Srat away from "vision educators"
Rishigg
me about the Italian version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses he wanted
to buy.
I had to tell him that the book is sold out and is now in reprint and
will be ready for deliver in a couple of weeks.
Then I shared with him a good conversation.
Even if he is a "vision educator" he is not accustomed to the Original
Bates System. In fact, he not only does not understand how to benefit
from the sun-gazing, neither from the sun-glass, but he never tried the
experimenr of low light and microprint, I have learnt.
He promised me that he would have tried this soon.
He is a researcher and told me than most advanced theories about vision
are discovering the hidden powers of the external muscles of the eye,
and this is slowly being acknowledge in academic sites, exactly in the
same direction as Bates did. It seems that only the idiots doctors here
on sci.med.vision seem to not cope with this fact.
Nevertheless, he is not so much sure about his own understanding of
Bates work that felt the urge to try my edition of PSWG. Also to
subscribe to my magazine "il falco". He lives in the States, and has a
story of hypermetropia, which he thinks he can definitely cure after he
has spoken to me.
To one question, he answered that when he was at Columbia University in
New York he tried to reach some documents about Bates but became aware
that all was effaced out, he could not find anything about him.
I hope to work with him soon because he showed a kind of open mind which
is not there when I have something to do with idiots like Cagnoli and
Co., the mainstream "vision educators" in Italy. These people have
spoiled the name of Bates for their own purpose, that is selling their
courses and programs which have nothing to do with the Original Bates
System.
"Friends" of Bates are largely great frauds, great false men. They
understand nothing of Him. In fact, nobody gets a cure, and Bates
himself gets mocked at by other idiots like the ignorant men we find here.
--
"As surely as any soldier ever died on the field, Dr. Bates gave his
life for a cause, battling against fate, during many years of
magnificent struggle, when the unending disappointment finally broke in
hopeless despair. His torch is still burning. There will come some other
battler, who is fit, and will hold it high until the people who are
sitting in darkness have seen its great light."
William B. MacCracken, M.D.
(1937, Berkeley CA)
Kory Postma
truly understand what the Bates Method is. That is why I think it
would be best to get together and conduct some studies, then contact
researchers in various parts of the world, maybe in Europe, since they
seem more open-minded and more socialistic than the capitalists here
in the US.
Kory
Dr. Leukoma
news:3cc2072c103683f2...@free.teranews.com:
Now there's a thought. Make sure that you publish the results even if
negative.
DrG
Kory Postma
Of course one should, but the thing is, would it get published either
way? That is the most daunting task.
Kory
nipidoc
> Thank you Rishi. Like I have even said before, many people do not
> truly understand what the Bates Method is.
Can you provide us with a statement as to what YOU think the Bates
Method is??
And please don't say "a program to eliminate glasses". If that's your
claim, then say "a program to eliminate glasses BY..........."
Maybe you can help all us uneducated docs "truly understand what the
Bates Method is"
nipidoc
Jason Harper
news:7e9ca5fa.03080...@posting.google.com...
I'm not Kory, but I will try to tell you how Bates explained it. He never
called it the Bates Method. He said that if he had to put a name on it, it
would have to be called Nature's Technique, because that is all that it is.
Use your eyes the way nature intended them to be used, and you will obtain
perfect sight.
Kory Postma
The Bates Method is a term that was later coined for what Bates called
Nature's way of perfect vision. His main points were, the eye can
only see one part of an object best and in order to see the rest of it
your eyes must scan all around the object and you must be able to
remember what is being seen clearly and to retain this mental image.
He also said one should blink as the normal eyes does because blinking
refreshes the eyes and it will also prevent staring, because the yes
moves a little when you blink. He also taught people how to relax and
to calm their mind (this is the part that most people do not
understand), so that they may be able to remember things clearly and
will be able to see more clearly. Basically, it is his method of
un-teaching bad vision habits and replacing them with good vision
habits. Once someone has learned to relax, will not strain, can
centralize (see one part best), keep the eyes moving (learning
oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things
exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve. I
may be forgetting something, but I hope I am not. All of this
information is in the 1920 book and in the medical journals and also
in the magazines that were published around that time.
Some things can be found at www.iblindness.org and others at various
parts of the net. It is all available for free because of the
copyright laws expiring and what not.
Kory
Mike Tyner
"Kory Postma" <kor...@NOhotSPAMmail.com> wrote
> oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things
> exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve.
I missed something. What happens to make the vision improve?
Does this work for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia?
-MT
Otis Brown
Jason>
> I'm not Kory, but I will try to tell you how Bates explained it. He never
> called it the Bates Method. He said that if he had to put a name on it, it
> would have to be called Nature's Technique, because that is all that it is.
> Use your eyes the way nature intended them to be used, and you will obtain
> perfect sight.
Otis> Good so far. The key issue is, "how nature intended them to
be used". Could you expand on that statement?
Do you mean that the eye needs to look at distant objects
most of the time? Do you mean that the eye changes its
focal status if placed in a "confined" enviroment -- taking
on a negative focal status (i.e., becomming nearsighed)?
Do you mean that, by nature, the eye will set its focal
state to its visual enviroment. What do you deny,
and what do you accept?
Best,
Otis
******
Kory Postma
wrote:
The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more
relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the
sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after
reading Bates.
Kory
Mike Tyner
"Kory Postma" <kor...@NOhotSPAMmail.com> wrote
> The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more
> relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the
> sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after
> reading Bates.
Clearing the mind, improving the memory, and relaxing are all noble goals.
But when it comes to describing specifically how (or even whether) it reduces
myopia, presbyopia, or astigmatism, we can't find good evidence other than
enthusiastic anecdotes.
Bates said it "improves sight". Maybe in a new-age sort of fashion, it does. But
it doesn't reduce structural anomalies and it can't be relied on as a cure for
macular degeneration or glaucoma or cataract. There MIGHT even be some
measurable effects. But doctors have to recommend what DOES work first, before
they recommend what MIGHT work A LITTLE for SOME.
-MT
Kory Postma
wrote:
>
Actually Bates said it would work for everyone who did not have
organic problems (from accidents, etc.). But Bates only showed people
what to do, they would have to continue it at home and all day long.
They would then be seen 2-3 times a week.
Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with
Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from
the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like?
Or if you would like any other info, and if I have time, I would be
willing to try to dig up whatever you like and post it here.
Kory
Mike Tyner
> Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with
> Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from
> the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like?
Kory, I read the Book. I read PSWG once years ago, again about 2 months ago, and
I recently scanned through it again (online copy) to make a list of several
things he says that can't be true.
There are so many misconceptions and falsehoods and unsupported claims in PSWG
that it trashes his credibility and I really don't care to study Bates any more.
None of his methods revolutionize the vision therapy I've already learned, and
one or two of them are flat-out harmful. None of them hold up to controlled
trials, none of them are approved by the FDA, and most of them are contrary to
the physiology I was taught by people who are generally accepted as experts in
physiology.
The number of web sites that promulgate Bates is enormous. The number of
licensed doctors who recommend his methods is vanishingly small. Reading
articles published in magazines in the 20s and 30s isn't likely to change my
opinion, and life's too short to waste time on stuff that doesn't work.
Promote the Natural Method if you want to, but don't expect relaxation to
improve hyperopia or presbyopia, and don't tell anybody to gaze at the sun.
I don't expect mind-over-matter or feel-good techniques to fix anatomical
anomalies. You can, if you like, because your patients can't take away your
license for withholding or delaying appropriate treatment.
-MT
"Kory Postma" <kor...@NOhotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f2a67769e602237...@free.teranews.com...
David K
wrote:
>Kory wrote:
>
>> Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with
>> Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from
>> the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like?
>
>Kory, I read the Book. I read PSWG once years ago, again about 2 months ago, and
>I recently scanned through it again (online copy) to make a list of several
>things he says that can't be true.
Could you share this list with us, and why they can't be true?
David
Mike Tyner
"David K" <noe...@fake.com> wrote
>MT>I recently scanned through it again (online copy) to make a list of several
> >things he says that can't be true.
>
> Could you share this list with us, and why they can't be true?
