BBC propaganda about the Bates Method

[fuggles]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series6/vision_correction.shtml">http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/ser ... tion.shtml</a><!-- m -->

terrible. Should be ashamed of themselves.

[Ghost]

This is kind of interesting, but the website article seems to be a summary of a short Television piece. The woman who tried out palming did feel that her eyesight was improving although a further eye test demonstrated no improvement. It's strange that palming seems to be the only method she was taught and practiced, also it's not clear how often she did it (maybe the television programme was more in depth). I live in the UK and Bates was mentioned briefly on another BBC evening magazine type show very recently. Unfortunately he was incorrectly credited for coming up with ways of exercising the eyes and linked to a method labeled "Eye-robics". The technique for an exercise which involved using muscles in the face was briefly explained, the presenters of the show tried it out once and stated it sounded too complicated and you'd might as well just wear glasses! A guest on the programme (who was not there to talk about eye sight) said he'd had laser surgery and recommended it, although he pointed out that you should be prepared for the smell of 'burning eye'. Yipe!

I'd like to see a real TV programme about the Bates Method. Get some open-minded people to really learn it and dedicate themselves to it and follow their progress over 6 months or a year. At the end their eyes should be tested. If none of the participants had any improvements after really giving it a go, I'd be more inclined to discount it as rubbish or at least something few people can master. Getting someone to practice palming for three months is hardly the complete method (which is a shame because that woman who tried the palming did seem open minded and committed to it in the video diary).

[Ram]

Palming by itself is very unlikely to improve vision. But if somehow one can palm perfectly it might be sufficient.

There is also a big problem to demonstrate the improvement objectively. During the vision test done by eye professionals they close one of your eyes while the other eye is made to see through a device such as a focometer. If you have not learnt to relax under adverse conditions, this focometer testing under dark conditions that dilate the pupil create 'tunnel visioning'. The consequence is that for the time being your eyes forget whatever they have learnt so far and go into a mode of severe staring. You can now imagine why your doctor might say that there is no improvement.

The testing done by doctors are under the most unfavourable conditions for the eye - one eye vision, low lights and peeping through an orifice. Unless you have developed enough mental relaxation to withstand this onslaught on the eye, you are likely to fare poorly at the doctor's office than when you test yourself at home. The moment you think you cant read the chart you are gone. The very sight of the doctor is sufficient to push your vision down temporarily.

Test yourself to monitor your progress. Until you are close to full recovery, it maybe really hard to show imrprovement in the doctor's office. I doubt if the medical profession will ever understand why NVI is more harder to demonstrate objectively even when it works.

[Mihai_alexandru]

Why use only palming? If you use palming 30 minutes a day and then return to straining what do you do? You get little or no improvement.

If the maintream is so against the Bates Method and "sceptical" about it, why not make a big study to prove that it doesen't work and resolve the whole matter once and for all? It's old for over 100 years and not one single serious study? They went on being "sceptical" for 100 years? Something sounds and probably is wrong.

[otis]

I-Blindness is a good description of this "attitude".

Here is a discussion.

Subject: The ophthalmic community is absolute in
its position that there is no cure for myopia

I wish these publications would be honest. This is false when you study Bates and Prentice. Of all the “objections” I have, it is false statements
like this that give me the most grief.

But I will agree that the word ‘cure’ is terrible — in this context — and should be avoided.

I will not post the full article — but here is the essence of it.

Otis

=============

Childhood Myopia: No Clear Choice for Clear Vision

By Kim M. Norton

For The Record
Vol. 17 No. 10 P. 38

The International Myopia Prevention Association has questioned the
use of prescription lenses in children. Is it misguided thinking?

There is growing controversy in the ophthalmic community about the
correct course of action for treating myopia or nearsightedness when
a child presents with blurry vision, headaches, and squinting.
Although it is considered the standard of care, some say a
prescription for a minus lens may not be the best approach to
childhood myopia.

Some experts say myopia is the result of an inherited multigene that
predetermines whether a child will be myopic and the severity of the
myopia. Opponents of prescription lenses say myopia is not inherited;
rather, it is caused by outside factors resulting in the
overaccommodation of the ciliary muscles, which renders the child
myopic.

Currently, the standard of care for a pediatric myopic patient is to
prescribe a minus lens to help the child see more clearly. A minus
lens helps focus rays of light further into the myopic eye so a clear
image will be displayed on the retina. When a person is myopic, the
eyeball is slightly longer than normal, which makes distant objects
appear blurry.

Prescription eyeglasses help make distance vision clearer, but only
while the lenses are worn.

The ophthalmic community is absolute in
its position that there is no cure for myopia; however, refractive options are able to correct distance vision.

These options include prescription lenses, contact lenses, orthokeratology, and refractive surgery.

==============

Why do they “cut it off” with those “options”.

What is wrong with Bate/Prentice methods.

I think this "attitude" was what "killed" Bates successful 1913 study.

They got their head burried in the “sand” — it
seems.
Otis