Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bates Methods Proven by Research
#1
    DR.  BATES METHOD PROVEN BY RESEARCH

    In July 1978, a two year study was completed at the Vision
Training Institute.  The dissertation was written by M.H.  McClay
as partial fulfillment for his Ph.D.  in Psychology from United
States International University San Diego.  Dr.  P.B.  Smith was
the testing optometrist and Dr.  Jerriann J.  Taber of Vision
Training Institute did all the vision training.  Following is an
interpretation by A.F. McKinley, lecturer in Physics at San Diego
University, of M.H.  McClay's dissertation.  Most people do not
have a background in research and statistical terms.  Mr.
McKinley was so kind to interpret this study and put it into
layman's language.  For those with a research background, the
following is presented.

    A standard optometry evaluation was part of the study, all
subjects were seen before and after receiving the Bates Method.
Comparisons were made between pretest and post test scores on five
measures, visual acuity, lens flexibility, corneal curvature,
corrective lens prescription and extra ocular muscle flexibility.
In both the nearsighted and farsighted subjects, vision improved
for the group as a whole at a highly significant level, measured
statistically at .01, meaning that the probability of this result
occurring by chance was less than 1 in 100.  THIS IS A VERY HIGH
STATISTICAL SCORE FOR RESEARCH.  This study is also VERY
SIGNIFICANT in that it is the FIRST TO EVER SHOW THAT PRESBYOPIA
(farsightedness) IS NOT CAUSED BY "OLD AGE" and hardening of the
lens.

    This has been believed by ophthalmology and optometry for
over 100 years.  There were three people in the study, ages 51,
57, and 66, who achieved normal vision during the study.
According to orthodox belief, this is supposed to be impossible.
Our study proved this scientifically not to be true, just as Dr.
Bates has stated, "Presbyopia is not caused by old age, but by
tension." Up until this study, there has never been any research
to prove this fact, except Dr. Bates original work, which has
been ignored for 80 years.


    AN INTERPRETATION OF MICHAEL McCLAY'S DISSERTATION ON THE
BATES-METHOD FOR VISUAL IMPROVEMENT

    Thirty three subjects under training in the Bates method were
studied during a 20 month period.  Although some of the thirty
three maintained training throughout the study period, some did
not, for various personal and financial reasons.  Nevertheless,
all of the students improved in their vision "acuity," that is in
their sharpness of vision.

    Before training, the acuity in both eyes (binocular vision)
for distance sight measured 20/130 on the average among the 33
subjects.  After training, acuity reached 20/60 on the average; 14
of 33 subjects attained normal vision, 20/20.  The statistical
test which was applied to this data indicated that the cause for
such correction could be credited to the Bates training with very
high certainty.  The study showed that vision improvement occurred
consistently among the 33 subjects and that future participants in
the Bates training could expect to benefit to the same degree.

    Several tests were also run to establish the physiological
features of the eye which changed as vision acuity improved.
Increased flexibility of the corneal lens, increased flexibility
of the muscles surrounding the eye and changes in the curvature of
the cornea were all tested and found to change in different
degrees in each subject.  In other words, given several people
who, through the training, improve their vision acuity to some
given degree, each will experience different increases in corneal
and muscle flexibility and different changes in corneal curvature.
The study showed further that improved acuity was not dependent
upon the length of the training period nor upon the regularity of
the length of personal daily practice.

    Apparently the degree of personal daily exercise practiced by
a particular individual cannot be said to lead to a definite level
of vision improvement. Such conclusions are consistent with the
Bates belief that vision is 90% psychological, 10% physiological,
making vision improvement a very personal activity, not dependent
entirely on physiological phenomena.

    The 90%/10% weighting seems to be a figure of speech more
than a statistically determined ratio. The study did show,
however, that vision improvement is, to a great extent,
psychologically based, that is, that such a weighting does indeed
exist, but that it may be different for every individual.

    There was also another research paper completed in 1978 by
Raymond L.  Gottlieb O.D., Ph.D.  In 1970 he normalized his own
myopia (-1.25) using the Bates method and other methods.  This led
him into developmental optometry.  He received his Ph.D.  from the
Humanistic Psychology Institute in 1978.  His private practice is
limited to vision training.

    This dissertation deals with the etiology of myopia.  A
psychophysiological model was developed to explain the concepts of
Dr.  Wm.  H.  Bates.  This model suggests that myopia results from
habits of mental focusing habitual ways of organizing mental
processes in order to pay attention which lead to chronic
isometric contraction of the extraocular muscles which cause the
eyeball to elongate producing nearsightedness. The
neuropsychological aspects of this model are derived primarily
from the research of Karl Pribram.

    Literature on the etiology of nearsightedness is compatible
with myopic behavior as predicted by the model.  The dissertation
concluded that Dr.  Bates ideas should be given serious
consideration by optometrists, vision scientists and other
professionals myopia is more flexible than is generally conceived
and it is important to develop a new paradigm of visual care which
examines the more subtle implications of the nearsighted response
and the possibilities of prevention and remediation.
Reply
#2
(Archive bingeing! Hope no-one minds me bumping this older thread.)

Otis, you wouldn't happen to know where one could come by Michael McClay's research papers, would you? I've been hunting around online to no avail.
Reply
#3
Sorry, this is the only reference I know of!
Best, Otis
Reply
#4
I cant be bothered reading all of that . Most people on this forum have bad eyesight because you make your posts too long.

