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://184.108.40.206/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?