OK. The context was: Someone was berating for saying that nobody has usable
accommodation after age 60. The argument was if I could make such a wide
generalization, then all of Bates' generalizations must therefore be true. My
response below, newly edited:
==============================================
Bates' assumptions and his leaps of logic are HUGE compared to "nobody has
significant accommodation after 60."
Bates: "That glasses cannot improve the sight to normal can be very simply
demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or concave glass.
It will be noted that the color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with the
naked eye; and since the perception of form depends upon the perception of
color, it follows that both color and form MUST be less distinctly seen with
glasses than without them." [emphasis mine]
I don't get the same results. Most of my patients see better color and form
_with_ their glasses than without them. Minus lenses minify and have barrel
distortion, but that doesn't outweigh seeing forms you can't see without them,
seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together.
Bates: "Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as EVERYONE
knows who has ever looked out of a window."
I don't get that either. There's a difference, but I don't think "everyone"
notices it. Maybe glass is better these days? Spectacle lenses are clear on the
edges, not green like windowpanes. Color distortion is measured by spectroscopy
and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.
Bates: "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or less
degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted. "
I don't get the same result. If you can't "note" improvement, where is it?
Refractive error simply does not go away when they take off their glasses. Ask
patients who lose their glasses and make do without them for three months. Their
refractions are not generally better. Every eye doctor can document anecdotes
that disprove this gross generalization, and very few to support it.
Bates: "That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which NO ONE would attempt
to deny."
I would. Ask a hyperope or presbyope if his eyes feel better with or without
glasses.
Bates: "The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all
objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex glasses enlarge
them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome."
But people overcome them all the time.
Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."
Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
objects are "drawn into" the field.
Bates: "It has been demonstrated, however, that the lens is NOT A FACTOR, either
in the production of accommodation, or in the correction of errors of
refraction. Therefore under NO circumstances can there be a strain of the
ciliary muscle to be relieved."
Patently false. No contribution at all? Ask any aphake. Ask yourself after
cycloplegia. Ask any eye surgeon - they pluck 'em out all the time and usually
the other parts still work.
Bates: "It is fortunate that many people for whom glasses have been prescribed
refuse to wear them, thus escaping not only much discomfort but much INJURY to
their eyes."
This is particularly treacherous if they drive. Bates didn't have to meet his
patients on a dark rainy highway with 120 mph between them. I can't find this
INJURY he's talking about.
Bates: "As refractive abnormalities are continually changing, not only from day
to day and from hour to hour, but from minute to minute, even under the
influence of atropine, the accurate fitting of glasses is, of course;
IMPOSSIBLE."
I don't share his experience. I have refracted people who remained consistent
over decades. I have frequently refracted without any knowledge of their
previous prescription, and later found it within a quarter-diopter of values
from previous years. I often repeat refractions when people have problems with
their new glasses, and to say they NEVER refract the same a few days later is
ludicrous.
A bunch of anecdotes can't prove a rule, but they easily DISPROVE this one, plus
millions of people who find their glasses work the same day after day.
Bates: "It has been demonstrated in thousands of cases that all abnormal action
of the external muscles of the eyeball is accompanied by a strain or effort to
see, and that with the relief of this strain the action of the muscles becomes
normal and ALL ERRORS OF REFRACTION DISAPPEAR."
I don't know of anything that provides relief such that "ALL errors of
refraction disappear". Nor did Bates, nor do you. Muscle imbalance causes
strain. Not the other way around.
Bates: "The eye may be blind, it may be suffering from atrophy of the optic
nerve, from cataract, or disease of the retina; but so long as it does not try
to see, the external muscles act normally and there is no error of refraction.
This fact furnishes us with the means by which ALL these conditions, so long
held to be incurable, may be cured."
Whaaaat? ALL these conditions? Relaxation cures ALL cataract, optic atrophy, and
histoplasmosis? That's faith-healing, and its frankly cruel and anxiogenic to
tell people these problems are their fault because they can't relax.
Bates: "Myopes, although they see better at the near-point than they do at the
distance, NEVER see as well as does the eye with normal sight.."
Myopes do not see WORSE up close than emmetropes. At age 50, they definitely see
BETTER up close than everybody else. And a macro lens doesn't have lower
inherent resolution than a telephoto.
Bates: "The remedy is not to avoid either near work or distant vision, but to
get rid of the mental strain which underlies the imperfect functioning of the
eye at both points; and it has: been demonstrated in thousands of cases that
this can ALWAYS be done. "
So how come nobody but Jesus matches his success rate? No I DON'T want to read
all thousand stories. I want to hear averages, before and after, with a treated
group compared to an untreated group with the same demographics. Why hasn't it
been done? Because every believable attempt to modify refractive error with
lenses, training, and mental effort has shown such limited success that the
noone will invest the effort and expense to prove that if we re-hash it just
right, it WILL work. That's what the COMET study attempted to do.
Bates: "Fortunately, ALL persons are able to relax under certain conditions at
will."
Well, "at will" means they would have to be conscious, so that rules out death,
coma, narcosis or sleep. So why isn't the "Natural Method" used for other
anxieties? Yoga and biofeedback would outsell Valium and Xanax combined, if they
worked. Which professional would you expect to use the Natural Method - a
psychologist, or a psychic?
Bates: "In ALL uncomplicated errors of refraction the strain to see can be
relieved, temporarily, by having the patient look at a blank wall without trying
to see."
Um, OK I'll buy that one. Closing the eyes works, too. Bell's reflex 'n all
that.
Bates: "The fact is that when the mind is at rest nothing can tire the eyes, and
when the mind is under a strain NOTHING can rest them. ANYTHING that rests the
mind will benefit the eyes."
So will Xanax or meditation or spiritual enlightenment make my astigmatism
better? Never worked for me. My K readings didn't change appreciably.
Bates: "After looking at the sun most people see black or colored spots which
may last from a few minutes to a year or longer, but are NEVER permanent."
My textbooks beg to differ. But what do they know?
-MT
Jenny06427
>demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or concave
>glass.
>It will be noted that the color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with
>the
>naked eye; and since the perception of form depends upon the perception of
>color, it follows that both color and form MUST be less distinctly seen with
>glasses than without them." [emphasis mine]
>
>I don't get the same results. Most of my patients see better color and form
>_with_ their glasses than without them. Minus lenses minify and have barrel
>distortion, but that doesn't outweigh seeing forms you can't see without
>them,
>seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together.
>
functional
>Bates: "Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as
>EVERYONE
>knows who has ever looked out of a window."
>
>I don't get that either. There's a difference, but I don't think "everyone"
>notices it. Maybe glass is better these days? Spectacle lenses are clear on
>the
>edges, not green like windowpanes. Color distortion is measured by
>spectroscopy
>and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.
>
Disagree look through any glass less quality of color
: "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or less
>degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be
>noted. "
>
>I don't get the same result. If you can't "note" improvement, where is it?
>Refractive error simply does not go away when they take off their glasses.
>Ask
>patients who lose their glasses and make do without them for three months.
>Their
>refractions are not generally better. Every eye doctor can document anecdotes
>that disprove this gross generalization, and very few to support it.
>
MAybe we just become accustomed to blurriness? Sure seems like a little
rebound effect. Who did without their glasses for 3 months, most people run
right out?
>Bates: "That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which NO ONE would
>attempt
>to deny."
>
>I would. Ask a hyperope or presbyope if his eyes feel better with or without
>glasses.
Ask them whether they'd rather see without them no problem. Yes most everyone
would prefer not to need glasses
>Bates: "The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all
>objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex glasses enlarge
>them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome."
>
>But people overcome them all the time.
People become accustomed and function alright, there is still changes in the
way things are seen compared to perfect sight
>Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less
>degree."
>
>Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
>don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and
>more
>objects are "drawn into" the field.
How well can you see out of corner of your eye with glasses. It's all blurry
and lose attention to this field focusing only on part glasses make
artificially clear.
>Bates: "It has been demonstrated, however, that the lens is NOT A FACTOR,
>either
>in the production of accommodation, or in the correction of errors of
>refraction. Therefore under NO circumstances can there be a strain of the
>ciliary muscle to be relieved."
