 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2006W.H. Bates
Just having a nice trip up to my sisters house. I was discussing my vision problems, ie, the blurry vision I had, and eye alignment issues that were evident on the worth four dot test, that "red line and white dot" test (maddox?), and the mallet near fixation disparity test. She gave me a pair of pin hole glasses (lots of holes on black plastic), and suggested I look around to find a point that things were clear. Things just appeared blurry to me. But I did notice a doubling up of vision, only by a little amount. Then she went out and bought back a W.H. Bates book. I immediately shouted "Quack, Quack" and ran away! Then she insisted on telling me that Bates was right, palming is effective, and you notice how you still see light after you close your eyes? Thats because your eyes aren't rested, and like everything your eyes need to rest. cya Simon > Then she went out and bought back a W.H. Bates book. I immediately > shouted "Quack, Quack" and ran away! Then she insisted on telling me [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cya > Simon You're first instinct was right. Ask her how she cope with being colour bling when looking through plain glass? Ask her why after pushing the palm into your eye, it goes back to blurry again? Ask her why light passes through the lid to stimulate the retina. Finally, ask her to throw away her glasses for godd and go for a drive. dr grant > You're first instinct was right. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > dr grant Thing is though, my sister doesn't actually wear glasses. She doesn't need them! So no glasses to throw away. But I think she has this book more for her children and her husband. Cya Simon >Then she went out and bought back a W.H. Bates book. I immediately >shouted "Quack, Quack" and ran away! Then she insisted on telling me >that Bates was right, palming is effective, and you notice how you still >see light after you close your eyes? Thats because your eyes aren't >rested, and like everything your eyes need to rest. Yes, it's quite common for people who need glasses to see illusions when they close their eyes, like blobs of light or a "TV static" look, changing and moving around. It has nothing to do with any real light, as evidenced by how people see it (imagine it) in pitch dark rooms with their eyes covered. I mentioned a few things about Bates to a cousin, who didn't believe a word of it and even got angry at the idea, but had to tell me a few months later when she had acupuncture and noticed right afterwards that the static look when she closed her eyes right after the session had gone away. Basically it's just a symptom of a mind at rest. Objectively you can't validate it, but people improving their vision with the Bates method mention all the time how the blackness when they close their eyes becomes so much more black and deep and undisturbed, either with vision improvement over time or immediately when successfully resting their eyes temporarily. These types of things are becoming more accepted all the time, although that isn't reflected well on sci.med.vision. Dave --- http://store.iblindness.org http://www.iblindness.org > These types of things are becoming more accepted all the time, > although that isn't reflected well on sci.med.vision. Might have something to do with the SCI part of sci.med.vision. Sometimes SCIENCE gets in the way of quackery, eh? There are plenty of discussion groups and UseNet "alt" groups where you can find people who espouse, fabricate, report anecdotal "evidence" or otherwise pretend to believe things that can not be proved. Sorry, Dave, here, we need to follow the rules of science and medical science relating to vision and eye health specifically. Zealots believing in the unproven and disproved are not welcome. LB, O.D. > Yes, it's quite common for people who need glasses to see illusions > when they close their eyes, like blobs of light or a "TV static" look, > changing and moving around. It has nothing to do with any real light, > as evidenced by how people see it (imagine it) in pitch dark rooms > with their eyes covered. Therefore, train your mind not see illusions and you won't need glasses? How absurd. > I mentioned a few things about Bates to a cousin, who didn't believe a > word of it and even got angry at the idea, but had to tell me a few [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > either with vision improvement over time or immediately when > successfully resting their eyes temporarily. I experienced this also with hypnosis. > These types of things are becoming more accepted all the time, > although that isn't reflected well on sci.med.vision. Accepted? Accepted by whom? That's one of the great things about free societies. Some people make real scientific contributions so that others can have the freedom to fritter away their time engaged in trivial pursuits and various self-improvement schemes. DrG Dear Dave, Subject: Bate's "objection" to the grinding minus-lens "tradition". At least Dr. W. H. Bates had the guts to "object" to the traditional quick-fix -- and spell out the consequences for the person if he wears an over-prescribed miinus -- all the time. Bates was correct when he stated that if a person with 20/70 vision begins wearing a full-strength minus, in a very short time his refraction will go even more minus, and his visual acuity will go down to about 20/200. Take this statement -- and test the fundamental primate eye -- any you will verify that Dr. Bates is correct in this