07-28-2010, 12:09 AM
My thoughts on their thoughts
By ancient you mean 90 years ago. So does being "ancient" mean being stupid, gullible & non-scientific? Then what do you have to say about ancient Egyptians or Mayan Civilization? They were advanced in their time or would it be okay to call them mistaken believers? Pointing out irrelevant & sometimes incorrect details does not disprove anything. Additionally, the prevalent theory of accommodation is more "ancient" than the one put forth by Bates - what do you have to say to that?
In the future, it is likely that we'd be called "ancient" mistaken believers? Isn't that possible?
Commercialization isn't a new concept, the only thing I wonder about is that how his discovery 'Adrenaline' was successfully commercialized while his eye treatment was not? The only explanation I find is that Adrenaline was first in its category while his eye treatment was not. It is undeniable we do not consciously accept two contradicting beliefs & if we accept the first belief, we will not accept the second no matter what because it is embarrassing to doubt one's own judgment.
A scientific fact in a field whose knowledge is incomplete? Assumption of simplicity regarding the functioning of vision isn't commendable at all.
Think about this - why is that you see people with imperfect sight suffering from headaches take off their glasses & subconsciously start looking for a spot closest to the eyes to massage?
Eyes are also a part of the body - they will respond similarly to how other parts of the body will. Nervous tension in other parts of the body can cause pain then why should there be an exception for the eyes?
Some optometrists say that glasses never deteriorate vision if they are used properly BUT DO THEY TELL US HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY?
I wasn't told how when I visited the optometrist.
Why should it be obvious? Why can the "exercises" not change? These questions are always never answered to.
There is no explanation or response filed against the successful cases from those who debase the Bates Method. Regarding the clear flashes, the only explanation the critics give is "a contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye" when the ones who have experienced them know how false this explanation is.
Criticism does not change anything. Regarding Bates' notions as wrong does not falsify experiences of successful patients. The only thing I can agree with is AVOIDING COMMERCIAL VARIANTS of the Bates Method.
Rational? When the eye doctors are not rational toward studies differing from their own, I hardly expect them to be honest about it. Now you begin to say that if the muscles are out of balance, double vision occurs BUT are unwilling to accept the reason put forth for this imbalance - mental strain. Usage of the bad eye was also suggested by Dr. Bates - what does this lead to?
Not answered my question of 'Why?' yet.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* Quotes from Quackwatch.com
Quote:Eye-Related Quackery
by Russell S. Worrall, O.D., Jacob Nevyas, Ph.D., Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises. This belief was brought to its highest state of fruition by a one-time reputable physician, William Horatio Bates, M.D., who in 1920 published The Cure of Imperfect Eyesight by Treatment Without Glasses.
By ancient you mean 90 years ago. So does being "ancient" mean being stupid, gullible & non-scientific? Then what do you have to say about ancient Egyptians or Mayan Civilization? They were advanced in their time or would it be okay to call them mistaken believers? Pointing out irrelevant & sometimes incorrect details does not disprove anything. Additionally, the prevalent theory of accommodation is more "ancient" than the one put forth by Bates - what do you have to say to that?
In the future, it is likely that we'd be called "ancient" mistaken believers? Isn't that possible?
Quote:The big impact of Bates' work materialized after publication of his book. This book attracted large numbers of charlatans, quacks, and gullible followers who then published scores of unscientific books and articles of their own on the subject of vision. Extolling the Bates System, these authors urged readers to "throw away" their glasses. Some of these writers even established schools.
Commercialization isn't a new concept, the only thing I wonder about is that how his discovery 'Adrenaline' was successfully commercialized while his eye treatment was not? The only explanation I find is that Adrenaline was first in its category while his eye treatment was not. It is undeniable we do not consciously accept two contradicting beliefs & if we accept the first belief, we will not accept the second no matter what because it is embarrassing to doubt one's own judgment.
Quote:Contrary to scientific fact, Bates taught that errors of refraction are due, not to the basic shape of the eyeball or the structure of the lens, but to a functional and therefore curable derangement in the action of the muscles on the outside of the eyeball. All defects in vision, he said, were caused by eyestrain and nervous tension; and perfect vision could be achieved by relaxing the eyes completely. Bates warned that eyeglasses cause the vision to deteriorate; he also deplored the use of sunglasses.
A scientific fact in a field whose knowledge is incomplete? Assumption of simplicity regarding the functioning of vision isn't commendable at all.
Think about this - why is that you see people with imperfect sight suffering from headaches take off their glasses & subconsciously start looking for a spot closest to the eyes to massage?
Eyes are also a part of the body - they will respond similarly to how other parts of the body will. Nervous tension in other parts of the body can cause pain then why should there be an exception for the eyes?
Some optometrists say that glasses never deteriorate vision if they are used properly BUT DO THEY TELL US HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY?
I wasn't told how when I visited the optometrist.
Quote:It should be obvious that these exercises cannot influence eyesight disorders as Bates claimed. Nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, and presbyopia result from inborn and acquired characteristics of the lens and the eyeballâwhich no exercise can change.
Why should it be obvious? Why can the "exercises" not change? These questions are always never answered to.
Quote:As for eye diseases, the only thing the exercises can do is delay proper medical or surgical treatment and result in permanent impairment of vision. The claims Bates made in advertising his book were so dubious that in 1929 the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against him for advertising "falsely or misleadingly."
There is no explanation or response filed against the successful cases from those who debase the Bates Method. Regarding the clear flashes, the only explanation the critics give is "a contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye" when the ones who have experienced them know how false this explanation is.
Quote:In the mid-1950s, Philip Pollack, OD, a prominent optometrist in New York City, wrote a blistering critique of the Bates System [1]; and the vast majority of optometrists and ophthalmologists regard Bate's notions as wrong. Yet Bates still has advocates today. Some cling to "traditional" Bates techniques, while others use expensive computerized biofeedback machines. Their promotion is not limited to books and magazine articles but includes direct-mail campaigns with glossy brochures and toll-free numbers, pitching similar programs with new gadgets and mail-order videos. Beware of "Institutes" using well-known college towns in their names or "doctors" with dubious credentials, such as one we encountered with a degree from the "University in California" (not the University of California).
Criticism does not change anything. Regarding Bates' notions as wrong does not falsify experiences of successful patients. The only thing I can agree with is AVOIDING COMMERCIAL VARIANTS of the Bates Method.
Quote:There is one rational method of eye training and eye exercisesâorthopticsâcarried out under competent optometric and medical supervision to correct coordination or binocular vision problems such as "crossed eyes" and amblyopic ("lazy") eyes. If the muscles that control eye movements are out of balance, the function of one eye may be suppressed to avoid double vision. (The suppressed eye is called an "amblyopic" eye.) Covering the good eye can often stimulate the amblyopic eye to work again to provide binocular vision for the patient.
Rational? When the eye doctors are not rational toward studies differing from their own, I hardly expect them to be honest about it. Now you begin to say that if the muscles are out of balance, double vision occurs BUT are unwilling to accept the reason put forth for this imbalance - mental strain. Usage of the bad eye was also suggested by Dr. Bates - what does this lead to?
Quote:Remember: no type of eye exercise can improve a refractive error or cure any ailment within the eyeball or in any remote part of the body.
Not answered my question of 'Why?' yet.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* Quotes from Quackwatch.com