Kazekage Wrote: 

So anyway, then I thought, who cares if Bates theories about the eye are wrong, so long as the method works .  And for me it did; Even after 30 seconds of palming I get an instant difference? And I have the same problems as you (myopia and astigmatism), so it should work. And even if you do have strabismus, don't worry,  it can be cured just as easily. (But it doesn't seem like you do)

Close your eyes, and hold both palms crossed over your eyes, but don't apply pressure, just cover the face. Don't worry if you are not blocking out all the light. Stay like this for 30 seconds - but don't freeze yourself, allow your body to move naturally. If, after that 30 seconds is up, you open your eyes and you REALLY aren't seeing any noticeable difference, then reply.

Quote:Also Tyler, you suspect Bates method to be a rip off, but it costs no money so you won't get ripped off.  And don't waste time with teachers (especially not here in the UK, most of them are rips who don't have a clue what they're talking about), or fakes like 'See-Clearly method'. All you need is: 1. This forum for help. 2. The authentic books ( including Better Eyesight Compilation and 'Perfect Sight Without Glasses').

Quote:First of all, vision can basically NEVER be restored unless you have the right habits of seeing, which most short sighted and astigmatic people don't. These habits, which you MUST learn, WILL improve your sight to normal when you can do them properly.

1. Sketching
2. Blinking
3. Breathing

Okay sorry to keep you in suspense, but I have to go to school now so I'll finish the post when I get back in afternoon (that's why this post sounds so rushed =D)

Dave Wrote:Ok, so now you're attacking Christians too, but anyway...

Quote:The medical establishment has a long history of suppressing alternative measures to health and healing. Nutrition was ignored, they tried to eliminate chiropractic. There's probably many books all about it, if anyone wants to recommend one.

It took decades for limes to be accepted as a preventative measure against scurvy:
http://www.framheim.com/Amundsen/Scurvy/Scurvy.html

There is also a lot to be said for apathy, inertia, and not liking to give up what they learned in medical or optometry school. Also read this:
http://www.iblindness.org/articles/kiesling-barriers.html

Being a poker player, I look at it also as a matter of probability. Which is more likely: that the most extreme viewpoint of the medical establishment is correct that all of the thousands of alternative therapies out there are useless, or that at least a small number of the thousands of alternative therapies are useful and even in some cases better than conventional treatment? Bates method supporters sometimes get accused of having blind faith, but frankly it's the definition of faith to believe in what probability tells you is less likely or to believe in something you haven't experienced.

Just accusing everyone of lying about the Bates method's efficacy is a useless argument, and it just annoys people - I could fire back and say you're lying about reading any books, and that Tyler Durden isn't even your real name (I know, it's a character, and that's fine), but that's a dumb argument. You've successfully riled people up though.

But you did bring up a couple arguments worth discussing, saved this thread from being locked. The Quackwatch article I addressed here a long time ago:
http://www.iblindness.org/articles/kiesling-rebuttal.html

Quote:Your other argument was that LASIK proves that eye doctors know what they're doing. How so? Sites like www.surgicaleyes.com quickly started up when laser surgery was on the rise, sharing the fact that thousands of people were getting their eyes destroyed by LASIK, oftentimes while being written off as "successes". For many reasons, LASIK is a dangerous thing to do, and the long-term complications won't be known for a long time.

If you mean that the fact that LASIK works at all proves that they are correct about everything to do with vision, I'm missing your point. Nobody's doubting that it or contacts or glasses modify the resulting focus of an image. But I suspect you just see LASIK as a miracle cure and haven't really looked into the issue to understand why or how it works.

Paul Wrote:The lens is internal, it is rather "suspended" inside your eye, which means you cannot see the effect of its curvature outside.

