Subject: Bates started doing it "right" in 1912.
Re: His method was to START the child reading the Snellen -- in school. This got the child and parents
INTERESTED in the method of keeping the child's vision clear.
Maybe his methods "work", and maybe they don't.
But the result was that some children got their Snellens to go from 20/70 to normal in about six months.
For the reason you must ACCEPT the idea that real SUCCESS must START before the minus.
In fact, I think in the future, the word, "OBJECTION to the minus lens" -- is the second-opinion.
There are in fact OTHER methods OTHER that Bates. But the majority-opinion OD seeks to
discredit THESE PROVEN METHODS -- as "Bates". There is no tollerence for ANY SECOND-OPINION.
But the WORST THING these majority-opinion "professionals?" did was to remove the Snellens from
the school -- and stop COMPLETELY this pioneering work.
In fact, you will find that I argue that NEW preventive study should be started -- not with
children, but with mature people who have the motivation to start the preventive (recovery)
process before the minus.
Tragically, since Bates was "killed" in 1913 -- there has been no further attempt at true
I am personally a skeptic of all alternative therapies and think many who encourage those that have been essentially disproved should be punished.
Otis> Why "punished"? Bates study was stopped before it got started. You have to give the man the RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES
TO BE SUCCESSFUL. That is not right. In fact, Bates was PUNISHED BECAUSE HE WAS SUCCESSFUL. Think about it. I am
not saying his method were "easy" before the minus. I just say he never had a "fighting chance" to become successful. I
think a lot of "excessive claims" were made at a later date -- but this does not discredit his early success.
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.
Otis> The Bates method REQUIRES that you read your Snellen -- and personally verify clearing. iF YOU DO THAT, NO ONE
CAN "CHEAT" YOU ON THE RESULTS YOU SEE.
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.
Otis> In fact NO ONE CAN PREDICT RESULTS AT ALL. In fact one woman (who had a -8 diopter prescription) managed -- with
great work -- to get her day-time vision to 20/100 to 20/50 (this is current). She may get better, and maybe not,
but only she will see the results. It this due to Bates -- or her strong resolve. Her methods of measurements
are OBJECTIVE -- and that is all that counts.
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.
Otis> No one wishes to "prove you wrong". If you are at -6 diopters -- then it may be too late. But the point is
this -- had you started with Bates BEFORE the minus -- you might have have success. (This is NOT
a criticism of you.!)
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.
Otis> I look at the SCIENCE behind PREVENTION (before the minus), and I believe it good. Remember, OBJECTION to the
that FIRST minus, is the second-opinion. You will meet many majority-opinion ODs who will insist AGAINST SCIENCE
AND FACT, that ENTRY can not be prevented. IT is THAT KIND OF STATEMENT THAT I object to.
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.
Otis> I "see" this differently. I ask, is the minus even SAFE -- or has it EVER been proven to be safe.
Otis> I can assure you of this scientific fact. If you take a normal eye -- and place a -3 diotper lens on it -- it
will change it refractive STATE by -2 diotpers in less than six months.
Otis> Strip off all the rest. Bates used different words to describe this effect of the minus -- but
he said the same thing.
Otis> The minus can be considered like and X-Ray. To be used in an "emergency" by avoded for
almost all other situations.
Just my second-opinion on Bates,