>
>Patently false. No contribution at all? Ask any aphake. Ask yourself after
>cycloplegia. Ask any eye surgeon - they pluck 'em out all the time and
>usually
>the other parts still work.
>
I already posted the studies that it's not all the lens either.
>Bates: "It is fortunate that many people for whom glasses have been
>prescribed
>refuse to wear them, thus escaping not only much discomfort but much INJURY
>to
>their eyes."
>
>This is particularly treacherous if they drive. Bates didn't have to meet his
>patients on a dark rainy highway with 120 mph between them. I can't find this
>INJURY he's talking about.
>
Minus lenses make the eyes worse some of us think. Otis just posted about this
better than I can.
Got to go don't have time to address any more, will do changes in refraction
later.
Mike Tyner
"Jenny06427" <jenny...@aol.com> wrote
>MT >seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together.
> >
> It's still not the same as someone with perfect sight seeing, yes more
> functional
No but that wasnt' the argument. Bates said they see better color and form worse
with glasses. Nonsense.
> >and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.
> >
> Disagree look through any glass less quality of color
Never mind the spectrographs, huh.
> MAybe we just become accustomed to blurriness? Sure seems like a little
> rebound effect. Who did without their glasses for 3 months, most people run
> right out?
Because they get better when they lose their glasses?
> Ask them whether they'd rather see without them no problem. Yes most everyone
> would prefer not to need glasses
Yes but most people see better with them. Bates said they see better without
them.
> >them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome."
> >
> >But people overcome them all the time.
>
> People become accustomed and function alright, there is still changes in the
> way things are seen compared to perfect sight
So the "unpleasantness" cannot be overcome?
> How well can you see out of corner of your eye with glasses. It's all blurry
> and lose attention to this field focusing only on part glasses make
> artificially clear.
That wasn't the argument. The field of vision is not always smaller with lenses,
so Bates was wrong.
> I already posted the studies that it's not all the lens either.
Yes but that doesn't change the experience of EVERYONE who has cataract surgery
or cycloplegic drops. Where is this "other" accommodation when the lens is
removed?
> Minus lenses make the eyes worse some of us think. Otis just posted about
this
> better than I can.
Otis didn't post any proof. He posted an 80-year-old opinion that is
contradicted by several studies. I quoted them here and Otis just ignored them.
> Got to go don't have time to address any more, will do changes in refraction
> later.
-MT
Mike Tyner
"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:iLVYa.5388
> No but that wasnt' the argument. Bates said they see better color and form
worse
> with glasses. Nonsense.
I meant "see color and form worse with glasses."
Jenny06427
someone with glasses doesn't have the same quality of vision as someone with
perfect sight, acuity same, function may be fine, but there's at least a little
difference in ways things are seen. Glasses are a pain and most everyone would
prefer to have perfect sight, thus the popularity of unnecessary surgical risk.
Kevin
mty...@mindspring.com says...
> Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."
>
> Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
> don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
> objects are "drawn into" the field.
>
simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual field.
To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the point.
There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight
which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames themeselves
block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the frames are no
longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes accustomed to
working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus lenses minify
is quite correct, - they draw more information into an area of sight
that has been contracted.
It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.
An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.
Kevin
Mike Tyner
-MT
"Kevin" <seven...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.199ecb5f8...@news.ntlworld.com...
Kory Postma
wrote:
snip
>==============================================
>
>Bates' assumptions and his leaps of logic are HUGE compared to "nobody has
>significant accommodation after 60."
>
>Bates: "That glasses cannot improve the sight to normal can be very simply
>demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or concave glass.
>It will be noted that the color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with the
>naked eye; and since the perception of form depends upon the perception of
>color, it follows that both color and form MUST be less distinctly seen with
>glasses than without them." [emphasis mine]
>
>I don't get the same results. Most of my patients see better color and form
>_with_ their glasses than without them. Minus lenses minify and have barrel
>distortion, but that doesn't outweigh seeing forms you can't see without them,
>seeing sharp borders between colors where they aren't blurred together.
>
>Bates: "Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as EVERYONE
>knows who has ever looked out of a window."
>
>I don't get that either. There's a difference, but I don't think "everyone"
>notices it. Maybe glass is better these days? Spectacle lenses are clear on the
>edges, not green like windowpanes. Color distortion is measured by spectroscopy
>and the spectrograph of CR-39 is remarkably flat.
Bates said that color is ALWAYS less intense than when seen with the
naked eye. You showed a spectrograph of CR-39 and this is exactly
what it shows that the color is ALWAYS less intense. It was only at
about 93%, which is not near what the normal human eye can see.
There is a difference and Bates is right on this. He mentioned
"intensity", not "distortion".
>
>Bates: "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or less
>degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted. "
>
>I don't get the same result. If you can't "note" improvement, where is it?
>Refractive error simply does not go away when they take off their glasses. Ask
>patients who lose their glasses and make do without them for three months. Their
>refractions are not generally better. Every eye doctor can document anecdotes
>that disprove this gross generalization, and very few to support it.
My personal experience shows that Bates is right on this as well.
Also, didn;t you mention before that the axis of astigmatism doesn't
change because it lies in the cornea? Well guess what, would you like
to see my old records? I can scan them in or what not and show you
that my axis for my left eye changed from ~70 degrees to ~130 degrees.
How would you explain this? You already mentioned before that this
doesn't happen.
>
>Bates: "That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which NO ONE would attempt
>to deny."
>
>I would. Ask a hyperope or presbyope if his eyes feel better with or without
>glasses.
>
Bates used glass, you use plastic CR-39, things may be different now.
>Bates: "The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all
>objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex glasses enlarge
>them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be overcome."
>
>But people overcome them all the time.
Why do they overcome them? Why do you tell patients, oh don't worry
you'll get used to it, just remember to look through your glasses and
move your head if you want to look somewhere else. This is not
normal.
>
>Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."
>
>Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
>don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
>objects are "drawn into" the field.
Where was this cited and under what heading / chapter?
>
>Bates: "It has been demonstrated, however, that the lens is NOT A FACTOR, either
>in the production of accommodation, or in the correction of errors of
>refraction. Therefore under NO circumstances can there be a strain of the
>ciliary muscle to be relieved."
>
>Patently false. No contribution at all? Ask any aphake. Ask yourself after
>cycloplegia. Ask any eye surgeon - they pluck 'em out all the time and usually
>the other parts still work.
I have seen studies going both ways, my personal belief is that they
both contribute.
>
>Bates: "It is fortunate that many people for whom glasses have been prescribed
>refuse to wear them, thus escaping not only much discomfort but much INJURY to
>their eyes."
>
>This is particularly treacherous if they drive. Bates didn't have to meet his
>patients on a dark rainy highway with 120 mph between them. I can't find this
>INJURY he's talking about.
By wearing glasses you are under a constant strain, this is the
injury.
>
>Bates: "As refractive abnormalities are continually changing, not only from day
>to day and from hour to hour, but from minute to minute, even under the
>influence of atropine, the accurate fitting of glasses is, of course;
>IMPOSSIBLE."
>
>I don't share his experience. I have refracted people who remained consistent
>over decades. I have frequently refracted without any knowledge of their
>previous prescription, and later found it within a quarter-diopter of values
>from previous years. I often repeat refractions when people have problems with
>their new glasses, and to say they NEVER refract the same a few days later is
>ludicrous.
You previously agreed that the eye changes its refraction many times a
second, and that you asked children to look at an object and to see if
it would move so that you could get a more accurate refraction
measurement. Are you now contradicting yourself?
>
>A bunch of anecdotes can't prove a rule, but they easily DISPROVE this one, plus
>millions of people who find their glasses work the same day after day.
>
>Bates: "It has been demonstrated in thousands of cases that all abnormal action
>of the external muscles of the eyeball is accompanied by a strain or effort to
>see, and that with the relief of this strain the action of the muscles becomes
>normal and ALL ERRORS OF REFRACTION DISAPPEAR."
>
>I don't know of anything that provides relief such that "ALL errors of
>refraction disappear". Nor did Bates, nor do you. Muscle imbalance causes
>strain. Not the other way around.
