Bates Method criticised ?

[xchelseax]

Hey guys I read on wikipedia that the bates method has been rejected by the professional facilitys etc. and they say that is not enoguh proof provdied for the bates method to be true . They also say that the flashes of visions are not actually clear flashes but is like watery eyes like wearing contacts . What do you guys think ? i strong disagree wtih this and i know there has been a few memmbers that have got perfect sgiht back or atleast imrpove there sight .

[otis]

Dear Friend,

What the professionals say is that Bates does not work "in their office", i.e., they believe that
you want exclusively INSTANT results -- and will not accept anything else. Since the
only thing that works instantly (for children) is a minus lens -- that is the only thing they
"believe" in.
They say that THEIR RESEARCH STUDIES (which they screwed up) PROVE that "it does not work" -- but
they never involve the persons JUDGMENT, and self-checking (of his Snellen) in the effort.
Thus they have a very narrow "vision" in their office, and tend to be arrogant about these
issues of use of Bates to clear your Snellen -- so that you verify you pass the LEGAL DMV Snellen,
i.e., read 3/4 inch letters at 20 feet.
So if you want "prvention" as Bates suggested it (from 10 years of work in school with children) you
will have to teach yourself how to do it.
ALSO -- not all "medical" people are the same. Some now support these preventive methods
on the threshold, like Dr. Liberman, and quite a few others.
But they always DEPEND on the resolve and judgment of the person himself.
Just my opinion.
Otis

[Ram]

Hey guys I read on wikipedia that the bates method has been rejected by the professional facilitys etc. and they say that is not enoguh proof provdied for the bates method to be true . They also say that the flashes of visions are not actually clear flashes but is like watery eyes like wearing contacts . What do you guys think ? i strong disagree wtih this and i know there has been a few memmbers that have got perfect sgiht back or atleast imrpove there sight .

Professionals are as dogmatic as anyone else. Accepting even a bit of truth in the Bates methods would possibly rob them of their lucrative deals with the optical industry. Do you know why the pinholes are not sold in most pharmaceutical shops? It is sheer pressure from the leading authorities who want the 'glass business' to flourish so that they can mint more and more money. Pinholes seriously threaten the multi million glass business by being cheap and harmless, but you know many doctors threaten pharmaceutical shops not to sell them or else they would prefer other dealers. Pinholes have their limitations but most myopes need only that and be free from the risk of getting higher and higher prescriptions every year. Proving that glasses are harmful to the eyes is very easy - just put them and do some close work for two hours and then check your unaided vision - you would see only half of what you did two hours ago. I can demonstrate this to myself so why would I listen to the so called authorities who think glasses have no side effects? Take off the glasses for ten minutes and your vision returns. All people who wear glasses know this but the doctors dont? Then on what basis are they putting them on children who are just showing signs of myopia? So that the patient will return time and again and boost their business?

Bates was probably the most ingenious eye doctor ever. His theories are radical and offers an entirely new perspective on the mechanism of vision. Maybe whatever he said were not correct but his methods still work. Everyone cannot benefit from Bates method because people are too lazy to try it out. Without trying Bates for atleast three months no results are predictable - how many patients were tested over a three month period using Bates methods correctly and regularly? I guess the so caled professionals tried out the techniques in a ten minute session and expected the patient to have clear vision just like their glasses provide?

I agree that I have had false clear flashes but now experienced enough to know which ones are genuine. Clear flashes certainly exist. I begin to have improved vision merely with 5 minutes of blank wall gazing, which proves Bates assertion that the myopic eye strains only when it tries to see and when there is nothing specific to see it begins to relax. This is not a subjective feeling but objectively verified by my own Snellen reading. I totally reject the dogma that all clear flashes are due to tears and pinhole effects. If that were true then I ( and others whose vision have permanently improved) must be having those tears and pinholes in the eyes for weeks together.