statement. The only real issue is for the preson to CLEAR that 20/70 to 20/40 or better (pass the DMV) -- under his control. If he does this "correctly" by ANY PREVENTIVE METHOD -- then that is the right solution for him. Keep up the excellent work. Best, Otis +++++++++++++++++++= > On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:32:49 +0100, Simon Dean > <sjdean@simtext.plus.com> wrote: > >Then she went out and bought back a W.H. Bates book. I immediately > >shouted "Quack, Quack" and ran away! Then she insisted on telling me [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > http://store.iblindness.org > http://www.iblindness.org >Dear Dave, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >quick-fix -- and spell out the consequences for the >person if he wears an over-prescribed miinus -- all the time. Guts ain't worth $hit. Evidence or proof is a start. You have neither. >Bates was correct when he stated that if a person >with 20/70 vision begins wearing a full-strength minus, in >a very short time his refraction will go even more minus, >and his visual acuity will go down to about 20/200. Oh, well then ... that settles it. If YOU SAY it happens, then what's the point of looking at randomised, controlled testing?? >Take this statement -- and test the fundamental primate >eye -- any you will verify that Dr. Bates is correct >in this statement. Gee, Uncle Otie ... what about answering these questions: 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? Come on, Otis: you can't PROVE you aren't an idiot, but at least offer a little EVIDENCE that you might not be. Answer the questions. > At least Dr. W. H. Bates had the guts to "object" to the traditional > quick-fix -- and spell out the consequences for the > person if he wears an over-prescribed miinus -- all the time. For which, as we know, he designed careful controlled comparisons between groups wearing glasses and not wearing. No? > Bates was correct when he stated that if a person > with 20/70 vision begins wearing a full-strength minus, in > a very short time his refraction will go even more minus, > and his visual acuity will go down to about 20/200. Making it obvious you don't know what happens in the real world. > Take this statement -- and test the fundamental primate > eye -- any you will verify that Dr. Bates is correct > in this statement. I'm sorry, I cannot verify that Dr. Bates is correct. I guess I just don't have enough experience examining eyes. > The only real issue is for the preson to CLEAR that > 20/70 to 20/40 or better (pass the DMV) -- under his > control. Please tell us how you do that. We're interested in your treatment. > If he does this "correctly" by ANY PREVENTIVE METHOD -- then > that is the right solution for him. Please tell us which preventive methods have been shown to work as well as pirenzipine. -MT >> The only real issue is for the preson to CLEAR that >> 20/70 to 20/40 or better (pass the DMV) -- under his >> control. > > Please tell us how you do that. We're interested in your > treatment. For the small price of $24.99 (to cover shipping and handling) all will be revealed. -Quick . > Bates was correct when he stated that if a person > with 20/70 vision begins wearing a full-strength minus, in > a very short time his refraction will go even more minus, > and his visual acuity will go down to about 20/200. Can you cite an peer reviewed, published report confirming Bates' assertion? I can certainly find many patients in my practice with unaided 20/70 who have been wearing full minus for years and did not progress to worse. > Take this statement -- and test the fundamental primate > eye -- any you will verify that Dr. Bates is correct [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 20/70 to 20/40 or better (pass the DMV) -- under his > control. Can you cite a controlled study that found an effective way to improve unaided acuity? Dr Judy Dear Dave, Here Bates confirms the proven effect of a strong minus on the eye's refractive state. You put a -3 diopter lens on the fundamental eye -- and DOWN IT GOES -- sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. But most people prefer to shoot themselves in the foot -- rather than to evaluate Dr. W. Bates accurate statement about the natural eye's proven behavior. Best, Otis +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Cure of Imperfect Sight by Treatment Without Glasses By W. H. BATES, M.D. CENTRAL FIXATION PUBLISHING CO. NEW YORK CITY Copyright, 1920 By W. H. BATES, M.D. PRESS OF THOS. B. BROOKS, INC. NEW YORK On a tomb in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Florence was found an inscription which read: "Here lies Salvino degli Armati, Inventor of Spectacles. May God pardon him his sins." Nuova Enciclopedia Italiana, Sixth Edition. TO THE MEMORY OF THE PIONEERS OF OPHTHALMOLOGY THIS BOOK IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED PREFACE This book aims to be a collection of facts and not of theories, and insofar as it is, I do not fear successful contradiction. When explanations have been offered it has been done with considerable trepidation, because I have never been able to formulate a theory that would withstand the test of the facts either in my possession at the time, or accumulated later. The same is true of the theories of every other man, for a theory is only a guess, and you cannot guess or imagine the truth. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subject: Bates's statement about a strong minus lens used on 20/70 vision, and the resulting 20/200 vision created by that minus lens -- worn all the time. