Bates Methods Proven by Research - Printable Version +- Eyesight Improvement Forum (https://www.iblindness.org/forum) +-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Bates Method (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=5) +--- Thread: Bates Methods Proven by Research (/showthread.php?tid=255) |
Bates Methods Proven by Research - otis - 01-13-2007 DR. BATES METHOD PROVEN BY RESEARCH In July 1978, a two year study was completed at the Vision Training Institute. The dissertation was written by M.H. McClay as partial fulfillment for his Ph.D. in Psychology from United States International University San Diego. Dr. P.B. Smith was the testing optometrist and Dr. Jerriann J. Taber of Vision Training Institute did all the vision training. Following is an interpretation by A.F. McKinley, lecturer in Physics at San Diego University, of M.H. McClay's dissertation. Most people do not have a background in research and statistical terms. Mr. McKinley was so kind to interpret this study and put it into layman's language. For those with a research background, the following is presented. A standard optometry evaluation was part of the study, all subjects were seen before and after receiving the Bates Method. Comparisons were made between pretest and post test scores on five measures, visual acuity, lens flexibility, corneal curvature, corrective lens prescription and extra ocular muscle flexibility. In both the nearsighted and farsighted subjects, vision improved for the group as a whole at a highly significant level, measured statistically at .01, meaning that the probability of this result occurring by chance was less than 1 in 100. THIS IS A VERY HIGH STATISTICAL SCORE FOR RESEARCH. This study is also VERY SIGNIFICANT in that it is the FIRST TO EVER SHOW THAT PRESBYOPIA (farsightedness) IS NOT CAUSED BY "OLD AGE" and hardening of the lens. This has been believed by ophthalmology and optometry for over 100 years. There were three people in the study, ages 51, 57, and 66, who achieved normal vision during the study. According to orthodox belief, this is supposed to be impossible. Our study proved this scientifically not to be true, just as Dr. Bates has stated, "Presbyopia is not caused by old age, but by tension." Up until this study, there has never been any research to prove this fact, except Dr. Bates original work, which has been ignored for 80 years. AN INTERPRETATION OF MICHAEL McCLAY'S DISSERTATION ON THE BATES-METHOD FOR VISUAL IMPROVEMENT Thirty three subjects under training in the Bates method were studied during a 20 month period. Although some of the thirty three maintained training throughout the study period, some did not, for various personal and financial reasons. Nevertheless, all of the students improved in their vision "acuity," that is in their sharpness of vision. Before training, the acuity in both eyes (binocular vision) for distance sight measured 20/130 on the average among the 33 subjects. After training, acuity reached 20/60 on the average; 14 of 33 subjects attained normal vision, 20/20. The statistical test which was applied to this data indicated that the cause for such correction could be credited to the Bates training with very high certainty. The study showed that vision improvement occurred consistently among the 33 subjects and that future participants in the Bates training could expect to benefit to the same degree. Several tests were also run to establish the physiological features of the eye which changed as vision acuity improved. Increased flexibility of the corneal lens, increased flexibility of the muscles surrounding the eye and changes in the curvature of the cornea were all tested and found to change in different degrees in each subject. In other words, given several people who, through the training, improve their vision acuity to some given degree, each will experience different increases in corneal and muscle flexibility and different changes in corneal curvature. The study showed further that improved acuity was not dependent upon the length of the training period nor upon the regularity of the length of personal daily practice. Apparently the degree of personal daily exercise practiced by a particular individual cannot be said to lead to a definite level of vision improvement. Such conclusions are consistent with the Bates belief that vision is 90% psychological, 10% physiological, making vision improvement a very personal activity, not dependent entirely on physiological phenomena. The 90%/10% weighting seems to be a figure of speech more than a statistically determined ratio. The study did show, however, that vision improvement is, to a great extent, psychologically based, that is, that such a weighting does indeed exist, but that it may be different for every individual. There was also another research paper completed in 1978 by Raymond L. Gottlieb O.D., Ph.D. In 1970 he normalized his own myopia (-1.25) using the Bates method and other methods. This led him into developmental optometry. He received his Ph.D. from the Humanistic Psychology Institute in 1978. His private practice is limited to vision training. This dissertation deals with the etiology of myopia. A psychophysiological model was developed to explain the concepts of Dr. Wm. H. Bates. This model suggests that myopia results from habits of mental focusing habitual ways of organizing mental processes in order to pay attention which lead to chronic isometric contraction of the extraocular muscles which cause the eyeball to elongate producing nearsightedness. The neuropsychological aspects of this model are derived primarily from the research of Karl Pribram. Literature on the etiology of nearsightedness is compatible with myopic behavior as predicted by the model. The dissertation concluded that Dr. Bates ideas should be given serious consideration by optometrists, vision scientists and other professionals myopia is more flexible than is generally conceived and it is important to develop a new paradigm of visual care which examines the more subtle implications of the nearsighted response and the possibilities of prevention and remediation. Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - Mordant - 11-09-2009 (Archive bingeing! Hope no-one minds me bumping this older thread.) Otis, you wouldn't happen to know where one could come by Michael McClay's research papers, would you? I've been hunting around online to no avail. Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - otis - 11-13-2009 Sorry, this is the only reference I know of! Best, Otis Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - fuggles - 11-13-2009 I cant be bothered reading all of that . Most people on this forum have bad eyesight because you make your posts too long. So does he prove bates method works or not ? yes or no If it does, I will go back to palming 8 hours a day , and sunning the other 4 hours. Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - JMartinC4 - 11-13-2009 That's great, fuggles! 8+4 = 12 leaving another 6 hours for the long and short swinging! then you sleep for 6 hours. U kan Du eet!!!! fuggles Wrote:I cant be bothered reading all of that . Most people on this forum have bad eyesight because you make your posts too long. Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - fuggles - 11-14-2009 JMartinC4 Wrote:That's great, fuggles! 8+4 = 12 leaving another 6 hours for the long and short swinging! then you sleep for 6 hours. U kan Du eet!!!! well, does the post by the original poster prove the bates method works or not Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - fuggles - 11-14-2009 However, I have never ever had any eyesight improvement. I think, although I cant remember, some of the lower lines flashed for a few seconds, as I palm in front of the snellen. Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - JMartinC4 - 11-15-2009 No, none of this works. We are all just a bunch of fakers trying to take advantage of naive people so we can get rich. No myopic has ever noticed that his/her vision improved by palming, swinging, shifting, sunning, or relaxing in any way. We are just a cult of quasi-insane nutjobs and you should not be here among us. Feel better? fuggles Wrote:JMartinC4 Wrote:That's great, fuggles! 8+4 = 12 leaving another 6 hours for the long and short swinging! then you sleep for 6 hours. U kan Du eet!!!! Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - fuggles - 11-16-2009 No, none of this works. We are all just a bunch of fakers trying to take advantage of naive people so we can get rich. No myopic has ever noticed that his/her vision improved by palming, swinging, shifting, sunning, or relaxing in any way. We are just a cult of quasi-insane nutjobs and you should not be here among us. Feel better? fuggles Wrote:JMartinC4 Wrote:That's great, fuggles! 8+4 = 12 leaving another 6 hours for the long and short swinging! then you sleep for 6 hours. U kan Du eet!!!! well, does the post by the original poster prove the bates method works or not[/quote][/quote] are you being serious ? also, my main question is, these articles written by dr bates and reprinted across the itnernet, about people who gained 20/20 in about 3 days, or the famous story of a man who palmed for 20 hours straighty and got perfect eyesight, are these stories true ?? The articles I am referring to , are found on this website, run by greg marsh, famous for the bates method cd course sold on mercola. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://visionimprovementcenter.com/index.php">http://visionimprovementcenter.com/index.php</a><!-- m --> Find the articles on his site. They are VERY VERY encouraging, that is, if they are true. Maybe some are a little exaggerated. If they are true, of course. I hope they are. Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - JMartinC4 - 11-16-2009 well, does the post by the original poster prove the bates method works or not[/quote][/quote] are you being serious ? also, my main question is, these articles written by dr bates and reprinted across the itnernet, about people who gained 20/20 in about 3 days, or the famous story of a man who palmed for 20 hours straighty and got perfect eyesight, are these stories true ?? The articles I am referring to , are found on this website, run by greg marsh, famous for the bates method cd course sold on mercola. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://visionimprovementcenter.com/index.php">http://visionimprovementcenter.com/index.php</a><!-- m --> Find the articles on his site. They are VERY VERY encouraging, that is, if they are true. Maybe some are a little exaggerated. If they are true, of course. I hope they are.[/quote] No, of course I'm not serious - it's called sarcasm. I overstated the opposite to hopefully bitingly humorous effect. I have watched two of Greg Marsh's videos and they were good but not great. Anecdotal and apocryphal stories like you mention are interesting anomalies but not anything to aspire to (at least not for me). If you will review some of Otis' links on this community forum you will find more pertinent material. But if you're looking for a quickfix you are barking up the wrong tree. The only quickfix I know of is lenses or lasik. But think about it - if you were a one-year old who couldn't walk but had strong arms, so 'scientists' gave you crutches that you could manipulate - are you 'walking'? Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - fuggles - 11-16-2009 okay how does otis think I should get my eyesight back ?? also I dont understand how it works !! Do i just wake up one morning with clear eyesight ?? Lets pretend I palmed for about 2 hours, or 30 different palming sessions , 5 minutes each, throughout the day, when will I get to see some improvement ??? I dont understand Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - johnwayne - 11-21-2009 Fuggles, why don't you just get LASIK? Most people are very happy with it, in fact say it's the best decision they've ever made. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_iEjt0hpi8 And on the 'no touch' laser proceedure: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6bHdozDO7o&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6bHdozD ... re=related</a><!-- m --> Cheers, JW Re: Bates Methods Proven by Research - fuggles - 11-25-2009 I dont want laser surgery Even if I was a billionaire i wouldnt. If I was a billionaire I would spend the money on a bates method seminar. Anyway, my point is, I have faith in the bates method to improve my eyesight. |