[xchelseax]

Dear Friend,

What the professionals say is that Bates does not work "in their office", i.e., they believe that
you want exclusively INSTANT results -- and will not accept anything else. Since the
only thing that works instantly (for children) is a minus lens -- that is the only thing they
"believe" in.
They say that THEIR RESEARCH STUDIES (which they screwed up) PROVE that "it does not work" -- but
they never involve the persons JUDGMENT, and self-checking (of his Snellen) in the effort.
Thus they have a very narrow "vision" in their office, and tend to be arrogant about these
issues of use of Bates to clear your Snellen -- so that you verify you pass the LEGAL DMV Snellen,
i.e., read 3/4 inch letters at 20 feet.
So if you want "prvention" as Bates suggested it (from 10 years of work in school with children) you
will have to teach yourself how to do it.
ALSO -- not all "medical" people are the same. Some now support these preventive methods
on the threshold, like Dr. Liberman, and quite a few others.
But they always DEPEND on the resolve and judgment of the person himself.
Just my opinion.
Otis

Hey excellent answer from you 2 . Thanks Oti and Ram . Now i know why .Btw can you guys tell me of your progress so far on the bates method ? What vision you were before n what you are now .That would be great thanks . Oh yeh one more thing do you guys have hotmail or antyhing so we could all discuss the bates method ?

[Mihai_alexandru]

I read in Reader's Digest that the secrets of plastic surgery were known 2.000 years ago, In ancient India. Indians could make artificial noses and ears for their patients. But despite that, most Europeans never had a clue about plastic surgery until 100 years ago. Not that they didn't know about it. In the middle ages, the pope was strictly against plastic surgery. The normal reaction for us is that there were "primitive" people back then, and that's why they ignored this discovery. Now we are civilized, rational, understanding human beings.

Maybe the same will go for the Bates Method as well. People will say that it was normal that we ignored the Bates Method, because we were primitive people. We are not as "civilized" as they will be.

The truth is (and I might be wrong) that people care about themselves first and then about others. So doctors don't think mostly about treating their patients, they think about themselves first, like all people. So I don't trust them until I see with my own eyes that the Bates Method works or not.

[Ram]

The truth is (and I might be wrong) that people care about themselves first and then about others. So doctors don't think mostly about treating their patients, they think about themselves first, like all people. So I don't trust them until I see with my own eyes that the Bates Method works or not.

That is quite sensible. There is no need to trust anything without seeing proof for oneself. When the conventional doctor ridicules the Bates method without adequate tests and evidence he is irrational. If a Bates teacher takes every word of Dr.Bates for granted and says that there is nothing more to be improved upon and starts hitting out at all other doctors and modern theories, he is making the same mistake. The real fact is that all of these theories has some truth and untruth in it. There is always enough room to study more about the eye and come up with improved understanding of the mechanism of vision and cure of imperfect vision.

[xchelseax]

hmm now i fully understand why they dont apporve the bates method . Greedy bastards >.< .
You guys still didnt ANSWER my question . Whats your eye level when you started and wat is it now . n can i have your emails too please .
=D ;D

[Ram]

I started at a very high prescription of -8.5D and could not see any detail WOG .( not even recognize people at five feet except through their voice)

My avg vision was 5/200-8/200 when i started 3 months ago and now varies between 10/200-20/200. I have better than 20/200 clear flashes when I am practising the methods correctly. Without any warning somedays I wakeup to an abysmally low vision and I can usually improve it to 15/200 with 15 mins of shifting or wall gazing. I think I would have made more progress but for my heavy work on the computer every day.

Still poor vision but improving. I thought I was going to go blind in a few years but I am now sure it is very unlikely..

[Mihai_alexandru]

hmm now i fully understand why they dont apporve the bates method . Greedy bastards >.< .
You guys still didnt ANSWER my question . Whats your eye level when you started and wat is it now . n can i have your emails too please .
=D ;D

Well, as a matter of fact they are bastards. One year ago I went to the doctor and checked my vision at 20/20 but she said that I might have "a beginning of myopia". Any advice, etc? More info about the "beginning of myopia"? Of course not. I didn't even know what myopia means. I thought it's the same as hypermetropia. :

Three months ago I went to the doctor and I had actual myopia, -0.5 diopters. I started the Bates Method 1 month ago and there have been improvements, but not decisive ones because I am still battling with insomnia which causes A LOT of strain and also with countless hours spent at the PC of course, which also cause me strain. I am seeing better though and I feel that I can improve with this method. The constant discomfort that I feel in my right eye and the fact that when I relax I see better is a proof to me that strain has to do with vision problems.