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ After people once begin to wear glasses their strength, in most cases, has to be steadily increased in order to maintain the degree of visual acuity secured by the aid of the first pair. A person with myopia of 20/70 who puts on glasses giving him a vision of 20/20 may find that in a week's time his unaided vision has declined to 20/200 -- and we have the testimony of Dr. Sidler-Huguenin, of Zurich, 1 that of the thousands of myopes treated by him the majority grew steadily worse, in spite of all the skill he could apply to the fitting of glasses for them. When people break their glasses and go without them for a week or two, they frequently observe that their sight has improved. 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. That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which no one would attempt to deny. Every oculist knows that patients have to "get used" to them, and that sometimes they never succeed in doing so. Patients with high degrees of myopia and hypermetropia have great difficulty in accustoming themselves to the full correction, and often are never able to do so. 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. 1 Archiv. f. Augenh., vol. lxxix, 1915, translated in Arch. Ophth., vol. xlv, No. 6, 1916. +++++++++++++++++++++ > >Then she went out and bought back a W.H. Bates book. I immediately > >shouted "Quack, Quack" and ran away! Then she insisted on telling me [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > http://store.iblindness.org > http://www.iblindness.org >Dear Dave, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You put a -3 diopter lens on the fundamental eye -- and >DOWN IT GOES -- sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. You mean MONKEY eyes?? Perhaps you could answer these questions for me, then: 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? Thank you. Dear Brooks, Subject: The primate eye's response to a positive lens. When you place a strong plus lens on a primate eye -- the refractive STATE slowly moves in a "plus" direction. Or if you put a "plus" on a kid with a refractive state of +2 diopters (a PRESCRIVED +2 diopters) the expected rersult will be that his refractive STATE will move "positve" by about 1 diopter in 12 months. This is what happened in the primate studies. Now, what woud happen if we put a kid named Brooks in a strong plus (at a young age) -- and had his refractive STATE move positive to +3 diotpers in a year. Why, than means that the NEW prescreiption must NOW be +3 diopters. And in another year, with is refractive state of +3 diopters -- then an even STRONGER plus must be applied to Brooks. Of coures this ALWAYS happens in the primate studies. And is duplicated with Brooks slow movement to +6 diopters. And then Brooks insists -- "but this does not happen in the human-primate eye"!!!! Wow! Otis > >Dear Dave, > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Thank you. > This is what happened in the primate studies. Meaning it's an irrelevant lie if humans don't respond the same. Why wouldn't they? Because different species of monkey respond differently and they ALL reach an age where plasticity stops. (You don't know what I'm talking about, but others might.) > Now, what woud happen if we put a kid named Brooks > in a strong plus (at a young age) -- and had his > refractive STATE move positive to +3 diotpers in a > year. How young would he have to be? You don't know. > Why, than means that the NEW prescreiption > must NOW be +3 diopters. In your fantasy world. > Of coures this ALWAYS happens in the primate studies. Another outright lie. All species do not behave the same, and all species reach an age where it does NOT happen. -MT > Of coures this ALWAYS happens in the primate studies. Is this a lie of a fool or a lie of an idiot ? Does it matter? Off your meds, Otis? Three and a half years of posting the same crap. Same amount of time that we've been asking for proof, scientific proof of your antiquated albeit disproved theories. Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. You just keep getting older and more senile. Kindly go back into hiding. But watch out for the boogy man. > You put a -3 diopter lens on the fundamental eye -- and > DOWN IT GOES -- sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. This is simply a lie. -MT Dear Mike, Are you prepared to test your thesis -- that the natural eye is NOT A DYNAMIC SYSTEM? i.e., by taking a population of primate eyes -- and placing a -3 diopter lens on them??? According to your "theory", the natural eye, not being a sophistcated system MUST NOT CHANGE ITS REFRACTIVE STATE UNDER DIRECT SCIENTIFIC TEST. In other words, according to your theory, the refractive states of the test group will be IDENTICAL to the refractive state of the -3 diopter goup of primates. Or, the -3 diopter group will not CHANBE by -2 diotpers (or more) in 12 months. Have I stated your SCIENTIFIC thesis correctly? Or do you wish to qualify it is some manner? Best, Otis +++++++++++++ > > You put a -3 diopter lens on the fundamental eye -- and > > DOWN IT GOES -- sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. > > This is simply a lie. > > -MT > Are you prepared to test your thesis -- that the > natural eye is NOT A DYNAMIC SYSTEM? I don't know from dynamic systems. I know that human myopes progress at the same rate whether they wear glasses or not. Are YOU prepared to test your thesis on adult humans? > i.e., by taking a population of primate eyes -- > and placing a -3 diopter lens on them??? We don't place -3 lenses on normal eyes. We HAVE tested -3 lenses on -3 eyes, and found it doesn't make a difference. > According to your "theory", the natural eye, not > being a sophistcated system You can practice based on theory. I can't, because real people have to live with my results. > In other words, according to your theory, I don't have a theory. I look at the studies where humans were tested. You don't. > Have I stated your SCIENTIFIC thesis > correctly? My answer will make no difference whatsoever. When you decide what I believe, let me know. -MT >Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Otis Dear Idiot Otis: If you really WERE ever an engineer (did you design the space shuttle Columbia??), then you would recognize the validity of, and answer, these questions concerning your little hypothesis: 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? You do not, however, because you are a demented, senile, pathologically dishonest, impotent, old coot. > >Dear Mike, > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > You do not, however, because you are a demented, senile, > pathologically dishonest, impotent, old coot. Otis said you wearing plus glasses at an early age caused you to become hypermetropic because this prevented emmetropization and therefore your eye stayed too short. The plus lens can be evil too if taken too far then instead of preventing myopia you become hypermetropic! > Otis said you wearing plus glasses at an early age caused you to become > hypermetropic because this prevented emmetropization and therefore your > eye stayed too short. The plus lens can be evil too if taken too far > then instead of preventing myopia you become hypermetropic! Well if Otis said it, it MUST be true. And after all, being FIRST is more important than being HELPFUL. Being RIGHT shouldn't matter either, should it? -MT Dear Ace, Subject: Confirmation with the primate eye. I prefer to talk about what is actually measured (i.e., refractive STATE). When you take the primate eye, and put a +3 diopter lens on it, then the refractive STATE will move in a positive direction. Or, placing a +3 diopter lens on a population of young primates will result in the +3 group changine by about +2 diopters in 12 months. The M.O. insist that this NEVER HAPPENS. The S.O. agrees, based on this scientific test -- that this always happens. Best, Otis +++++++++++++++= > > >Dear Mike, > > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > eye stayed too short. The plus lens can be evil too if taken too far > then instead of preventing myopia you become hypermetropic! >Dear Ace, > >Subject: Confirmation with the primate eye. > >I prefer to talk about what is actually measured (i.e., refractive >STATE). And we prefer to talk about humans. Human data contradicts your data. Also, would you PLEASE ANSWER these questions: 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? If you WON'T answer them, don't worry. I'm pretty sure that nobody notices you evading them..... > Or, placing a +3 diopter lens on a population of young primates > will result in the +3 group changine by about +2 diopters > in 12 months. Does it happen in +3 humans? Evidently you don't know what happens. -MT <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote Otis> Or, placing a +3 diopter lens on a population of young primates > will result in the +3 group changine by about +2 diopters > in 12 months. Tyner> Does it happen in +3 humans? Otis> Case-in-point. Yes, it happened in Neil Brooks. Otis> I think he is up to +6 diopters at this point -- and probably going more positive. Otis> That is the EXPECTED result as predicted by PROFESSOR Merrill Allen, and confirmed with the primate data. Tyner> Evidently you don't know what happens. Otis> Evidentaly you don't have a clue about the dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes -- when tested under SCIENTIFIC conditions. Otis -MT ><otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >behavior of all fundamental eyes -- when tested >under SCIENTIFIC conditions. Forgive me, everybody else, but ... Otis, you are a total f.cking idiot. To quote, again, from what I typed in your other pedophilia playground: So it goes: You start with a premise that is patently wrong (in this case, your totally ignorant guesses about the history of my Rx). You repeat it until you have convinced YOURSELF that it is correct. You then proceed to spin entire tales that are based from that incorrect premise. You try to convince others that those tales are true. You're just flat wrong about the history of my Rx, Otis ... as wrong as you are about nearly everything else I've EVER seen you post ... over years. You're a mentally ill, senile dementia-afflicted, pathologically dishonest, impotent, old geezer. And those are only your GOOD qualities! > Tyner> Does it happen in +3 humans? > > Otis> Case-in-point. Yes, it happened in Neil Brooks. Hey, it happens all the time. The whole population gets more farsighted between 30 and 50. Even those who don't wear glasses. > Otis> That is the EXPECTED result as predicted by > PROFESSOR Merrill Allen, and confirmed with > the primate data. All you have to do is point us to a study showing a difference between age-matched humans wearing glasses and those who don't. Just one. > Otis> Evidentaly you don't have a clue about the dynamic > behavior of all fundamental eyes -- when tested > under SCIENTIFIC conditions. We bow to your extensive experience. -MT |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.