Re: Why oh why are Bates' findings ignored?
MS
methods of eye treatment over many years' clinical and experimental
work. Bates published his findings in scientific journals, magazines
and a book.
http://www.mediafire.com/?u5zmmmttmzx
http://www.mediafire.com/?2lyy1jznmv1
mirrors:
http://drop.io/0q3dtcj/asset/whbjournals-pdf
http://drop.io/0q3dtcj/asset/better-eyesight-pdf
Neil Brooks
> W. H. Bates (1860-1931) was an eye specialist who came up with new
> methods of eye treatment over many years' clinical and experimental
> work. Bates published his findings in scientific journals, magazines
> and a book.
Is there any evidence (which comports with the Scientific Method) that
anything Bates offered ... worked ANY better than placebo (ie, doing
nothing) ?
Thanks.
MS
Apart from what Bates published, no.
amdx
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90df95da-728f-4fb6...@j19g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
AHA!
MS
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Aha what?
Neil Brooks
"Aha ..." you know nothing about science and/or evidence.
Anybody can publish anything.
Controlled studies, double-blinded, using randomized sample sizes, and
-- ideally -- across many centers, are STILL subjected to "peer
review," before they are considered 'evidence.'
I'm glad you found your own personal Bible -- the Bates book. I'm
sure it's a nice story, and an interesting read.
Perhaps you'd feel more at home at faith.vision
http://groups.google.com/group/faithvision?hl=en&lnk=
Because ... what you preach here ... is anything BUT science.
MS
> On Sep 17, 8:29 am, MS <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 3:26 pm, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
>
> > > "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:90df95da-728f-4fb6...@j19g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Sep 17, 2:36 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 17, 6:35 am, MS <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > W. H. Bates (1860-1931) was an eye specialist who came up with new
> > > > > methods of eye treatment over many years' clinical and experimental
> > > > > work. Bates published his findings in scientific journals, magazines
> > > > > and a book.
>
> > > > Is there any evidence (which comports with the Scientific Method) that
> > > > anything Bates offered ... worked ANY better than placebo (ie, doing
> > > > nothing) ?
> > > >Apart from what Bates published, no.
>
> > > AHA!
>
> > Aha what?
>
> "Aha ..." you know nothing about science and/or evidence.
>
> Anybody can publish anything.
Really? In reputable journals?
Otis
Dear MS,
Why not start a REVIEW of this study.
http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevention-teachers.php
To date -- no one has?
They just say, "didn't work", or ROTFL.
In fact
1. an item-by-item review would be wise.
2. A judgment about HOW and WHY his study was SHUT DOWN.
3. Better participation of "neutral" people in the goal and concept
of the study.
4. Use of "older" individuals (not children) who can understand the
purpose and goal of their own study.
5. Careful study of what is now the second-opinion (use of a plus,
while the person still passes the DMV level test.)
6. Technical measuremnt by the person himself. (i.e., his refractive
STATE, which can be made with an accuracy of 1/4 diotper.)
7. Study to involve people who have the gretest need to change their
refractive STATE from -3/4 diopter to +1/4 diotpers.
But so far, everyone says PREVENTION IS ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE.
Prevention (not "cure") best,
Mike Tyner
> Why not start a REVIEW of this study.
OK, here's a review:
A Snellen test card was placed permanently where all the pupils could see it
from their seats. Daily the teachers recommended all the children to
silently read the card with each eye separately, covering the other eye with
the palm of the hand in such a way as to avoid pressure on the eyeball.
..over 1000 pupils with defective sight obtained normal vision in both eyes.
What else do you need to know?
MS
How did Bates repeatedly publish in journals?
Otis
Otis> In general, if you have a medical degree -- your papers get
published.
MS> How did Bates repeatedly publish in journals?
Otis> Because he was an ophthalmologist.
Neil Brooks
> But so far, everyone says PREVENTION IS ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE.
Liar.
You're a rank hypocrite, an absolute fucking idiot, and a pathological
liar.