[xchelseax]

well im i can read at 1/4 on the snellen chart thats so bad man =[
im hoping to get to 1/2 by the end of this year

[otis]

Dear Friend,

One thing that would help us (and you) is to be more accurate in reporting
your Snellen reading:

Chel> well im i can read at 1/4 on the snellen chart thats so bad man =[
im hoping to get to 1/2 by the end of this year

I can't be critical, but could you give us your:

1. Prescription?

2. What do you mean 1/4 on the Snellen?

What line did you read?

The 20/60 line consists of 1 inch letters at 20 feet. Can you read
all of those?

Do you mean you read 1 out of 4 letters on the 20/20 line?

Thanks,

Otis

[JWLBOYCE]

If all of a sudden there were adverts on the TV telling people that it did work, I believe that everyone would do it and suceed, but if the optics industry did that they wouldn't have anywhere to go - they would all be out of jobs. Everyone who didn't have 20/20 vision could eventually be taught by family. That is the only reason I can see that the Optics industry as a whole don't promote it - they spent 2 years trying to prove it worked, but their conclusion was "eye excercises don't play any part in improving vision." How ironic is it that on their study of the Bates Method they missed the whole point of it? Is it irony, or was it done on purpose to keep people not believing in it for a bit longer?

[JMartinC4]

If all of a sudden there were adverts on the TV telling people that it did work, I believe that everyone would do it and suceed, but if the optics industry did that they wouldn't have anywhere to go - they would all be out of jobs. Everyone who didn't have 20/20 vision could eventually be taught by family. That is the only reason I can see that the Optics industry as a whole don't promote it - they spent 2 years trying to prove it worked, but their conclusion was "eye excercises don't play any part in improving vision." How ironic is it that on their study of the Bates Method they missed the whole point of it? Is it irony, or was it done on purpose to keep people not believing in it for a bit longer?

I recently posted my theory on Yahoo! Answers and the response I got from an optometrist was so crappy I reported her for abuse. I'm not putting up with it any more. This 'professional' didn't read a word of either of the two substantiating scientific and legal documents I linked to, and was incurious, uninformed, dismissive and disparaging - about as unhelpful, unscientific and unprofessional as she could get. But there was no way provided for me to respond to her crap point by point. She is an uninformed liar masquerading as a professional. And that's how she makes a living.

by princeid... Member since: April 04, 2007 Total points: 26976 (Level 7) Contributing In: Optical Block User
You reported this answer Hide
"1) normal babies are born with normal eyesight, or perhaps are farsighted. But myopia is becoming more prevalent world-wide, and progressively worse; and worst of all in the United States."
...and in the entire world, mostly b/c of genetics & heavy education/reading demand, not antibiotics

"Further, the method of instilling the antibiotics is one eye at a time, and the second eye gets less treatment because the baby squeezes both eyes shut after the first one gets treated"
no. false. they just pry the eye open & squirt. the "second eye" is not receiving "less treatment". thats a bunch of hooey.

"Parents are told practically nothing about the procedure, and it is assumed that when the drug wears off the baby's vision returns to normal"
babies have terribly acuity anyway. no drop...neither silver nitrate nor antibiotics would cause a neonate's vision to be worse neither temporarily nor permanently

"but what if most babies have actually been soothed/imprinted into a state of distance blur-acceptance so that blurry distance vision seems normal to them?"
distance blur is already normal to them. babies are like 2/400 at all distances for the 1st few weeks.

"And since the treatment is unequal in each eye"
no, its not.

