05-28-2009, 10:40 AM
Dear Friends,
Dr. Bates 1913 study was "killed", not because it was "wrong" or failed -- it was because the majority-opinion ophthalmologists felt that the Helmholtz theory of the eye, (that the entire eye could not change its power) was wrong, and EXCLUSIVELY the lens changed.
But, it did not matter. Helmholtz HAD TO BE RIGHT, and therefore Bates HAD TO BE WRONG.
Tragically, regardless of science, presented objective fact, and all objection to the minus -- nothing changes.
Here again Dr. Bates presents objective facts about "whole eye" accommodation.
If you believe in Bates, then you should object to his treatement -- because we all suffer from the ignorance that "killed" his work.
=================
By Dr. Bates:
Some one - perhaps it was Bacon - has said: "You cannot by reasoning
correct a man of ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired." He
might have gone a step farther and stated that neither by reasoning,
nor by actual demonstration of the facts, can you convince some people
that an opinion which they have accepted on authority is wrong.
A man whose name I do not care to mention, a professor of
ophthalmology, and a writer of books well known in this country and in
Europe, saw me perform an experiment upon the eye of a rabbit which,
according to others who had witnessed it, demonstrated beyond any
possibility of error that the lens is not a factor in accommodation.
At each step of the operation he testified to the facts; yet at the
conclusion he preferred to discredit the evidence of his senses rather
than accept the only conclusion that these facts admitted.
====================
I hope you understand this issue of prevention-minded MDs and ODs who are fighting to change this "thinking", and are supporting prevention at the threshold as I support it.
Best,
Otis
Dr. Bates 1913 study was "killed", not because it was "wrong" or failed -- it was because the majority-opinion ophthalmologists felt that the Helmholtz theory of the eye, (that the entire eye could not change its power) was wrong, and EXCLUSIVELY the lens changed.
But, it did not matter. Helmholtz HAD TO BE RIGHT, and therefore Bates HAD TO BE WRONG.
Tragically, regardless of science, presented objective fact, and all objection to the minus -- nothing changes.
Here again Dr. Bates presents objective facts about "whole eye" accommodation.
If you believe in Bates, then you should object to his treatement -- because we all suffer from the ignorance that "killed" his work.
=================
By Dr. Bates:
Some one - perhaps it was Bacon - has said: "You cannot by reasoning
correct a man of ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired." He
might have gone a step farther and stated that neither by reasoning,
nor by actual demonstration of the facts, can you convince some people
that an opinion which they have accepted on authority is wrong.
A man whose name I do not care to mention, a professor of
ophthalmology, and a writer of books well known in this country and in
Europe, saw me perform an experiment upon the eye of a rabbit which,
according to others who had witnessed it, demonstrated beyond any
possibility of error that the lens is not a factor in accommodation.
At each step of the operation he testified to the facts; yet at the
conclusion he preferred to discredit the evidence of his senses rather
than accept the only conclusion that these facts admitted.
====================
I hope you understand this issue of prevention-minded MDs and ODs who are fighting to change this "thinking", and are supporting prevention at the threshold as I support it.
Best,
Otis