How DO you live with yourself ?
MS
> Otis> In general, if you have a medical degree -- your papers get
> published.
>
> MS> How did Bates repeatedly publish in journals?
>
> Otis> Because he was an ophthalmologist.
So any ophthalmologist can publish anything they like in journals?
MS
> On Sep 17, 8:29 am, MS <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 3:26 pm, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
>
> > > "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:90df95da-728f-4fb6...@j19g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Sep 17, 2:36 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 17, 6:35 am, MS <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > W. H. Bates (1860-1931) was an eye specialist who came up with new
> > > > > methods of eye treatment over many years' clinical and experimental
> > > > > work. Bates published his findings in scientific journals, magazines
> > > > > and a book.
>
> > > > Is there any evidence (which comports with the Scientific Method) that
> > > > anything Bates offered ... worked ANY better than placebo (ie, doing
> > > > nothing) ?
> > > >Apart from what Bates published, no.
>
> > > AHA!
>
> > Aha what?
>
> "Aha ..." you know nothing about science and/or evidence.
>
> Anybody can publish anything.
>
> Controlled studies, double-blinded, using randomized sample sizes, and
> -- ideally -- across many centers, are STILL subjected to "peer
> review," before they are considered 'evidence.'
So unless controlled studies, double-blinded, using randomized sample
sizes across many centers which were peer reviewed were done, there's
no point bothering to investigate any of Bates' findings.
Is that your view?
Otis
Dear MS,
Subject: Medical Publications.
In general, if you are "medical", you can get your "interests"
published.
The idea is that the concept will be "evaluated" AFTER the concept is
published.
But very often -- it is just IGNORED.
Go figure.
Otis
Dear MS,
Yes, some people have a very "blind" concept of SCIENCE.
Actual SCIENTISTS (not medical people) have a profoundly DIFFERENT
perspective on PURE-SCIENCE (not medicine). See:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/scihist.html
To avoid conflict, I simply use the term "Engineering-SCIENCE" to
describe this perspective on pure-science.
This is to separate and DEFINE the difference between ANALTICAL
SCIENCE and "medical-science".
They are quite different.
Enjoy,
> Is that your view?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Otis
Dear MS,
This is the point-of-view of foul-mouthed Neil David Brooks.
It has NEVER been the vew of a SCIENTIST. I would agree that this is
an Engineering/SCIENTIFIC understanding. Medical People have their
own "point-of-view" -- which is almost never "open minded" -- at all.
Here is the discussion:
Subject: Does a General and Universal Scientific Method Exist?
The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research
scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the
appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many
precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of
school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson
(1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to
text but usually include,
a) define the problem,
b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis,
d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and
f) draw conclusions.
Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method
by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.
One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific
method may be the way in which results are presented for publication
in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that
scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to
the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the
scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely
outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.
Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown
that
no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs &
Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989).
The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems
certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover
that
scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific
method posted high above each laboratory workbench.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve
problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and
perseverance.
+++++++++++++++++++++
These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers.
The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other
human endeavors when puzzles are investigated.
Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since
many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of
discussions of methods of science.
******
Led me add EMPHISIS: Engineering-SCIENCE (never medicine) !!!
Mike Tyner
not require control groups, comparisons or replication of results.
Standards change. Your standards will change once you go to college.
-MT
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
> So any ophthalmologist can publish anything they like in journals?
Until they are forced to establish their own publishing company.
-MT
MS
> The "New York Medical Journal" was a weekly review of medical news.
You're saying "New York Medical Journal" didn't publish original
research?
Otis
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
> You're saying "New York Medical Journal" didn't publish original
> research?
No. I was actually impressed by some of the articles - radiation to treat
sarcoma for example.
But the NYMJ did not require controls, math or comparisons.
The NYMJ did not require a full description of "the method."
Evidently the NYMJ did not confirm that 1000 students were cured of
imperfect sight by reading a snellen card one-eyed.