So does he prove bates method works or not ? yes or no

If it does, I will go back to palming 8 hours a day , and sunning the other 4 hours.
Reply
#5
That's great, fuggles! 8+4 = 12 leaving another 6 hours for the long and short swinging! then you sleep for 6 hours. U kan Du eet!!!!
fuggles Wrote:I cant be bothered reading all of that . Most people on this forum have bad eyesight because you make your posts too long.

So does he prove bates method works or not ? yes or no

If it does, I will go back to palming 8 hours a day , and sunning the other 4 hours.
Reply
#6
JMartinC4 Wrote:That's great, fuggles! 8+4 = 12 leaving another 6 hours for the long and short swinging! then you sleep for 6 hours. U kan Du eet!!!!
fuggles Wrote:I cant be bothered reading all of that . Most people on this forum have bad eyesight because you make your posts too long.

So does he prove bates method works or not ? yes or no

If it does, I will go back to palming 8 hours a day , and sunning the other 4 hours.

well, does the post by the original poster prove the bates method works or not
Reply
#7
However, I have never ever had any eyesight improvement.

I think, although I cant remember, some of the lower lines flashed for a few seconds, as I palm in front of the snellen.
Reply
#8
No, none of this works. We are all just a bunch of fakers trying to take advantage of naive people so we can get rich. No myopic has ever noticed that his/her vision improved by palming, swinging, shifting, sunning, or relaxing in any way. We are just a cult of quasi-insane nutjobs and you should not be here among us. Feel better?
fuggles Wrote:
JMartinC4 Wrote:That's great, fuggles! 8+4 = 12 leaving another 6 hours for the long and short swinging! then you sleep for 6 hours. U kan Du eet!!!!
fuggles Wrote:I cant be bothered reading all of that . Most people on this forum have bad eyesight because you make your posts too long.

So does he prove bates method works or not ? yes or no

If it does, I will go back to palming 8 hours a day , and sunning the other 4 hours.

well, does the post by the original poster prove the bates method works or not
Reply
#9
No, none of this works. We are all just a bunch of fakers trying to take advantage of naive people so we can get rich. No myopic has ever noticed that his/her vision improved by palming, swinging, shifting, sunning, or relaxing in any way. We are just a cult of quasi-insane nutjobs and you should not be here among us. Feel better?
fuggles Wrote:
JMartinC4 Wrote:That's great, fuggles! 8+4 = 12 leaving another 6 hours for the long and short swinging! then you sleep for 6 hours. U kan Du eet!!!!
I cant be bothered reading all of that . Most people on this forum have bad eyesight because you make your posts too long.

So does he prove bates method works or not ? yes or no

If it does, I will go back to palming 8 hours a day , and sunning the other 4 hours.

well, does the post by the original poster prove the bates method works or not[/quote][/quote]

are you being serious ?

also, my main question is, these articles written by dr bates and reprinted across the itnernet, about people who gained 20/20 in about 3 days, or the famous story of a man who palmed for 20 hours straighty and got perfect eyesight, are these stories true ??

The articles I am referring to , are found on this website, run by greg marsh, famous for the bates method cd course sold on mercola.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://visionimprovementcenter.com/index.php">http://visionimprovementcenter.com/index.php</a><!-- m -->

Find the articles on his site. They are VERY VERY encouraging, that is, if they are true. Maybe some are a little exaggerated. If they are true, of course. I hope they are.
Reply
#10
well, does the post by the original poster prove the bates method works or not[/quote][/quote]

are you being serious ?

also, my main question is, these articles written by dr bates and reprinted across the itnernet, about people who gained 20/20 in about 3 days, or the famous story of a man who palmed for 20 hours straighty and got perfect eyesight, are these stories true ??

The articles I am referring to , are found on this website, run by greg marsh, famous for the bates method cd course sold on mercola.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://visionimprovementcenter.com/index.php">http://visionimprovementcenter.com/index.php</a><!-- m -->

Find the articles on his site. They are VERY VERY encouraging, that is, if they are true. Maybe some are a little exaggerated. If they are true, of course. I hope they are.[/quote]

No, of course I'm not serious - it's called sarcasm. I overstated the opposite to hopefully bitingly humorous effect. I have watched two of Greg Marsh's videos and they were good but not great. Anecdotal and apocryphal stories like you mention are interesting anomalies but not anything to aspire to (at least not for me). If you will review some of Otis' links on this community forum you will find more pertinent material. But if you're looking for a quickfix you are barking up the wrong tree. The only quickfix I know of is lenses or lasik. But think about it - if you were a one-year old who couldn't walk but had strong arms, so 'scientists' gave you crutches that you could manipulate - are you 'walking'?
Reply
#11
okay

how does otis think I should get my eyesight back ?? also

I dont understand how it works !!

Do i just wake up one morning with clear eyesight ??

Lets pretend I palmed for about 2 hours, or 30 different palming sessions , 5 minutes each, throughout the day, when will I get to see some improvement ??? I dont understand
Reply
#12
Fuggles, why don't you just get LASIK? Most people are very happy with it, in fact say it's the best decision they've ever made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_iEjt0hpi8

And on the 'no touch' laser proceedure:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6bHdozDO7o&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6bHdozD ... re=related</a><!-- m -->

Cheers, JW
Reply
#13
I dont want laser surgery

Even if I was a billionaire i wouldnt.

If I was a billionaire I would spend the money on a bates method seminar.

Anyway, my point is, I have faith in the bates method to improve my eyesight.
Reply

5 TIPS TO IMPROVE YOUR VISION IMMEDIATELY!

Quickly prove to yourself that vision improvement is possible, with this free PDF download.

Download Now