Could you elaborate regarding how muscle imbalance causes strain?
What kind of strain and what are the effects of this strain? Also,
because you don't know of it doesn't't mean that it doesn't exist.
Just because the profession as a whole doesn't know of it, doesn't
prove its nonexistence.
>
>Bates: "The eye may be blind, it may be suffering from atrophy of the optic
>nerve, from cataract, or disease of the retina; but so long as it does not try
>to see, the external muscles act normally and there is no error of refraction.
>This fact furnishes us with the means by which ALL these conditions, so long
>held to be incurable, may be cured."
>
>Whaaaat? ALL these conditions? Relaxation cures ALL cataract, optic atrophy, and
>histoplasmosis? That's faith-healing, and its frankly cruel and anxiogenic to
>tell people these problems are their fault because they can't relax.
Bates was able to use his methods of relief of the strain so that
these conditions could be cured. you mentioned above that you don't
know of anything that provides this relief hence you cannot make this
argument that his method couldn't cure these conditions. You do not
have first hand experience of the Bates method nor do many
professionals here. It is just left to laymen to practice and use his
techniques to help others.
>
>Bates: "Myopes, although they see better at the near-point than they do at the
>distance, NEVER see as well as does the eye with normal sight.."
>
>Myopes do not see WORSE up close than emmetropes. At age 50, they definitely see
>BETTER up close than everybody else. And a macro lens doesn't have lower
>inherent resolution than a telephoto.
I see worse than the eye with normal sight. I posted a message about
that before and how I used my imagination to improve my near sight.
But still, I cannot see as well as someone with normal vision. A
person with normal vision should be able to read diamond type from 6
to 18 inches and should be able to see at least 20/20, but mostly
20/10. I have demonstrated this fact and so have others, and so has
Bates. Myopes do not see as well as someone with normal vision up
close. Also, do not say that someone at 50 can't see as well as a
myope. That person more or less strains at the near point as does
your every other presbyopic patient.
>
>Bates: "The remedy is not to avoid either near work or distant vision, but to
>get rid of the mental strain which underlies the imperfect functioning of the
>eye at both points; and it has: been demonstrated in thousands of cases that
>this can ALWAYS be done. "
>
>So how come nobody but Jesus matches his success rate? No I DON'T want to read
>all thousand stories. I want to hear averages, before and after, with a treated
>group compared to an untreated group with the same demographics. Why hasn't it
>been done?
Because people think there is no value in it, plus they do not
properly understand it. I think Bates is the only person to have
clearly understood his method. There will be someone in the future to
rediscover this and then prove it.
>Because every believable attempt to modify refractive error with
>lenses, training, and mental effort has shown such limited success that the
>noone will invest the effort and expense to prove that if we re-hash it just
>right, it WILL work. That's what the COMET study attempted to do.
>
Exactly as I said above.
>Bates: "Fortunately, ALL persons are able to relax under certain conditions at
>will."
>
>Well, "at will" means they would have to be conscious, so that rules out death,
>coma, narcosis or sleep. So why isn't the "Natural Method" used for other
>anxieties? Yoga and biofeedback would outsell Valium and Xanax combined, if they
>worked. Which professional would you expect to use the Natural Method - a
>psychologist, or a psychic?
At will and under certain conditions. What "Natural Method" are you
referring to?
>
>Bates: "In ALL uncomplicated errors of refraction the strain to see can be
>relieved, temporarily, by having the patient look at a blank wall without trying
>to see."
>
>Um, OK I'll buy that one. Closing the eyes works, too. Bell's reflex 'n all
>that.
>
Why would closing the eyes help relieve the strain to see? Are you
saying that palming is effective? That is basically what palming is,
closing the eyes and cupping your hands over them, but yet you say
palming is ineffective, are you contradicting yourself once again?
>Bates: "The fact is that when the mind is at rest nothing can tire the eyes, and
>when the mind is under a strain NOTHING can rest them. ANYTHING that rests the
>mind will benefit the eyes."
>
>So will Xanax or meditation or spiritual enlightenment make my astigmatism
>better? Never worked for me. My K readings didn't change appreciably.
>
These things have nothing to do with the Bates method. Also,
according to Bates, your mind must still have been under a strain.
>Bates: "After looking at the sun most people see black or colored spots which
>may last from a few minutes to a year or longer, but are NEVER permanent."
>
>My textbooks beg to differ. But what do they know?
Can you cite some studies done as to the effect that they are never
permanent?
>
>-MT
>
>
Kory Postma
Washington University in St. Louis
LarryDoc
Kevin <seven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
> very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
> glasses.
>
> An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
> myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
> using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.
>
> Kevin
BatesCultist:
Your statements are absolutely scientifically false.
1. ALL myopes DO NOT have deterioration of the retina. Some do, some
don't. For that matter, so do hyperopes. Some do, some don't. For that
matter, so do people with no optical correction. Some do, some don't.
And some people are born with a predisposition, and some people are
simply born that way.
2. Lattice degeneration, peripheral holes and tears have nothing to do
with whether a person has worn glasses or not, and hardly to do with
whether or not there is a refractive error. The only FACT we know for
certain is that SOME people with enlongated axial length or who have a
physical growth anomolgy thining the peripheral retina, or those who
have had head trauma are at higher risk for "deterioration". Wearing
glasses has nothing to with it. Hitting your head on the windshield
because some loonatic crashed into you because s/he was Bate-d into not
using optical correction is a definate potential cause.
3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.
4. It is not a fact that a myope wearing glasses is trained into using a
smaller area of the retina. The perihperal retina gets plently of
stimulation----and whatever, it has nothing to do with peripheral retina
anomolies.
SO....
Your statements are absolutely scientifically false. Like most
everything Bates. But, your a zealot, a fanatic and nothing contrary to
your position means a damn thing to you.
--LB
Kevin
larr...@nospam.yahoo.com says...
astonishing raeaction!
I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.
But your reaction is to me the very opposite of unassuming.
> 3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.
Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
your words won't sound so hollow.
Kevin
Kevin
mty...@mindspring.com says...
>
> So you blame glasses for lattice degeneration? That's new.
>
> -MT
>
No, not quite - see my response to LarryDoc.
I'm coming from the experience of teaching people the method, and one of
the most common improvements is in the sensitivity of the peripheral
vision. There needs to be some controlled studies done to verify/negate
this observation, but in due course that will come about.
Kevin
Mike Tyner
"Kevin" <seven...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I'm coming from the experience of teaching people the method, and one of
> the most common improvements is in the sensitivity of the peripheral
> vision. There needs to be some controlled studies done to verify/negate
> this observation, but in due course that will come about.
How many of your patients walk in complaining of poor peripheral vision?
And of all those who seek improvements in the sensitivity of their peripheral
vision, how many have glaucoma or retinitis pigmentosa?
After you taught them to increase their peripheral awareness, how many showed
measurable improvements in myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, or cataract?
-MT
Jan
With minus glasses of a higher power the peripheral visionfield has MORE
formation instead off less compared to myoops without glasses.
In a small angle they get the same information twice.(rimless frame)
With plus glasses (even rimless) they get less information.
In a small angle they could not "catch" a thing.
Asking this, should there be a difference in myopics and hypermetropics wich
we may not ignore speaking about the retina when wearing glasses?
And what do you suggest if these myoops and hypermetroops wear
contactlenses?
Do not say Bates has no answer, contactlenses are already present at the
time Bates wrote his book.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
"Kevin" <seven...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.199ecb5f8...@news.ntlworld.com...
LarryDoc
Kevin <seven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
> > > very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
> > > glasses.
------------------
> Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
> astonishing raeaction!
>
> I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
> wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
> possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
> a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.
Hogwash! I'd suggest you read your own words again. I quoted it here,
above directly from your post.
> Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
> your words won't sound so hollow.
Not hollow.
Your statement is simply false. It is not "well known that all
myopes............" That is wrong. Just say: "I should have been more
careful how I chose my words. Or admit you are wrong. It has to be one
or the other.
I'm sorry if clincal observation and the reporting of data based on the
scientific method gets in the way of Bates rhetoric. It's simple to
find lack of credibilty in The Method when parts of it are known to be
false, invalid, or detrimental.