It's obvious the NYMJ could not find anyone who could replicate such
miraculous results.
It's obvious the NYMJ stopped publishing Dr. Bates' reports about 1920.
There were people in 1920 who understood something about mathematical
efficacy but Bates was not one of them.
Bates then had to publish his own work.
"Reputable journals" were not willing to believe that thousands of students
were cured of myopia, astigmatism, strab and amblyopia by reading a card
one-eyed.
Again you asked this group "Why oh why is Bates ignored?"
You won't get a better answer:
His results were blatantly too good to be true.
His understanding of accommodation and myopia was proven wrong.
He does not describe his methods.
He does not categorize or diagnose. All problems get the same treatment.
He does not compare his treatments against each other or untreated controls.
His results cannot be replicated.
I'm also sure you won't accept my answer so each time you paste your
question on the newsgroup I'll just paste my response and we can keep going
round and round like that. How's that? It ain't like the group is useful
for anything else...
Or .. you could go read Hawking & Mlodinow!
-MT
Otis
Dear Majoirty-opinion Mike,
If you actually READ this 1913 study -- you will find that HE MADE NO
"CLAIMS".
http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevention-teachers.php
He described WHAT HE (AND THE CHILDREN) DID.
He MEASURED their Visual Acuity. (What you don't trust anyone??)
Yes, Mike, I know you don't like PREVENTION, but that does not make
your majority-opionion RIGHT -- now does it?
Scientific (but threshold only) prevention best,
On Sep 17, 8:59 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
Neil Brooks
> Dear Majoirty-opinion Mike,
Nice typing. Typical of idiot Otis.
You make excessive claims, too.
Constantly.
You make claims about plus lenses preventing myopia, when ...
obviously ... they DIDN'T keep your NIECE (Joy Benson) from becoming a
myope, with a restricted driver's license.
MS
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > You're saying "New York Medical Journal" didn't publish original
> > research?
>
> No. I was actually impressed by some of the articles - radiation to treat
> sarcoma for example.
So what do you mean when you say "The "New York Medical Journal" was a
weekly review of medical news"?
> But the NYMJ did not require controls, math or comparisons.
How many journals did, around the time Bates published?
> The NYMJ did not require a full description of "the method."
What's a "full description"?
> Evidently the NYMJ did not confirm that 1000 students were cured of
> imperfect sight by reading a snellen card one-eyed.
How do you know?
> It's obvious the NYMJ could not find anyone who could replicate such
> miraculous results.
How do you know?
> It's obvious the NYMJ stopped publishing Dr. Bates' reports about 1920.
How do you know?
> There were people in 1920 who understood something about mathematical
> efficacy
Who were they?
> Bates then had to publish his own work.
How do you know?
> "Reputable journals" were not willing to believe that thousands of students
> were cured of myopia, astigmatism, strab and amblyopia by reading a card
> one-eyed.
How do you know?
> Again you asked this group "Why oh why is Bates ignored?"
Why are revolutionary findings published in respected journals
ignored?
> You won't get a better answer:
Than what?
> His results were blatantly too good to be true.
How do you know?
> His understanding of accommodation and myopia was proven wrong.
Were his findings investigated?
> He does not describe his methods.
Yes, he does.
> He does not categorize or diagnose. All problems get the same treatment.
Why do you think that?
> He does not compare his treatments against each other or untreated controls.
Why would he?
> His results cannot be replicated.
How do you know?
Otis
Subject: Bates reported "Snellen Clearing" from 20/70 to normal
There was no "claims" that Bates could "CURE EVERYTHING"!!
He only published the visual acuities THAT WERE MEASURED OBJECTIVELY.
Just stick with the publishe facts of his 1913 study.
Technical Honesty Best -- or if that is not possible, just describe
effective (threshold preventoin) as the second-opinion.
Neil Brooks
> Subject: Bates reported "Snellen Clearing" from 20/70 to normal
Anecdotal, by definition.
You're an idiot, Otis.