Pressure has an important factor:  It is Force/Area, which is applied to all sides.  Unfortunately for those scientists, this is now how an eyeball works.  It doesn't fill up with fluid and get larger whenever it needs to accommodate near.  The 5 extrinsic muscles contract and push on the eyeball from all sides, flattening it into a foot-ball shape.  Naturally when you push on all sides of a ball, it elongates.  This achieves near focus.  If these muscles strain, they aren't able to relax, and the muscles will always be tightens throwing your eyeball into permanent elongation.  The modern day optometrists saw this, and refusing to give up their Hemholtz lens theory of accommodation (which, by the way, is 70 years OLDER than that Bates method), so they said what is very intuitive...for genetic reasons the eyeball grew too much axially.  There is another saying in science, which perfectly describes modern-day optometrists:  "One does not discover new lands without losing sight of the shore".  Doctors know that if you push on all sides of the eye with your fingers, the fluid inside gets relocated and the eyeball elongates.  There is only one big conflict with the modern theory, which was very well shown by Dr. Bates in his book:  When relaxation is achieved, eyesight is cured instantly.  If it's genetic, how is it cured instantly? The explanation, lies in the extrinsic muscle accommodation theory: once you relieve the strain of the muscles, they will no longer push on the eyeball when focusing far, the eye returns to its normal shape, and you get perfect distance vision. 
LASIK does something wrong: they permanently alter the eye lens by vaporizing tissue with the excimer laser.  The problem isn't the eye lens though: the problem is strain, as Bates said.  The strain still remains, which is why a lot of people regress back to blurry vision requiring glasses again.



The reason why I stopped arguing with you Tyler is because I got frustrated.  Bates explained his experiments VERY well in his book.  He explained that he used atropine to paralyze the eye lens without affecting accommodation, and that he was able to cut the extrinsic muscles of a rabbit and observe it lose its accommodative power (measured by the retinoscope).  Trust me, anyone with a retinoscope can observe the refractive state disappear when the person looks a a blank surface without trying to see.  All of this is very well explained in his book,  and I find it frustrating to argue with you because you refuse to look at the other side of the evidence.
Tyler, the current Hemholz theory of accommodation is about 70 years older than Bates', your eye doctors are using obsolete material.  The Helmholtz theory has never seriously been tested, until Bates, because it is accurate in explaining visual phenomena.  Bates' ideas are also accurate in explaining visual phenomena.

Bates did something very stupid:  The tried to publish his accommodation theory along with his eyesight improvement evidence.  The latter is what ODs had problems with, and naturally they refused to accept the former.

TylerDurden Wrote:Yeah, a deluded cult.

If the Bates method promised really small improvements to health i'd be ok with accepting it.. But something that says you can cure glaucoma and cataracts and other serious eye diseases, how could that be underground, restricted to a few forums, books and teachers? How? It just isn't possible. It would be all over the news if even one person cured his sight. The media could easily end the current system of accomodation in place of bates ideas overnight. That alone is enough to prove that everyone who thinks their sight is improved by bates is lying or deluded, or its pseudomyopia (or w/e the opthamologists call it)

I've spent months looking at the sites like surgical eyes and the forums.. Again, a small minority of people, maybe 300? As opposed to millions of happy people who have had Lasik. Sure they reshape the cornea but if they can restore eyesight in an instant it speaks a lot better for the medical profession than the bates teachers who can't even back up their claims and nobody knows about them. HOW does NOBODY know about this if its such a miracle cure? It just isn't possible.

Quote:What is sketching?

Quote:And as for blinking.. Read this.

"Michio Kushi, the leading exponent of macrobiotics in the world, the founder of the East West Foundation and the Kushi Institute, and author of many books on health and diet, has some interesting things to say about eye blinking and health: "The standard speed of blinking is three times per minute, or once every twenty seconds. The less blinking the better. Blinking is closing the eyes more, which is a sign of excess yin [water in the body]. "A healthy person's eyes can go without blinking for many minutes; a baby hardly blinks at all. A person who blinks less is currently in a more active sharp condition, in both physical and mental character. "A person who blinks more than three times per minute is in a state of declining health, due to the consumption of excessive liquid, fruit and sugar.
"If blinking is abnormally frequent, a person is suffering from nervous disorders and is experiencing extreme sensitivity, fear and irritability. If we blink more and more we finally close our eyes and die."

Quote:Bates did something very stupid:  The tried to publish his accommodation theory along with his eyesight improvement evidence.  The latter is what ODs had problems with, and naturally they refused to accept the former.

Quote:I don't know what planet you live on, but this is not how this world works. You're describing some sort of fantasy world where everything good is adopted literally overnight, and where there is no such thing as apathy, inertia, politics, or closed-mindedness.

Quote:If you guys gave me a routine to follow I could do it religiously then tell you if my sight has changed if you're so confident the method works.