JWLBOYCE Wrote:Haha - the ridiculous thing is that optometrists, trained eye doctors and other specialists don't know the foggiest things about helping the eyes in general. Of Course there are exceptions, but my guess would be that over 80% would think that the only way to improve vision is by slapping a pair of glasses on your nose. Eventaully the Bates Method will be like theories of the eath and such things:

There was a time when all people thought the world was flat ( like the time before Doctor Bates came along, everyone believed that only glasses could improve vision).

Then there is the time in the middle, where somone proposes the world is round, and gets laughed at, but slowly more people begin to believe him (for example Dr. Bates was forced to retire from his post as the Head of the New York University Opthamology department, and all the people even now, who still believe the Bates method works but no-one else belives them).

Then there is the time when everyone changes their mind to believe the originally silly proposal - now everybody knows the world is round, and those who say it is flat are laughed at, just in the same way that in the future (hopefully soon) everyone will trust the Bates Method and laugh at the stubborn people who refuse to throw away their glasses.

A final bit to make you laugh - I was talking to an optition about the Bates Method, and he said that Doctor Bates didn't know how to use the equipment correctly. "Well, actually" I replied, "He was the head of the opthamology department at the New York University, so if he didn't then it could probably be inferred that you don't. And, if you are by chance correct, then he did a really good job to find out about vision improvement - you can use the equipment "correctly" and still can't see that it is possible. 8)

JWLBOYCE Wrote:Thanks I was reading something on the BBC Website today, about an investigation into the Bates method. The reporter went to a natural vision therapist every so often for 3 months, and only practiced palming and not using her glasses. She went to an optition before and after, who said there was no difference in her eye sight, but she had sworn that it had improved. I can't understand why, but she told the natural vision therapist that it had improved, yet she still just believed it was a case of mind over matter - I am completely lost by her way of thinking.
She goes to the optition - Great
The optition tells her there is no way to improve vision - not so great
She tried a method to improve her vision - great
She believed she had an improvement and could see the difference - great
She proved the method worked by having an improvement, but still didn't believe in it, saying it was "mind over matter" - Why?
The optition put all hope out of her mind by saying there was no difference - something which he was bound to say even if she had telescopic eye sight when she went back
Any ideas? - Maybe we should turn to the Bible - "Blessed are those who ahve not seen, yet believe"

JWLBOYCE Wrote:JMartinC4 - here is the BBC article, sorry it took so long, just got back from hol hols Enjoy
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series6/vision_correction.shtml">http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/ser ... tion.shtml</a><!-- m -->

rajath Wrote:Hi all, I have been practising bates method for like one year now, there have been improvements. But, not substantial!!. I am confident that if practised with faith and dedication it will yield good results. I want someone to clarify scientifically the arguments put fourth in wiki. ... Below is the article
As evidence for the effectiveness of the Bates method, proponents point to the many accounts of people allegedly having improved their eyesight by applying it.[3] While these anecdotes may be told and passed on in good faith, several potential explanations exist for the phenomena reported other than a genuine reversal of a refractive error due to the techniques practiced:
* Some cases of nearsightedness are recognized as due to a transient spasm of the ciliary muscle, rather than a misshapen eyeball. These are classed as pseudomyopia, of which spontaneous reversal may account for some reports of improvement.[38]
* Research has confirmed that when nearsighted subjects remove their corrective lenses, over time there is a limited improvement (termed "blur adaptation") in their unaided visual resolution, even though autorefraction indicates no corresponding change in refractive error.[39] This is believed to occur due to adjustments made in the visual system.[40] One who has been practicing Bates' techniques and notices such improvement may not realize that simply leaving the glasses off would have had the same effect, which may be especially pronounced if the prescription was too strong to begin with.[1]
* Visual acuity is affected by the size of the pupil. When it constricts (such as in response to an increase in light), the quality of focus will improve significantly, at the cost of a reduced ability to see in dim light. This is known as the "pinhole effect".[6]
* Some eye defects may naturally change for the better with age or in cycles (ophthalmologist Stewart Duke-Elder suggested that this is what happened with Aldous Huxley[41]). A cataract when first setting in sometimes results in much improved eyesight for a short time. One who happens to have been practicing the Bates method will likely credit it for any improvement experienced regardless of the actual cause.[1]
* Some studies have suggested that a learned ability to interpret blurred images may account for perceived improvements in eyesight.[6] Ophthalmologist Walter B. Lancaster had this to say: "Since seeing is only partly a matter of the image on the retina and the sensation it produces, but is in still larger part a matter of the cerebral processes of synthesis, in which memories play a principal role, it follows that by repetition, by practice, by exercises, one builds up a substratum of memories useful for the interpretation of sensations and facilitates the syntheses which are the major part of seeing."[29]
[edit] "Flashes of clear vision"
Bates method enthusiasts often report experiencing "flashes" of clear vision, in which eyesight momentarily becomes much sharper, but then reverts back to its previous state.[2] Such flashes are not the result of squinting, and can occur in one eye at a time or in both eyes at once.[42] Observation has suggested that both the quality and duration of such flashes can be increased with practice, with some subjects holding a substantial improvement for several minutes. Tests of such subjects have found that the temporary improvement in visual acuity is real, but per retinoscopy is not due to any change in refractive error.[2] A 1982 study concluded that such occurrences are best explained as a contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye, based on increased tear action exhibited by 15 out of 17 subjects who experienced such improvement.[6

Quote:rajath wrote:[3] ...several potential explanations exist for the phenomena reported other than a genuine reversal of a refractive error due to the techniques practiced:... "Flashes of clear vision" Bates method enthusiasts often report experiencing "flashes" of clear vision, in which eyesight momentarily becomes much sharper, but then reverts back to its previous state.[2] Such flashes are not the result of squinting, and can occur in one eye at a time or in both eyes at once.[42] Observation has suggested that both the quality and duration of such flashes can be increased with practice, with some subjects holding a substantial improvement for several minutes. Tests of such subjects have found that the temporary improvement in visual acuity is real, but per retinoscopy is not due to any change in refractive error.[2] A 1982 study concluded that such occurrences are best explained as a contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye, based on increased tear action exhibited by 15 out of 17 subjects who experienced such improvement.[6