Otis
Neil Brooks
You're SUCH an idiot.
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
>> But the NYMJ did not require controls, math or comparisons.
> How many journals did, around the time Bates published?
Not many. You believe everything you read?
>> The NYMJ did not require a full description of "the method."
>What's a "full description"?
What "exercises of distant vision" did the teachers perform? Was the
treatment TRULY nothing more than staring at a snellen card one eye at the
time?
>> Evidently the NYMJ did not confirm that 1000 students were cured of
>> imperfect sight by reading a snellen card one-eyed.
> How do you know?
Because I don't believe it happened. How do you know it happened?
>> It's obvious the NYMJ could not find anyone who could replicate such
>> miraculous results.
> How do you know?
Because anyone who duplicates a miracle doesn't keep it a secret.
>> It's obvious the NYMJ stopped publishing Dr. Bates' reports about 1920.
>How do you know?
Which one did I miss?
>> There were people in 1920 who understood something about mathematical
>> efficacy
> Who were they?
Irrelevant. Bates was not one of them.
>> Bates then had to publish his own work.
> How do you know?
Because nobody else published it.
>> "Reputable journals" were not willing to believe that thousands of
>> students
>> were cured of myopia, astigmatism, strab and amblyopia by reading a card
>> one-eyed.
> How do you know?
How do you know it happened?
>> Again you asked this group "Why oh why is Bates ignored?"
>Why are revolutionary findings published in respected journals
> ignored?
The findings are not revolutionary. They were misrepresented, overstated or
outright fraudulent.
>> His results were blatantly too good to be true.
>How do you know?
Because I've been to school. How do you know reading a card can cure
defective vision?
>> His understanding of accommodation and myopia was proven wrong.
> Were his findings investigated?
Yes. Ocular ultrasound is the quickest modern technique for proving him
wrong about accommodation.
>> He does not describe his methods.
> Yes, he does.
He describes reading a snellen card with one eye. I do that all the time. It
doesn't cure anybody. Why do you think it would?
>> He does not categorize or diagnose. All problems get the same treatment.
>Why do you think that?
Because I see no tabulation of myopia vs astigmatism, amblyopia or strab. Do
you?
>> He does not compare his treatments against each other or untreated
>> controls.
> Why would he?
To show his treatment is more effective than placebo. You should know that.
>> His results cannot be replicated.
> How do you know?
Why do you believe reading a snellen card cures defective vision?
-MT
MS
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> But the NYMJ did not require controls, math or comparisons.
> > How many journals did, around the time Bates published?
>
> Not many. You believe everything you read?
So with the ones that didn't, was everything they published invalid?
> >> The NYMJ did not require a full description of "the method."
> >What's a "full description"?
>
> What "exercises of distant vision" did the teachers perform?
What Bates described.
> Was the
> treatment TRULY nothing more than staring at a snellen card one eye at the
> time?
>
> >> Evidently the NYMJ did not confirm that 1000 students were cured of
> >> imperfect sight by reading a snellen card one-eyed.
> > How do you know?
>
> Because I don't believe it happened. How do you know it happened?
I don't.
> >> It's obvious the NYMJ could not find anyone who could replicate such
> >> miraculous results.
> > How do you know?
>
> Because anyone who duplicates a miracle doesn't keep it a secret.
Has it been tried?
> >> It's obvious the NYMJ stopped publishing Dr. Bates' reports about 1920.
> >How do you know?
>
> Which one did I miss?
How do you know Bates submitted more?
> >> There were people in 1920 who understood something about mathematical
> >> efficacy
> > Who were they?
>
> Irrelevant. Bates was not one of them.
>
> >> Bates then had to publish his own work.
> > How do you know?
>
> Because nobody else published it.
Why would they publish a report that wasn't submitted to them?
> >> "Reputable journals" were not willing to believe that thousands of
> >> students
> >> were cured of myopia, astigmatism, strab and amblyopia by reading a card
> >> one-eyed.
> > How do you know?
>
> How do you know it happened?
