Hi Tomasz,

I'm only talking about the procedure in this research paper you did. Equalizing a method to obtain the same results is not the same as using the original to obtain the same results. Equalizing by using a different method that supposedly works the same way produces a shaky foundation, at best, for making correlations.

Put it this way. Palming with hands --> result is clearly defined in Bates writings. "Palming" with other appartus covering the eyes --> result is not defined anywhere in Bates writings. There is no clear correlation to draw upon. Shaky foundation.

It has nothing to do with what you THINK is a clear correlation. It has to do with correlations you can SEE right in the book of exactly how it was done and the results produced. The latter gives you a more solid ground for verification purposes, so that you may actually say that "palming as TECHNICALLY taught by Bates actually correlates with the results his patients got."

You did something entirely different than his patients ever did. This is giving up your rights to the above statement. You can on longer put a claim on having tested the original palming method to see if it correlates with the original results produced.

You have a responsibility for not confusing others, since you chose to have this paper circulating the Internet. That is why I bring all this up. Not to make you feel bad. But to help you see what the problem is with the research paper.

Dear Tomasz,

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
prevention.

Additional commentary:



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.



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.



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.!)



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.



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,

Otis



Tomasz Zurek