On the other hand, it seems that the Bates Cultists have not been able
to come up with any credible evidence that there is validity to The
Method. Nothing. If you want to discuss Bates in a sci.med heirarchy of
UseNet newsgroups, then you've got to come up with some science.
Otherwise, the proper place to promote Bates is in an alt. newsgroup or
perhaps misc.health.alternative. Not here.
I've been around here long enough to know that every couple of years a
new crop of Bates zealots shows up here for a while, usually just after
the pin-hole glasses people leave. This current crop is taking longer
than usual to go away.
Personally, I love to see you cultists get it together and fund a study
to try to prove your point. It doesn't matter whether YOU think it
works or even if a whole cult of users thinks it works. You've got to
able to show cause and effect relationship. It is helpful to understand
the physiology that makes the connection, but sometimes it is OK to
present data that shows the cause and effect without knowing exactly why
and how. You can work on that later. Then you've got to show it is both
safe and effective, or at least exactly HOW effective. You've got to be
able to prove The Method is a safe and effective treatment for what it
is promoted to achieve.
Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is still
OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat? I heard
it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all spacecraft that
make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon isn't made of
cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?
--LB
Jason Harper
news:larrydoc-5F1000...@news06.west.earthlink.net...
> Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is still
> OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat? I heard
> it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all spacecraft that
> make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon isn't made of
> cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?
>
> --LB
The question is, Don't YOU really want to know? Since you are the ones
treating people, shouldn't you research this more instead of mocking and
ignoring something that you know nothing about. If there is a cure for
myopia, hyperopia, etc.; is it not in your patients best interest to find
this out?
Francine Eisner
here are clinicians, not vision researchers. They base their practices
on existing studies done by vision researchers. You might approach the
latter to do Bates studies. Most clinicians have an entirely different
orientation. They want to help their patients, but using methods they
are absolutely certain of.
Cheers,
Francine
"Jason Harper" <app...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vjfk1k4...@corp.supernews.com
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Dan Abel
LarryDoc <larr...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is still
> OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat? I heard
> it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all spacecraft that
> make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon isn't made of
> cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?
I've already commented earlier on the flat earth concept. It was
certainly reasonable in its time.
As for the moon being made of green cheese, I think that's been taken out
of context. If someone was to say that their car is "candy apple red",
nobody would think that the car was made out of apples. "Green cheese"
does not refer to a green color. If I referred to a new employee as being
green, you would not expect their skin to be green. "Green" means new.
If you have ever seen green cheese (cheese that was just made and hasn't
ripened at all), you would instantly realize that it is exactly the color
of the moon.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net
Mike Tyner
> The question is, Don't YOU really want to know? Since you are the ones
> treating people, shouldn't you research this more instead of mocking and
> ignoring something that you know nothing about. If there is a cure for
> myopia, hyperopia, etc.; is it not in your patients best interest to find
> this out?
If Bates techniques worked as well as you claim, then SOMEBODY besides Bates
would have published incontrovertible, repeatable confirmation of his findings.
I've looked for evidence in the literature that palming, sunning, imagining
black, centration and the "long swing" are of any benefit. It really would be
Nobel-quality news. I don't find any confirming studies, except by Bates.
YOU assume the evidence isn't there because nobody else has tested Bates'
claims. You assume that Bates had no colleagues interested in proving his
techniques or sharing his success. I believe those confirming studies were never
published because nobody has been able to duplicate the dramatic results that
Bates claimed to have "in every case" and in "thousands of cases".
Since you know my patients' best interest so well, you'll understand how I have
to recommend treatments that work reliably. It appears to me that Bates'
techniques don't work unless HE performs the therapy and HE does the
before-and-after evaluations. Maybe there are others with his gift, alive today.
But results that depend on a personality rather than a process are not
considered effective.
-MT
Jason Harper
> YOU assume the evidence isn't there because nobody else has tested Bates'
> claims. You assume that Bates had no colleagues interested in proving his
> techniques or sharing his success. I believe those confirming studies were
never
> published because nobody has been able to duplicate the dramatic results
that
> Bates claimed to have "in every case" and in "thousands of cases".
Yes, I assume there has never been another test of Bates experiments done,
because I have never seen any. YOU assume that his experiments have been
tested even though you have never seen any evidence of this. Who is making
the bigger assumption?
LarryDoc
"Jason Harper" <app...@charter.net> wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:0uRZa.8567$BC2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > YOU assume the evidence isn't there because nobody else has tested Bates'
> > claims. You assume that Bates had no colleagues interested in proving his
> > techniques or sharing his success. I believe those confirming studies were
> never published because nobody has been able to duplicate the dramatic results
> that Bates claimed to have "in every case" and in "thousands of cases".
> Yes, I assume there has never been another test of Bates experiments done,
> because I have never seen any.
Ahh-- so you make the assumption that because you haven't seen it, it
doesn't exist. How open minded of you.
And let's assume there has not been any formal testing of The Method.
Care to ask why not, after a century goes by? Do not Cultists care
about reality? (Rhetorical.)
>YOU assume that his experiments have been tested even though you have
never seen any evidence of this.
Can you read or not? MT wrote about publishing, not performing the
tests.
In any event, the burdon of proof is on the Bates Cultists and, as the
saying goes: "put up or shut up."
Or just go away and palm away the strain.
--LB
Dan Abel
> "Jason Harper" <app...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> > The question is, Don't YOU really want to know? Since you are the ones
> > treating people, shouldn't you research this more instead of mocking and
> > ignoring something that you know nothing about. If there is a cure for
> > myopia, hyperopia, etc.; is it not in your patients best interest to find
> > this out?
Of course you aren't aiming your comments at me, since I am a computer
person and not a medical person, but...wake up folks, there *is* a cure
for all of these refractive problems. There are several different
methods. I wouldn't personally recommend them, but they are very common
and very popular. Currently the most popular is LASIK. As far as I am
concerned, it is a true cure.
Of course, although most people don't consider glasses and contacts as a
true cure, they certainly do the job with few side effects. They have
been called "crutches" on this group, but they certainly work better at
helping people see than crutches do at helping people run or walk.
Jason Harper
> Ahh-- so you make the assumption that because you haven't seen it, it
> doesn't exist. How open minded of you.
How open minded of you to mock and try to discredit something that you know
nothing about.
> >YOU assume that his experiments have been tested even though you have
> never seen any evidence of this.
>
> Can you read or not? MT wrote about publishing, not performing the
> tests.
>
> In any event, the burdon of proof is on the Bates Cultists and, as the
> saying goes: "put up or shut up."
Have you seen any evidence that the tests have been performed?
Kevin
> Kevin,
>
> With minus glasses of a higher power the peripheral visionfield has MORE
> formation instead off less compared to myoops without glasses.
> In a small angle they get the same information twice.(rimless frame)
>
> With plus glasses (even rimless) they get less information.
> In a small angle they could not "catch" a thing.
>
> Asking this, should there be a difference in myopics and hypermetropics wich
> we may not ignore speaking about the retina when wearing glasses?
>
> And what do you suggest if these myoops and hypermetroops wear
> contactlenses?
> Do not say Bates has no answer, contactlenses are already present at the
> time Bates wrote his book.
>
Contacts in general have some advantages over glasses in that they
provide a slightly more normal experience for visual focusing.
I do understand that more visual information is available in the casw of
lenses for myopia, but you are skipping the point - the retinal area
used to see that 'greater visual information' is a smaller area of th
retina than if the whole eye is used without lenses.
Perhaps it would be clearer if I said, 'the area of visual information
which is perceived as useful by the subject takes up a smaller space on
the retina than on the retina of a person who uses their eyes without
glasses'. Stuff outside that clarity bubble that glasses provide is
generally disgregarded. The connection between eye and brain of the
reception of light on those retinal cells at the outer periphery is thus
ignored.
Kevin
Kevin
larr...@nospam.yahoo.com says...
> In article <MPG.19a0267a8...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> Kevin <seven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
> > > > very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
> > > > glasses.
>
> ------------------
>
> > Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
> > astonishing raeaction!