I don't.
> >> Again you asked this group "Why oh why is Bates ignored?"
> >Why are revolutionary findings published in respected journals
> > ignored?
>
> The findings are not revolutionary. They were misrepresented, overstated or
> outright fraudulent.
How do you know?
> >> His results were blatantly too good to be true.
> >How do you know?
>
> Because I've been to school. How do you know reading a card can cure
> defective vision?
I don't.
> >> His understanding of accommodation and myopia was proven wrong.
> > Were his findings investigated?
>
> Yes. Ocular ultrasound is the quickest modern technique for proving him
> wrong about accommodation.
That's it then. Bates is discredited. He's wrong about accommodation
so everything he said must be wrong.
> >> He does not describe his methods.
> > Yes, he does.
>
> He describes reading a snellen card with one eye. I do that all the time.
> It doesn't cure anybody.
He didn't say it would cure just anybody.
> Why do you think it would?
Didn't say I do.
> >> He does not categorize or diagnose. All problems get the same treatment.
> >Why do you think that?
>
> Because I see no tabulation of myopia vs astigmatism, amblyopia or strab. Do
> you?
No. What makes you think he didn't diagnose? What makes you think
all problems were given the same treatment?
> >> He does not compare his treatments against each other or untreated
> >> controls.
> > Why would he?
>
> To show his treatment is more effective than placebo.
So a controlled group comparison is the only way to show that that's
considered valid? Every other way is invalid?
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Not many. You believe everything you read?
>So with the ones that didn't, was everything they published invalid?
Some of the things Bates published were valid. Some were not.
>> What "exercises of distant vision" did the teachers perform?
>What Bates described.
Please cite the description in his 1913 paper. I couldn't find it.
> How do you know Bates submitted more?
Irrelevant.
>> How do you know it happened?
> I don't.
I don't either.
>> Because I've been to school. How do you know reading a card can cure
>> defective vision?
> I don't.
I don't either.
> Yes. Ocular ultrasound is the quickest modern technique for proving him
> wrong about accommodation.
>>That's it then. Bates is discredited. He's wrong about accommodation
>> so everything he said must be wrong.
Nobody since Jesus has been able to cure people like that.
> He describes reading a snellen card with one eye. I do that all the time.
> It doesn't cure anybody.
>> He didn't say it would cure just anybody.
Not in 1913.
>> Why do you think it would?
>No. What makes you think he didn't diagnose? What makes you think
>all problems were given the same treatment?
How many different treatments does he describe in 1913?
>> To show his treatment is more effective than placebo.
>So a controlled group comparison is the only way to show that that's
>considered valid? Every other way is invalid?
Only in real life. In your imagination, not so much.
-MT
MS
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Not many. You believe everything you read?
> >So with the ones that didn't, was everything they published invalid?
>
> Some of the things Bates published were valid. Some were not.
Which things weren't valid and how do you know they weren't?
> >> What "exercises of distant vision" did the teachers perform?
> >What Bates described.
>
> Please cite the description in his 1913 paper. I couldn't find it.
[...]
A Snellen test card was placed permanently where all the pupils could
see it from their seats. Daily the teachers recommended all the
children to silently read the card with each eye separately, covering
the other eye with the palm of the hand in such a way as to avoid
pressure on the eyeball.
> > How do you know Bates submitted more?
>
> Irrelevant.
Why would a journal publish something unless it were submitted to
them?
> >> How do you know it happened?
> > I don't.
>
> I don't either.
>
> >> Because I've been to school. How do you know reading a card can cure
> >> defective vision?
> > I don't.
>
> I don't either.
>
> > Yes. Ocular ultrasound is the quickest modern technique for proving him
> > wrong about accommodation.
> >>That's it then. Bates is discredited. He's wrong about accommodation
> >> so everything he said must be wrong.
>
> Nobody since Jesus has been able to cure people like that.
>
> > He describes reading a snellen card with one eye. I do that all the time.
> > It doesn't cure anybody.
