Quote:In making these statements I am well aware that I am controverting the practically undisputed teaching of ophthalmological science for the better part of a century; but I have been driven to the conclusions which they embody by the facts, and that so slowly that I am now surprised at my own blindness. At the time I was improving high degrees of myopia; but I wanted to be conservative, and I differentiated between functional myopia, which I was able to cure, or improve, and organic myopia, which, in deference to the orthodox tradition, I accepted as incurable
Bates is just leaving open the possibility of pathological myopia. It would be unwise to tell the opposite.
Basically, there are cases of Scull shape deformations do to mutations or conditions like Dwarfism that is said to create pathological myopia and other refractive errors.
Of course maybe something can be done about the people suffering from the mentioned above deformations of Scull shape, the cause is pathological.
In normal myopia, when no mutations are involved, the cause is always psychological.
Anyway, it would be very unwise and very stupid for Dr. Bates not to keep the possibility of pathological myopia open and make an arrogant statement that "Every condition of the eye is curable".
He may did it, but he did it in a "scientific" way to avoid falling into a "Logical Trap".
But in the quoted text, he speaks of myopia that he accepted as incurable due to the medical believes of the time. So what i said above, may seem like having something to do with that, but not. The point was not to say that incurable myopia may exists, but that he was trying to find the incurable myopia that the "system" speaks about. And he didn't found any as i am aware...
