hands, heat from hands, mental visualization as instructed by Bates (which was crucial to produce the most favorable results with palming), degree of relaxation state achieved, and more. It could actually be an intermixture of factors that leads to its success, rather than solely darkness. The morale here is: when attempting to replicate results of someone else's discovery, one may be unable to predict every interplaying factor so always use the exact same technique to help ensure correlation.

You also said the object is to eliminate all light -- which is based upon the assumption that palming can work only due to the exclusion of light. Well, you could have simply used your dark room at night when you sleep. But as we all know, a dark room by itself doesn't usually, if ever, lead to permanent vision improvement for anyone. If you are, in fact, interested in knowing whether palming can produce favorable results, the best thing you can do is to optimize the conditions for testing it. You do this by using every factual premise possible, such as palming with the hands. And you consider every other interplaying factor that may be necessary for it to work.

Negligence to do both compromises the validity and success (in getting positive results) of everything. It makes you appear eager to disprove that palming produces favorable results, rather than prove it. And you often get what you are looking for. If this is so with palming, and one who is eager to prove it produces favorable results, while the one who is eager to disprove it produces negative results, the fact remains that one person produced favorable results and the other didn't -- so it may be subjective.

Hi Junio,

You can be certain that I wasn't trying to disprove it. I really believed in it at the time, especially when i started to see that initial improvement. With the beanie & eyepatches, I found that it helped me to relax a lot while using my hands would never be comfortable and so I thought would prevent any relaxation. I don't think the beanie would have caused a lack of moisture or heat though. It would insulate heat from the head and moisture would also be retained so I stand by my method.

Anyway, I am not interested in doing further research myself and am really in the research scene anymore but as I said before, nothing is stopping you from doing it yourselves. You don't need a PhD or anything, just document it well and some university would probably give you a chance to replicate it with some of their help if you are successful.