> >> He didn't say it would cure just anybody.
>
> Not in 1913.
He never did.
> >> Why do you think it would?
> >No. What makes you think he didn't diagnose? What makes you think
> >all problems were given the same treatment?
>
> How many different treatments does he describe in 1913?
>
> >> To show his treatment is more effective than placebo.
> >So a controlled group comparison is the only way to show that that's
> >considered valid? Every other way is invalid?
>
> Only in real life. In your imagination, not so much.
How can Bates' claims be accounted for by a placebo effect?
MS
He describes a method to prevent defective vision.
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Some of the things Bates published were valid. Some were not.
>Which things weren't valid and how do you know they weren't?
Bates was the only one who claimed to cure a thousand children in just a few
months.
Suprarenal extract still constricts blood vessels. Reading a card still
doesn't cure astigmatism.
>A Snellen test card was placed permanently where all the pupils could
>see it from their seats. Daily the teachers recommended all the
>children to silently read the card with each eye separately, covering
>the other eye with the palm of the hand in such a way as to avoid
>pressure on the eyeball.
I saw that part. I didn't see anything describing "exercises."
> Why would a journal publish something unless it were submitted to
> them?
Why would you care, if nobody but Bates can make it work?
>> How many different treatments does he describe in 1913?
(no answer.)
>> Only in real life. In your imagination, not so much.
> How can Bates' claims be accounted for by a placebo effect?
Why do we care?
Reading a card with one eye covered either cures defective sight, or it
doesn't.
What evidence leads you to believe it does?
>> How many different treatments does he describe in 1913?
> He describes a method to prevent defective vision.
He reports 1000 kids were "cured" by READING A CARD.
If you really care about vision problems you'll read something more recent
than 1920.
------
Scientists at Duke University Medical Center, in conjunction with several
other groups, have uncovered a gene associated with myopia in Caucasian
people from several different regions, including Dutch, British and
Australian subjects.
Their work was published in Nature Genetics online on Sunday, Sept. 12.
---------
Sixty-two children were treated with atropine in one eye for one year; the
fellow eye was the control. The eyes were switched the second year.
Twenty-eight patients were treated for four years on the same basis. Control
eyes showed significant increases in myopia compared to treated eyes. Some
treated eyes showed decreases in myopia; no decreases were seen in control
eyes. Posttreatment data analysis indicates the effects are long-term.
Otis
Subject: These results are good -- since the majority-opinion states
with absolute certainty that PREVENTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.
++++++
THE METHOD.
A Snellen test card was placed permanently where all the pupils could
see it from their seats. Daily the teachers recommended all the
children to silently read the card with each eye separately, covering
the other eye with the palm of the hand in such a way as to avoid
pressure on the eyeball.
Records were made with the same card or with an unfamiliar card for
testing the vision. This matter is discussed below. Each line of the
Snellen card is designated by a number which indicates the feet that
the line should be read by the normal eye. Records of the vision are
written in the form of a fraction: The numerator of the fraction
represents the distance in feet of the pupil from the card while the
denominator denotes the number which designates the lowest line read.
Records were usually submitted as follows:
Public School No. 46, W. A. Boylan, principal.
E. 6A., J. Hiesel. T., 27
D., 27
I., 27
N., 25
W., 0
February, 1913. April, 1913. June, 1913.
R. L. R. L. R. L.
John D. ...... 20/100 20/50
20/50 20/40
20/20 20/20
Sanford G. ...
20/50 20/70
20/30 20/40
20/15 20/20
Have a geat day,
Otis
On Sep 18, 7:13 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
Neil Brooks
> Subject: These results are good -- since the majority-opinion states
> with absolute certainty that PREVENTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.
You're a pathological liar, a rank hypocrite, and an absolute fucking
idiot, Otis.
Seriously.
Dr Judy
> Dear MS,
>
> Why not start a REVIEW of this study.
>
> http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevent
Your memory is failing Otis. Just this summer you asked my opinion of
that study and here is my reply.
