Link as follows:
http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/feature ... es-it-work

Although it contains the usual disregard that Bates Method isn't based on his theory that "external muscles that control the eye's movements control focus", which was his way of theorizing his observations from his practice, and it completely disregards the Snellen Cards as well, it did mention a certain AAO Taskforce study/evaluation/report on complementary therapies for the eye,
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:e0m ... cd=2&gl=us (A Google HTML cache),
where the one and only Level I test (see the test criteria in that document) on "biofeedback training for control of accommodation for myopia reported no statistically significant benefits from training" is concluded as "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia. " even though visual training incorporates in their definition "eye exercises, muscle relaxation techniques, biofeedback, eye patches, or eye massages alone or in combinations and may also recommend using undercorrected prescription lenses and nutritional supplements.", other non-randomized tests (level II/III) that reported "an improvement in subjective visual acuity in myopes with no corresponding improvement in objective visual acuity" are been concluded as "The improvements in myopic patients noted in these studies have been postulated to be due to improvements in interpreting blurred images, changes in mood or motivation, creation of an artificial contact lens by tear film changes, or a pinhole effect from miosis of the pupil.".

Now comes the question, is this report and the article on webmd credible for their conclusions?

Dear Friend,

Subject: The concept of the second-opinion.

Re: Objection to the minus lens IS THE SECOND-OPINION.

These ODs and MDs have been taught that in THEIR OFFICE -- they are "Gods".

Well if you are a "God" -- then you don't have to look at science, objective facts, and deeper
scientific truth.

It is true that to make Bates "case" in 1913 -- he needed data that only developed in the
last 50 years.

But he had an intutive sense of the "correct" -- albeit PREVENTIVE need and method.

Not only that, but other un-sung heros have had ideas similar to Dr. Bates, and
specifically Dr. Prentice.

But these Bates/Prentice "methods" have been swept under the
rug and IGNORED.

What you state here is a "failed" Donders/Helmholtz THEORY -- which
they believe.

Why? Because the minus works impressively in 5 minutes. But that
is not science at all.

But allow me to make some further commentary:



Paper> "... statistically significant benefits from training" is concluded as "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia. "

Otis> On a science level, the eye fundamental eye responds to an applied -3 diopter lens -- by changing its refractive STATE by
-2 diopters in less than a year.

Otis> This suggests that this publication JUMPED to THEIR preferred conclusion -- and ignored all
science and facts to your detriment.

Article> even though visual training incorporates in their definition "eye exercises, muscle relaxation techniques, biofeedback, eye patches, or eye massages alone or in combinations and may also recommend using undercorrected prescription lenses and nutritional supplements.",

Otis> I don't support these specific statements. I would suggest that the person interested in prevention
review the work of BOTH Dr. Bates and Dr. Prentice. I suggest that we need a "new" Bates 1913 study
with older students using Bates/Prentice methods -- with the results MEASURED by the
students themselves.

Article> other non-randomized tests (level II/III) that reported "an improvement in subjective visual acuity in myopes with no corresponding improvement in objective visual acuity"

Otis> These are bogus conclusions. But I do agree that running a PREVENTIVE study would be difficult.


Article> ...are been concluded as "The improvements in myopic patients noted in these studies have been postulated to be due to improvements in interpreting blurred images, changes in mood or motivation, creation of an artificial contact lens by tear film changes, or a pinhole effect from miosis of the pupil.".


Otis> More "jumping to the conclusion" by very biased people.



Now comes the question, is this report and the article on webmd credible for their conclusions?

Otis> As the majority-opinion -- yes!

Otis> As the second-opinion -- NO!

Enjoy,

Otis

I only glanced at them, but from what you say, it doesn't sound like the articles really have much to do with the practice of the Bates method, more like a hodgepodge of exercises with no direction or expertise.

Anyway, in something like this, there's no reason to let someone else make the conclusions. It's no secret that alternative therapies are by definition not mainstream, and I'm at a loss when people seem surprised that there is disagreement about the given subject. Is there anything in particular in the articles' content that you're curious about?

Dave

_________________
Webmaster of http://www.iblindness.org

"I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things." - Benjamin Franklin

Web MD is run by the pharmacuidial companies and medical doctors, they want to sell drugs, surgery and make/keep you sick.
They hide natural treatments and advise drugs.

_________________
Mary I. Oliver - 38 years practice, teach Natural Eyesight Improvement.

Free on-line Better Eyesight Magazine with Translator, Speaker;
http://www.cleareyesight.info/naturalvisionimprovementoriginalandmodernbatesmethod/
http://www.cleareyesight.info

A good insight. I have always refer to WebMD for advice whenever i have some health issues but i notice the same thing as well..they don't really promote natural remedies.

_________________
Jacksin
optic researcher