> >
> > I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
> > wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
> > possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
> > a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.
>
> Hogwash! I'd suggest you read your own words again. I quoted it here,
> above directly from your post.
>
> > Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
> > your words won't sound so hollow.
>
> Not hollow.
>
> Your statement is simply false. It is not "well known that all
> myopes............" That is wrong. Just say: "I should have been more
> careful how I chose my words. Or admit you are wrong. It has to be one
> or the other.
Yes, I agree with that. It would be truer to me to say 'I am under the
impression that it is more likely for myopes, and particularly high
myopes to have some degeneration at the peripheral edges of their
vision.'
I don't mind being wrong about that, but it is a strong impression I've
gathered from hearing talks and advice from some of the ophthalmologists
I'm in contact with over here in the UK. I usually attempt to avoid
making generalizations - perhaps in this case I misunderstood what was
being said, and I don't have the statistical data to follow it up.
>
>
> I'm sorry if clincal observation and the reporting of data based on the
> scientific method gets in the way of Bates rhetoric. It's simple to
> find lack of credibilty in The Method when parts of it are known to be
> false, invalid, or detrimental.
>
> On the other hand, it seems that the Bates Cultists have not been able
> to come up with any credible evidence that there is validity to The
> Method. Nothing. If you want to discuss Bates in a sci.med heirarchy of
> UseNet newsgroups, then you've got to come up with some science.
> Otherwise, the proper place to promote Bates is in an alt. newsgroup or
> perhaps misc.health.alternative. Not here.
>
> I've been around here long enough to know that every couple of years a
> new crop of Bates zealots shows up here for a while, usually just after
> the pin-hole glasses people leave. This current crop is taking longer
> than usual to go away.
TYhere's a significant problem here - the current crop are mostly
neither zealots nor charlatans, but the mix of different worlds creates
that impression. Actually for both sides it appears that the other side
is somewhat insane.
To be fair, Bates does attract a fair number of people looking for the
magic answer to life and you will get a degree of unperceptive delivery
which is in no way helpful. This sort of thing is what makes the method
produce a kind of cultic impression and people who are deeply like that
tend to be more vocal. But they can't discuss very well.
>
> Personally, I love to see you cultists get it together and fund a study
> to try to prove your point. It doesn't matter whether YOU think it
> works or even if a whole cult of users thinks it works. You've got to
> able to show cause and effect relationship.
Yes, and I totally agree. There's a reason that this has never been done
before. Back in the 1940s when Corbett was taken to court (twice) for
practicing medicine without a license one of the long term results was a
very effective damping down on all Bates teachers. Although she was
acquitted, Corbett herself was seriously alarmed and began to suppress
publicity around the method. As she was one of the most influential
teachers her subsequent advice to all Bates teachers to keep their heads
down was taken seriously.
By the time I trained in the 90s, this overall 'survival' approach had
created what I'd call a serious 'community rot' amongst Bates teachers
and vision educators in general.
Over the last couple of years I have become increasingly acutely aware
of just what happened and why it happened. Colleagues of mine would be
only too happy to discredit 'scientific method' and its representatives,
because it was considered a good way of justifying the contiunued lack
of well designed studies - not in a conscious way nor with malevolent
intent, but with an accepted 'this is how things are' approach.
Unfortunately, it is also bull**** and time it was rooted out and
exposed for what it is. Any optician who wants to try and expose this
lack will be shouting themselves hoarse for a long time. From a Bates
community point of view the orthodoxy is unable to speak much sense by
default, so this is part of the reason that it appears that there is
this constant butting of heads with no-one really grasping the essential
points which help things to move forward.
But I agree with you completely, there needs to be some really well
designed studies, and done with the co-operation of opticians,
optometrists and ophthalmologists. Results do not have to be as
spectacular as what Bates claimed - just an indication that progressive
myopia is slowed, or overall reduced in impact would be significant
enough don't you agree?
Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that
will, if promising, lead to a long term study about the effectiveness
(or not) of the method.
Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
behind something which is on inadequate foundations.
Kevin
Rishi Giovanni Gatti
> will, if promising, lead to a long term study about the effectiveness
> (or not) of the method.
>
> Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
> behind something which is on inadequate foundations.
>
> Kevin
Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!
Nice to see you here!!!
How are you doing with your myopic refraction? Do you still use
glasses?
Too bad that you are investing in a study about your "method", because
I know it will be failed and we will all suffer from this.
Maybe Corbett, the greatest charlatan of all, was right: keep your
head low, commanded her to you all! She knew she was not right and was
not able to REALLY cure people, so she chose to do very low profile
work, discrediting Bates himself (whom she never knew).
I think the only way to exit from these bad waters is show that cures
happen, and advocates of Bates should be cured before speaking or
teaching. What is the use to propose studies trying to show some
"improvement" (which in most cases is as faint as a ghost?) when the
proposer himself hasn't got much success?
If you need help to cure your high myopia permanently, I am available.
Kevin
g.g...@agora.it says...
> > Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that
> > will, if promising, lead to a long term study about the effectiveness
> > (or not) of the method.
> >
> > Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
> > behind something which is on inadequate foundations.
> >
> > Kevin
>
>
>
> Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!
>
> Nice to see you here!!!
I drop in and out occasionally.
> How are you doing with your myopic refraction? Do you still use
> glasses?
Doing very well thank you, no I haven't worn glasses once in over 15
years.
>
> Too bad that you are investing in a study about your "method", because
> I know it will be failed and we will all suffer from this.
Well fact is you know very little of what I teach.
>
> Maybe Corbett, the greatest charlatan of all, was right: keep your
> head low, commanded her to you all! She knew she was not right and was
> not able to REALLY cure people, so she chose to do very low profile
> work, discrediting Bates himself (whom she never knew).
>
> I think the only way to exit from these bad waters is show that cures
> happen, and advocates of Bates should be cured before speaking or
> teaching. What is the use to propose studies trying to show some
> "improvement" (which in most cases is as faint as a ghost?) when the
> proposer himself hasn't got much success?
>
>
> If you need help to cure your high myopia permanently, I am available.
Thanks.
What puzzles me Rishi is why you go to such lengths to cause dissension
and discord. There are many many people involved in the NVI movement and
the orthodox vision world in general. Some will be better at passing on
helpful advice than others, some will have a more clearly Batesian
approach than others. Some will not understand it all, some will
understand very little. Yet you will persist in alienating yourself from
them all. If you want to communicate with them in order to pass on your
'knowledge', why make sure that you've offended them all first?
But I guess the real point I want to make is that you seem to be totally
unable to communicate in any other way. Oh, unless you want something of
course in which event you can become very chummy.
So how many Bates teachers are now in the list of those who have told
you to go away?
Doesn't it bother you that you can't actually communicate with anyone
without being offensive?
Personally, I don't have any problems with dealing with Bates oriented
person vs. ophthalmologist, in a civil and organised manner, where
things get discussed and information is passed and shared. There's no
agenda to convince but a genuine desire to exchange. It works, and
things move forward.
But whether you like this or not, or think this is silly or not, or a
waste of time or not, the fact is that to those of orthodox inclination
you epitomize the image of the Bates cult member. Unable to communicate
without offense, unaware that this gets you nowhere and in fact provides
ammunition for the orthodoxy to dismiss the method outright.
I know you are annoyed at me because I put you on moderation on the
Bates yahoogroups list because you were unable to talk without being
rude or childish, but really going from writing to me and telling me
that you considered I was one of only two Bates teachers who could
really teach it (and asking me if I would train you) to this apparent
childish diatribe above, I mean, what a mess.
It's a shame, because your heart's in the right place, but your people
skills suck big time.
Kevin
LarryDoc
Kevin <seven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are still wrong and that stems from basic lack of understanding of
the physiology and neurology of the retina. I will be quite brief:
The peripheral retina photoreceptors do not care if the image is focused
or not. Their purpose is to "sense" form awareness and motion detection.
So, " stuff outside the clarity bubble" is not ignored.
You might want to research the neuro function of the retina, as there
are three separate systems there----the central fixation (focused image
expected), the certral visual field, paracentral extrafoveal visual
field and peripheral visual field.