In the study you referenced, teachers in various NY city public
schools measured the unaided visual acuity of students on two
occasions with a separation of three to eight months between meausures
in the years 1912 to 1913. During the time between measures, the
students looked at a Snellen chart posted
on the school wall at least once a day. Some teachers also did eye
exercises in distance vision using the Snellen chart. The nature of
the exercises is not
described.
Just under 60% of students were found to have "defective sight" in at
least one eye at the first test. "Defective sight" is not specified,
one could assume it means visual acuity less then 20/20. The cause of
the reduced unaided acuity in individual students was not determined.
It is unknown whether the reduction
was due to refractive error, strabismus, amblyopia or disease.
At the time of the study, immigration from rural Europe was very high
in NY. The literacy level and English language ability of the students
at the time of
testing is also unknown.
Of the students with defective sight on first testing, about 60% had
improved sight at the second testing. Of those who improved, about 50%
improved to "normal" sight.
About 6% of the students had worse vision at the second testing, this
is 6% of the total tested, both normal and defective, on first test.
What percentage of
normals become defective and what percentage of defectives become
worse is not specified.
What conclusions can be drawn from this study.
1) Compared to today, children in NY schools in 1913 had very high
levels of "defective vision" (reduced uncorrected visual acuity). I
looked at several
recent studies of uncorrected VA in populations of caucasian school
children. Rates of reduced VA today are about 5% to 10%. Bates found
60% "defective" at first measure, 40% "defective" at second measure.
Even after the improvement of VA scores with use of an in classroom
Snellen Chart, NYC school children
in 1913 had a prevalance rate of "defective" vision that is 4 to 8
times higher than the rate today.
One wonders whether disease was higher in 1913. There are a number of
diseases that can cause serious eye damage in babies if their mothers
are infected during the first trimester of pregnancy. Sexually
transmitted diseases can also cause serious eye disease if babies are
infected in the birth canal. These
diseases are controlled today by vaccination, testing and treatment of
pregnant women and prophalytic eye drops for new borns. Bates study
may well provide evidence for the effectiveness of modern measures to
prevent neo natal eye disease.
2) Children can improve performance at reading a Snellen chart
through practice.
Bates concludes from this study that myopia was prevented. The study
design and results do not support that conclusion. Myopia was not
measured, so the
percentage of children with myopia prior to and after use of the
Snellen Chart is unknown. Even had myopia been measured, the study had
no control group of
children who had acuity measured twice without use of a Snellen Chart
in the classroom. Without such a control group and without measuring
myopia, it is
impossible to know whether any myopia was prevented by use of a
Snellen card in a classroom.
Judy
MS
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Some of the things Bates published were valid. Some were not.
> >Which things weren't valid and how do you know they weren't?
>
> Bates was the only one who claimed to cure a thousand children in just a few
> months.
And?
> Suprarenal extract still constricts blood vessels. Reading a card still
> doesn't cure astigmatism.
>
> >A Snellen test card was placed permanently where all the pupils could
> >see it from their seats. Daily the teachers recommended all the
> >children to silently read the card with each eye separately, covering
> >the other eye with the palm of the hand in such a way as to avoid
> >pressure on the eyeball.
>
> I saw that part. I didn't see anything describing "exercises."
That's it.
> > Why would a journal publish something unless it were submitted to
> > them?
>
> Why would you care, if nobody but Bates can make it work?
I'd care because I'd want to know how Bates made it work.
> >> How many different treatments does he describe in 1913?
>
> (no answer.)
>
> >> Only in real life. In your imagination, not so much.
> > How can Bates' claims be accounted for by a placebo effect?
>
> Why do we care?
>
> Reading a card with one eye covered either cures defective sight, or it
> doesn't.
Either-or fallacy.
> What evidence leads you to believe it does?
Didn't say I do.
> >> How many different treatments does he describe in 1913?
> > He describes a method to prevent defective vision.
>
> He reports 1000 kids were "cured" by READING A CARD.
