Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dissecting the Quackwatch
#1
My thoughts on their thoughts

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 eyeball—which 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 exercises—orthoptics—carried 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
Reply
#2
Great post. I want to see how the Bates-debunkers react when I confront them with my theory of neonatal eye antibiotics as a root cause of nearsight-fixation disorder. I think they will be befuddled. I think it will be like punching a bully. Like David hitting the giant with a slingshot stone in the forehead: at first the bully thinks nothing happened; then he falls down. But first I have to have unfixated myself permanently. Otherwise the bullies will hit me the way they hit Dr. Bates, Dr. Huxley, et al.
Reply
#3
I was (& still) thinking about Dissecting the entire page of Wikipedia on the Bates Method but it would take a lot of time (really a LOT of it).
I'm looking for someone who will help me with it - maybe dissect some paragraphs or sections. What about you?
Reply
#4
Good idea. I've looked at that Wiki page - it would be quite a project. I am going away for a week, but will take another look when I get back. I'll print it out and take it with me.
Reminder - I don't want to jump off the cliff until I know I can safely fly/parasail/bungeejump/whatever. I'm not there yet - almost but not quite.
A real danger for all of us would be the mass negative reaction and unhappiness if millions of people suddenly realize they are nearsight-fixated instead of 'myopic', and how it happened.
Reply
#5
The mass negative reaction has happened before & might happen again - there's no getting by it. Just be absolutely sure of what you wish to post, pay attention to the most minute details & make sure everything is connected & if you don't mind me saying, please keep your theory Neonatal Eye Antiobiotics to a minimum - it is not complete yet & you wouldn't want to jump off without a parachute.
Use your vacation to expand on it instead & get back to dissecting Wikipedia later.
Reply
#6
2xtreme2fit Wrote:...if you don't mind me saying, please keep your theory Neonatal Eye Antiobiotics to a minimum - it is not complete yet & you wouldn't want to jump off without a parachute...
I can't seem to keep it to a minimum -- It is the irrefutable peg, the final missing piece of the puzzle, upon which I am finally unifying everything I've observed and learned for 35 years, enabling me to gradually cure my own nearsight-fixation disorder using the Bates Methods and some Bates-related improvements I've come up with or learned on this website. I can't give it up - any more than you can give up your big signature!
It is like one of the smooth shiny stones David pulled from the river, with which he slew Goliath.
Reply
#7
JMartinC4 Wrote:I can't seem to keep it to a minimum -- It is the irrefutable peg, the final missing piece of the puzzle, upon which I am finally unifying everything I've observed and learned for 35 years, enabling me to gradually cure my own nearsight-fixation disorder using the Bates Methods and some Bates-related improvements I've come up with or learned on this website. I can't give it up - any more than you can give up your big signature!

Of course not, I'm not even asking you to give up - if you can't minimize it, that's fine, I cannot stop you anyways.
You could make your-own version of Wikipedia/Quackwatch dissections with emphasis on your theory combined with your experiences.
You might consider dissecting Quackwatch.ORG - it'll be a fair bit of warm-up, don't you think?

Few points to note for anyone who wishes to dissect :
* Counter arguments that seem irrelevant & those who state no specific reason for being skeptical
* Always point out to avoid commercial variants of the Bates Method
* Discourage assumption of simplicity
* Make clear what optometrists have told you before & now
* If anyone explicitly claims the methods to be useless without proper reason, ask 'Why?'
* Repeatedly point out the connection between the eyes & the mind
* Ask for opinions against the successful cases
* Note for any differences in statements regarding the same topic - varying statements can be used as counter-arguments
Reply
#8
Great post...

I don't know, what's the point to criticize a great person, like Bates, He was a genius, and is, they can't criticize he, the evidence is so revealing.

A person who dedicated a big part of his life to research, how the eyes/mind works and the cause/cure for it, etc.

The optic industry and much other should be get out there, we have to kick him. They're playing with our health, they only need money and more money.
They have nothing else to do, only accept his ignorance.
Reply

Perfect Sight Without Glasses free download