"the eyes are slightly uncoordinated and unsynchronized, preventing development of normal vision"
no. you're reaching BIG TIME

"Most Americans have one eye with significantly worse vision than the other eye"
true- they dominant eye is usually more myopic in a myopic adult. so what? not from any eyedrop they ever received.

junk science
Source(s):
optometrist
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://myeyepod.blogspot.com/">http://myeyepod.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->

Can neonatal eye antibiotics be a latent cause of myopia?
Two documents (1. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1420">http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1420</a><!-- m --> and 2. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rbs2.com/SilvNitr.pdf">http://www.rbs2.com/SilvNitr.pdf</a><!-- m --> ) have established that 1) normal babies are born with normal eyesight, or perhaps are farsighted. But myopia is becoming more prevalent world-wide, and progressively worse; and worst of all in the United States. 2) In the 1930's the US Congress mandated the use of eye antibiotics for all newborns, within one hour of their birth. The antibiotics are still mandated in every State. The antibiotic which was used until 1956 was silver nitrate, which blurs the baby's vision for 24 to 72 hours. Further, the method of instilling the antibiotics is one eye at a time, and the second eye gets less treatment because the baby squeezes both eyes shut after the first one gets treated. Parents are told practically nothing about the procedure, and it is assumed that when the drug wears off the baby's vision returns to normal - but what if most babies have actually been soothed/imprinted into a state of distance blur-acceptance so that blurry distance vision seems normal to them? And since the treatment is unequal in each eye, the eyes are slightly uncoordinated and unsynchronized, preventing development of normal vision. Most Americans have one eye with significantly worse vision than the other eye.
4 days ago - 4 days left to answer.

[JWLBOYCE]

Here Here

I couldn't agree with you more - you would think that the optometrists would be the people most open to new ideas about eyes. Obviously not

[JMartinC4]

Here Here I couldn't agree with you more - you would think that the optometrists would be the people most open to new ideas about eyes. Obviously not

Thanks JW. If I could have responded to the optiquack I'd have said:

You reported this answer [for abuse]
"1) normal babies are born with normal eyesight, or perhaps are farsighted. But myopia is becoming more prevalent world-wide, and progressively worse; and worst of all in the United States."
...and in the entire world, mostly b/c of genetics & heavy education/reading demand, not antibiotics
That is unconfirmed speculation - read the documents I provided. DaVinci, Gallileo, Newton, Gauss, Edison, Tesla, Einstein, Bohr, and most if not all highly educated people/scientists born before the turn of the last century WERE NOT MYOPIC - why not? That is way too fast for 'genetics'. Where/how/why did the '4-eyed nerdy science geek' stereotype get started? Why don't you care?

"Further, the method of instilling the antibiotics is one eye at a time, and the second eye gets less treatment because the baby squeezes both eyes shut after the first one gets treated"
no. false. they just pry the eye open & squirt. the "second eye" is not receiving "less treatment". thats a bunch of hooey.
No, you just don't want to think very hard about anything, and your powers of insight and observation, if you ever had any, are the real bunch of hooey. So they have to 'pry' the eye open!? Gee, what other abuse is the minutes-old infant subjected to? Why don't you pretend you're an infant and think about it, instead of pretending you're a professional who doesn't have to think about anything anymore?

"Parents are told practically nothing about the procedure, and it is assumed that when the drug wears off the baby's vision returns to normal"
babies have terribly acuity anyway. no drop...neither silver nitrate nor antibiotics would cause a neonate's vision to be worse neither temporarily nor permanently
A BIG FAT LIE. Read the 1989 study by the National Academy of Sciences, Myopia - Prevalence and Progression, Appendix C - infants are born with normal vision or slightly farsighted. Then read the 2006 legal essay by a Doctor of Laws regarding silver nitrate and other neonatal eye antibiotics.

"but what if most babies have actually been soothed/imprinted into a state of distance blur-acceptance so that blurry distance vision seems normal to them?"
distance blur is already normal to them. babies are like 2/400 at all distances for the 1st few weeks.
See my response above, liar. The only reason normal infants have 20/400 eyesight is because of the antibiotics!

"And since the treatment is unequal in each eye"
no, its not.
Ever measured it? Then at least give some thought before you answer! It HAS to be unequal to the infant - in timing if nothing else, you twit!

"the eyes are slightly uncoordinated and unsynchronized, preventing development of normal vision"
no. you're reaching BIG TIME
It's called logic, moron.

"Most Americans have one eye with significantly worse vision than the other eye"
true- they dominant eye is usually more myopic in a myopic adult. so what? not from any eyedrop they ever received.
There is not a drop of truth in any of your answers.