 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2007Criticize the Bates Method
Please, criticize the Bates Method. http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php/board,6.0.html > Please, criticize the Bates Method. > > http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php/board,6.0.html Why? A quick google search in the archives does a fine job addressing this over about 6 or 7 years. It really isn't necessary to rehash.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply They have been learning more within these years. On May 15, 2:36 pm, William Horatio Bates <Kyazek...@googlemail.com> wrote: > They have been learning more within these years. how are things in norway kazekage? how come you post under different screen names? in the future, choose names and e-mail addresses that are not so obviously the same (kyazekage@googlemail.com). you criticized neil brooks for attacking otis but now you try to spurn some disagreements yourself. why don't you just look up the history of the discussions about bates in this NG and in the iblindness forum that you also post in. everything is said there. and the bates people haven't learned anything new. its the same old unproven BS. Please, voice your arguments on i-blindness. They will be willing to have completely sensible debates. Many new people have registered on i-blindness, with completely new ideas - not the "same old unproven BS". Please, register yourself on the i-blindness forum. Start a new topic - whatever criticisms you have - post them. Give them a chance to prove the validity of what they have chosen to follow. That is all I ask. On May 15, 1:50 pm, William Horatio Bates <Kyazek...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Please, criticize the Bates Method. Okay, I'll bite. The only thing that works about the bates method is that a fool and his money............................... spammer, It would be so much appreciated if you were to start a new topic in the 'critics and skeptics' forum, the link provided. You say "The only thing that works about the bates method is that a fool and his money.......". Tell them, debate with them. By this means, the people at i-blindness will be likely to view your post, and try to prove you wrong, and justify their point. Kind regards, -W.H. B On May 15, 3:30 pm, William Horatio Bates <Kyazek...@googlemail.com> wrote: > spammer, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -W.H. B That would be a huge waste of time. The bates method has been debunked all over the place, but if people still want to piss their money away on it, so be it. That's why there are "psychics, tarot readers etc." all over the place because there are idiots out there supporting them. Dear William Bates, Subject: Success in 1913. Why not repeat this success in 2013? Here is the statement about your vision-clearing, almost 100 years ago. http://central-fixation.com/batesmed/myopiaprevention.htm That seems to be the ONLY success of yours. It seems that the nay-sayers, the NEGATIVE people, the persons who do not understand scientific truth concerning the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye CONTROL this situation -- adversely. Why can't we get "organized" and repeat this success in the year 2013? What is wrong with us. It should not be that difficult, if you did it in 1913. If this success can NOT be repeated, (given REASONABLE second-opinion people) then let us fact the fact that the Bates method does not work. But there has been too many people defending the quick-fix method, and too few people intelligently understanding these preventive methods. Must we continue with 88 percent myopic entering universities. And further, 95 percent myopic with respect to medical students? This seems a profoundly degenerative process. Otis On May 15, 3:30 pm, William Horatio Bates <Kyazek...@googlemail.com> wrote: > spammer, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -W.H. B As long as Otis says it works, everyone can go home now. :) "What is wrong with us. It should not be that difficult, if you did it in 1913. " Lol! Otis, that's just his nickname, I don't think he's actually 'William Horatio Bates' from 1913!! =D=D=P Loooooloololollol!!!! Dear Kaze, Subject: Do second-opinion PREVENTIVE methods work? I believe in giving a man (or ophthamologist) the conditions he needs to reproduce his success. Whether you believe PREVENTIVE methods would work, or not work is not the issue. The point is that Bates never got a second-chance to verify vision-clearing from 20/70 to normal. That process seems to be blocked by the "powers that be", and the nature of our discussions are to understand that problem. I think the posts here by some very dense people here proves my point. But if the want to continue to shoot themselves in their foot -- that is OK with me. Just one man's opinion. Otis > "What is wrong with us. It should not > be that difficult, if you did it in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200705/1 On May 16, 10:02 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Kaze, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Whether you believe PREVENTIVE methods would > work, or not work is not the issue. How about answering a couple of simple, relevant, logical questions, Otis? http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt That's really the issue ... more than anything else: why you can't defend your theory. Yup. That's it in a nutshell. > "What is wrong with us. It should not > be that difficult, if you did it in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200705/1 the poster named William Horatio Bates is Kazekage. we know that although otis seems a little confused about it. Otis, the central fixation link looks like an interesting early medical publication. I don't know why the Bates method is not taken seriously and is not considered "proven" based upon the weight of that single old publication. Perhaps you should work to have NEI validate its value. Or perhaps you should contact the I See Clearly company in Iowa and see if they will help you since they have a financial interest. Perhaps the reason no one believes it is because of the MASS of people in whom it fails miserablty. they just don't post anymore in your internet website and try something else but in reality the majority of people who try it fail. Just check out the "good track record" at I See Clearly. Now go do something useful and leave here. Take your little troll friend Kaze with you. |
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
|
©2010 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.