--LB
--
Dr. Larry Bickford, O.D.
Family Practice Eye Health & Vision Care
The Eyecare Connection
http//www.eyecarecontacts.com
larrydoc at m a c.c o m
LarryDoc
Kevin <seven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
> behind something which is on inadequate foundations.
Very nicely said, Kevin.
Then I gather you'll be gone from this newsgroup until such time as you
have some data to report?
--LB
Kevin
larr...@nospam.yahoo.com says...
of the water.
But as problems arise I will possibly drop in to sound out solutions to
some logistical problems with implementing the study design. Other than
your own boorish responses there are some thoughtful members of the
orthodoxy posting here whom have been very helpful to me already.
Kevin
Rishi Giovanni Gatti
> >
> > Nice to see you here!!!
>
> I drop in and out occasionally.
>
You drop always out of the right time.
> > How are you doing with your myopic refraction? Do you still use
> > glasses?
>
> Doing very well thank you, no I haven't worn glasses once in over 15
> years.
And how do you cope with driving, with life in general? If it is true
that you can see only 20/50 you should be in a very dirty position.
You are not able to detect any sign of eyestrain or strain when you
work with your clients. How do you do that? Get closer?
Speak out the truth, because to lie is against your permanent cure,
remember well!!!
> > Too bad that you are investing in a study about your "method", because
> > I know it will be failed and we will all suffer from this.
>
> Well fact is you know very little of what I teach.
I know that you are ignorant about the truth, that's all.
You demonstrate that the Evaristo was right: you are a stupid man. I
once had faith in you and trusted you, but when you confessed that you
are blind and cannot go over 20/50 then I understood how fake you and
your friends at seeing.org are.
This is saddening, because it is unbelievable that after 15 years of
training you are still at 20/50.
The idiots professionals you find here are right.
Poor Doctor Bates must be suffering a lot in his grave seeing that his
work was so badly treated by people like you.
> What puzzles me Rishi is why you go to such lengths to cause dissension
> and discord. There are many many people involved in the NVI movement and
It's difficult for me to understand how you all can go on propounding
the Bates stuff and still be not cured!
The NVI movement is something very shallow.
Just today I handled the Reference book, Relearning To See. Well, it's
so terribly stuffed by wrong advice, that I am appalled: I put it back
in the shelf. What is the use of NVI? It's simply false.
> the orthodox vision world in general. Some will be better at passing on
> helpful advice than others, some will have a more clearly Batesian
> approach than others. Some will not understand it all, some will
> understand very little. Yet you will persist in alienating yourself from
> them all. If you want to communicate with them in order to pass on your
> 'knowledge', why make sure that you've offended them all first?
I am not interested in your false movement. Just I want to disseminate
to those who can listen that there is no need for your false and
misleading stuff. So my opinion is just one amongst the others. You
should not be worried.
> But I guess the real point I want to make is that you seem to be totally
> unable to communicate in any other way. Oh, unless you want something of
> course in which event you can become very chummy.
I'm interested in the truth.
Since you are not telling the truth, I have to tell it for you.
>
> So how many Bates teachers are now in the list of those who have told
> you to go away?
???
Perhaps you are mismatching me with some other men.
Please read back the posts and see that, in truth, the so-called Bates
Teachers are coming to me seeking help and counselling. I can quote
them as three now, from three different nationalities. Three persons
reached me because of my work as a publisher and as an expert in the
words of Bates. All of them had the training with Quackenbush (also
the teacher training) done in the past.
This is silly, I am angry about that, because if such people need to
talk to me, whom I am nobody, just entered this business few months
ago!... Then this means one only thing: the mainstream "teaching" in
the field is bullshit, really. You have robbed Bates of his very
work!!! THAT'S REALLY INFAMOUS.
Please, stop call yourself "Bates Teacher". Call yourself an NVI
teacher, it is more honest in the memory of Bates.
> Doesn't it bother you that you can't actually communicate with anyone
> without being offensive?
I do it, when I do it, out of compassion, because sometimes people is
really hard and dumb and if you do not beat them you could not obtain
nothing. But I understand: there are people which the more you hit
them the more become stubborn and stupid. But it is a risk one should
tale, but it is done out of compassion.
>
> Personally, I don't have any problems with dealing with Bates oriented
> person vs. ophthalmologist, in a civil and organised manner, where
> things get discussed and information is passed and shared. There's no
> agenda to convince but a genuine desire to exchange. It works, and
> things move forward.
You are talking nonsense.
"Bates oriented person" do not exist. You can tell only one thing:
people gets a permanent cure, or not. Permanently cured people have a
dignity, which you lack, and need not bother with ophthalmologists and
other criminals like those.
a "Bates oriented person" that cannot get a cure is just an idiot, he
only shows his ignorance, and should study better and learn better and
be quiet instead of speaking or teaching.
> But whether you like this or not, or think this is silly or not, or a
> waste of time or not, the fact is that to those of orthodox inclination
> you epitomize the image of the Bates cult member. Unable to communicate
> without offense, unaware that this gets you nowhere and in fact provides
> ammunition for the orthodoxy to dismiss the method outright.
Fuck them all, Mr. Wooding, I am not concerned with the
idiots-professionals. Just I am happy and aware that I can read more
than 25/25 (feet) in low light indoors, just tested myself today, and
still improving. I have no need for any acknowledgement (polite or
not) by those ugly people, people that prescribe glasses instead of
teaching rest methods, people that use lasers to cut corneas and
destroy happines forever, these people, I do not want to have anything
to do with!!!
I am a fair person: I believe those people you refer to are criminals
and tell lies upon lies to people. I act accordingly. I know what is
the truth of perfect sight. I know the professionals don't have a clue
about that, and so you. If you need to have something to do with these
professionals, that shows your ignorance. It's not personal to you (I
am not interested in anybody personally), but to people like you.
How can you explain to an idiot like the doctors we have here that
vision is largely mental and refraction has nothing to do with it?
What is the purpose of this? It's useless to work with these people.
It's unbelievable how you cannot understand this!!! There is no
question about that!!!
>
> I know you are annoyed at me because I put you on moderation on the
> Bates yahoogroups list because you were unable to talk without being
> rude or childish, but really going from writing to me and telling me
> that you considered I was one of only two Bates teachers who could
> really teach it (and asking me if I would train you) to this apparent
> childish diatribe above, I mean, what a mess.
>
Yes! I was not aware of your incompetence!!!
I know now that you are just an ignorant man as I was. Now I am no
more ignorant, I have understood how to cure myself, and did it. Now I
can offer my understanding to you, as I have done, but since you are
stupid, it seems, you are not interested in getting cured.
This is strange.
Why you do not want to be cured, to cure yourself, to go on with the
treatment and go over 20/10 (as my aim is, for now)???
By the way, your group is full of bullshit. It is not worthwhile, just
a waste of time reading it. Full of stupid things you teach in the
name of Bates, which Bates never even imagined. To let children play
with pile of books and have them scatter all around... What nonsense
is this? Playing with balls... Are you mad?
These are the things you teach: bring a dozen books, pile them up, and
have the child hit them and let them fall to the ground.
Compliments, keep on with the great works!!!
> It's a shame, because your heart's in the right place, but your people
> skills suck big time.
The shame is with the people like you: you call yourself "Bates
Teachers" but you know nothing about Bates, have no understanding, no
practical use of it, no intelligence to impart to clients.
The evidence of this is that you are now three years on the net and
nobody of your readers or writers has got any valuable progress, not
to mention cures.
If I am wrong, please tell. But I know I am not wrong, because I know
that the real Bates stuff needs intelligence, and I do not see much
intelligence around, unfortunately.
By the way: I have more than 400 clients of the Bates book, more than
150 listees in my professional Yahoo Group, and more than 40 people in
the non-professional, open yahoo group dedicated to the 1920 book.
By the way: I have just published the Emily 1926 book, both in English
and Italian, and the clients who have purchased it are enjoining it
very much, and some of them are cured now by reading only the two
books.
By the way: I don't care a bit of your opinions!!! What I only think
of is to let people know the truth of the very words of Bates/Lierman,
because I know that those words are the only things that work. But
this is just out of my compassion, not for other reasons, except a
little bit of cash I may earn from this very time consuming
businesses.