So what?
> If you really care about vision problems you'll read something more recent
> than 1920.
Appeal to novelty.
Otis
Mike> Why do we care?
Otis> He should say -- "I don't care" -- ergo why should you, MS?
Mike> If you really care about vision problems you'll read something
more recent than 1920.
Otis> Be explicit. Say PREVENTION, and study the effect of nose-on-
page Eskimos, versus their grand-parents who had postive refractive
STATES.
Otis> Understand how IMPRESSIVE the minus lens it, and the politics
of "selling" a minus lens in an office.
Otis> Review the primate data, and the proven effect of a -3 diopter
lens on the refractive STATE of the NATURAL EYE -- as Engineering
SCIENCE (never medicine).
Otis> Be prepared to start PREVENTION under YOUR control, because
Mike will never "care". Understand the consequence of that issue for
your long-term visoin.
Otis> Don't think exclusively in terms of Bates. There are many
(second-opinion) ODs and MDs who have recognized "elememts' of the
problem, and have, with great force-of-character, INSISTED THAT THERE
OWN CHILDREN WEAR A PLUS -- EXCLUSIVELY FOR PREVENTION.
Otis> Understand that the "attitude" of the "general public" is
hostile to prevention. (The posts by some bone-heads proves that
point -- again, and again, and again -- to "infinity".
Otis> You can not "help" a person -- until the person has the resolve
to "help himself".
Enjoy,
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bates was the only one who claimed to cure a thousand children in just a
>> few
>> months.
>And?
And it's naive to believe him.
>> I saw that part. I didn't see anything describing "exercises."
>That's it.
Reading a card does not cure defective vision. Lots of people read.
>> Why would you care, if nobody but Bates can make it work?
>I'd care because I'd want to know how Bates made it work.
First you have to believe he really made it work.
>> Reading a card with one eye covered either cures defective sight, or it
>> doesn't.
> Either-or fallacy.
Mathematical efficacy.
>> What evidence leads you to believe it does?
>Didn't say I do.
No, you said we should.
>> He reports 1000 kids were "cured" by READING A CARD.
>So what?
So you don't know it happened.
>> If you really care about vision problems you'll read something more
>> recent
>> than 1920.
> Appeal to novelty.
Yes, 90-year-old magic is more reliable.
MS
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Bates was the only one who claimed to cure a thousand children in just a
> >> few
> >> months.
> >And?
>
> And it's naive to believe him.
It's wrong to ignore him.
> >> I saw that part. I didn't see anything describing "exercises."
> >That's it.
>
> Reading a card does not cure defective vision.
He didn't claim it does.
> Lots of people read.
>
> >> Why would you care, if nobody but Bates can make it work?
> >I'd care because I'd want to know how Bates made it work.
>
> First you have to believe he really made it work.
>
> >> Reading a card with one eye covered either cures defective sight, or it
> >> doesn't.
> > Either-or fallacy.
>
> Mathematical efficacy.
>
> >> What evidence leads you to believe it does?
> >Didn't say I do.
>
> No, you said we should.
Where?
> >> He reports 1000 kids were "cured" by READING A CARD.
> >So what?
>
> So you don't know it happened.
Didn't say I do.
> >> If you really care about vision problems you'll read something more
> >> recent
> >> than 1920.
> > Appeal to novelty.
>
> Yes, 90-year-old magic is more reliable.
Yes, anything published in the 21st century is superior to anything
published in the 20th century.
Otis
Second-opinion on threshold-prevention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuC7a1lkrk
Supported by prevention-minded optometrists and ophthalmologists.
> published in the 20th century.- Hide quoted text -
Neil Brooks
A liar, a hypocrite, and an idiot.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Otis
Otis
Yes, Bates, in having the COURAGE to conduct the world's FIRST
PREVENTIVE EFFORT -- made some good points.
On Sep 19, 11:35 am, Otis <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Neil Brooks
Otis
Otis
Rome was not built in a day.