I hope you will get to 20/20 soon, but if you still stick to your
method, you won't reach.
Kevin
g.g...@agora.it says...
> > > Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!
> > >
> > > Nice to see you here!!!
> >
> > I drop in and out occasionally.
> >
>
> You drop always out of the right time.
>
>
> > > How are you doing with your myopic refraction? Do you still use
> > > glasses?
> >
> > Doing very well thank you, no I haven't worn glasses once in over 15
> > years.
>
> And how do you cope with driving, with life in general? If it is true
> that you can see only 20/50 you should be in a very dirty position.
> You are not able to detect any sign of eyestrain or strain when you
> work with your clients. How do you do that? Get closer?
>
> Speak out the truth, because to lie is against your permanent cure,
> remember well!!!
>
>
> > > Too bad that you are investing in a study about your "method", because
> > > I know it will be failed and we will all suffer from this.
> >
> > Well fact is you know very little of what I teach.
>
> I know that you are ignorant about the truth, that's all.
> You demonstrate that the Evaristo was right: you are a stupid man. I
> once had faith in you and trusted you, but when you confessed that you
> are blind and cannot go over 20/50 then I understood how fake you and
> your friends at seeing.org are.
>
> This is saddening, because it is unbelievable that after 15 years of
> training you are still at 20/50.
My goodness Rishi, your incomprehension is about the most complete I've
ever seen. I have better things to do than read your extraordinary
fabrications or whatever they are, just not understanding I suppose. Do
you have any awareness that you misquote and misread?
Suffice to say that your good friend Evaristo unsubscribed and called me
a stupid man when I asked him to help out another reader who wanted to
understand the swing and how to implement it. Why? who knows. It looked
significantly like turning yellow to me. The same went for another
subscriber of around that time - when i asked for some practical signs
that they could be of some use to the group instead of just whining and
complaining that 'no one else got it', and the response was again stony
silence.
No use at all Rishi. None.
It's great that you've found something that really fires you up. Long
may you promulgate it with enjoyment and of great benefit to others.
It saddens me that you simultaneously alienate yourself from many people
with no control over the habit.
You know, you may have the single most significant contributiion to make
to the whole of the Bates method movement, but instead of simply
bringing it to the table you deliver it like this:
'This is the real Bates and if you don't understand it or if you have
something else to offer you are stupid, a liar, a charlatan etc. and
there is no use in talking to you'.
This is two year old behaviour. Why so spoiled? Do you not know that no
man is an island unto himself? It is acceptable for someone of the age
of two to believe all information and the universe centres on him, but
it is not acceptable for someone who can string a couple of sentences
together. Would you not like to have many teachers sympathetic to your
words and happy to listen, learn, and discuss and share experiences?
Your approach is exactly what happened to the method in the last 70
years. "I have it and those people over there don't" The result was
fragmentation, and a disintegration of the much needed support for
pushing the method forward.
Right or wrong just tone it down, and break free of whatever
programming you're under and then you'll find a degree of progress that
is so much more than now.
Kevin
Rishi Giovanni Gatti
> ever seen. I have better things to do than read your extraordinary
> fabrications or whatever they are, just not understanding I suppose. Do
> you have any awareness that you misquote and misread?
Your vision is bad as is your memory.
You mismatch me with the Evaristo!
I was not moderated from your group, I simply left when I became aware
of your incompetence.
It was the Evaristo that was moderated. Check your loggings, you can
see it very well. Stop telling lies, otherwise I will continue to
expose you.
Then, what is the point of "moderation"?
People can subscribe with different names and mocker you more easily.
Either you moderate everybody (as I do in my Italian group, but it is
an editorial choice, not to put off people who are not according the
standards), or you moderate nobody. It is unfair to only moderate
those who are better than you and show more intelligence than you. You
are an unfair man.
>
> Suffice to say that your good friend Evaristo unsubscribed and called me
> a stupid man when I asked him to help out another reader who wanted to
> understand the swing and how to implement it. Why? who knows. It looked
> significantly like turning yellow to me. The same went for another
> subscriber of around that time - when i asked for some practical signs
> that they could be of some use to the group instead of just whining and
> complaining that 'no one else got it', and the response was again stony
> silence.
>
???
> No use at all Rishi. None.
>
> It's great that you've found something that really fires you up. Long
> may you promulgate it with enjoyment and of great benefit to others.
???
>
> It saddens me that you simultaneously alienate yourself from many people
> with no control over the habit.
???
>
> You know, you may have the single most significant contributiion to make
> to the whole of the Bates method movement, but instead of simply
> bringing it to the table you deliver it like this:
I do not see ANY BATES METHOD MOVEMENT!!!
There is none and there will never be none, because the Bates stuff is
mainly individual, is a single personal process, it is not a religion,
although you bad teachers are striving to transform it into one!!!
You are the same rotten minds as the professionals here. But you think
you are on the right side of the river, just as they are thinking
about themselves.
You are part of a rotten church as they are.
It's ugly to say this, but it is the truth!
You want to build something, but your fundations are rotten.
Why don't you cure yourself permanently?
Explain that.
>
> 'This is the real Bates and if you don't understand it or if you have
> something else to offer you are stupid, a liar, a charlatan etc. and
> there is no use in talking to you'.
That's true: the Bates publications are available. Who are you to cut,
distort and destroy his publications, robbing people of the true
genius of the man, and in his name, too!!! And you cannot get any cure
for yourself!!!
Don't you feel embarassed?
You and all your friends, high myopic and imperfected sighted people,
chose not to cure yourselves but to sell your false teachings to other
gullibles, and you advocate for yourself the truth about "The
Method"!!!
>
> This is two year old behaviour. Why so spoiled? Do you not know that no
> man is an island unto himself? It is acceptable for someone of the age
> of two to believe all information and the universe centres on him, but
> it is not acceptable for someone who can string a couple of sentences
> together. Would you not like to have many teachers sympathetic to your
> words and happy to listen, learn, and discuss and share experiences?
NO IF THE TEACHERS ARE NOT ABLE TO CURE THEMSELVES!!!
CURE YOURSELF AND I WILL RESPECT YOU!!!
OTHERWISE STOP TO SPOIL THE BATES NAME AND START SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
YOU ARE DESTROYING THE WHOLE WORK OF BATES AND LIERMAN.
>
> Your approach is exactly what happened to the method in the last 70
> years. "I have it and those people over there don't" The result was
> fragmentation, and a disintegration of the much needed support for
> pushing the method forward.
I just happened to cure myself, which you cannot do.
If what happened in the last 70 years was something like this, that
cures happened, there would have no need to disintegrate anything.
Instead, people started to call themselves experts and teachers, like
you do, WITHOUT HAVING ANY SUCCESS IN CURING THEMSELVES!!!
How cannot you see this, I am puzzled.
There is no "method" to bu pushed forward.
You have to push yourself to perfect your understanding and your
practice, become cured, and cure others.
But if you cannot cure yourself, if you cannot still maintain your
constant improvement, then what are you teaching? You are simply
teaching how to remain uncured.
It's clear and simple.
Maybe you need more time to realize this, take your time, I am not
bothered by you, just wanted to expose your unfairness and
charlatanery.
>
> Right or wrong just tone it down, and break free of whatever
> programming you're under and then you'll find a degree of progress that
> is so much more than now.
???
You'd better tone you up and start finally to practice the right
methods to get a cure.
It's a shame that you read only 20/50 and your vision fluctuates. And
you cannot drive, and you cannot see how people behave with their eyes
when you teach them.
Start to practice according to the truth and become cured.
I assure you that you can be back to 20/20 and more. Believe me. But
you have to drop the false things they taught you (myopic people
taught you to remain myopic), return to the Original Sources and
practice accordingly.
I suspect you fear the sun too much, you don't practice with strong
electrical lights and you don't practice with imagination of black in
the distance.
So, you have much to do for yourself. Then, and only then, your
"method" will spread and you won't be embarassed to face the ugly
professionals that threathen you.
Start the practice.
If you need help, I am available.