Dear Vision Research Forum,

I was notified about this discussion group by a patient whom I have
treated with the relaxation treatment system without the use of
glasses or surgery. I signed on to have a look, and I read many of the
consolidated transcripts dating back to 2003, where many 'pro-bates'
vs. the 'anti-bates'/ODs debating has taken place. I found the both
the adversarial tone as well as the general 'look down upon' attitude
towards the 'pro-bates' from the optometrists in the discussions very
discouraging, and would like to make a few comments in response.

I am a board certified ophthalmologist with specialty training in
diseases and surgery of the retina.  I had the opportunity to train
with Dr. Bates in May of 1919, and I have incorporated the great
doctor's central fixation treatment into my practice since that time.
I have been using it for patients with AMD who do not qualify for any
of the conventional therapies, for patients with RP, and for visual
field loss secondary to stroke. I am excited by the improvement I see
in the majority of patients. Most importantly, patients are happy with
the improvement they get. As a eye care specialist, I look for any
possible safe means of achieving improvement in vision for all
patients who are interested. Sometimes that is best accomplished with
surgery, sometimes with laser, sometimes with low vision aides,
sometimes through nutrition or lifestyle change, and sometimes with
central fixation (aka Dr. Bates's method)

When I first starting using the central fixation/relaxation treatment
for degenerative retinal diseases, many of my colleagues thought that
I was nuts. However, after they started to see improvement in their
own patients who had come to me on their own, usually after hearing
about another patient's positive experience, they started to change
their minds. I am now getting referrals from other ophthalmologists,
including retinal specialists, and internists in the area.

The fact that Western Medicine has not been able to determine the
mechanism by which central fixation and release of strain by
relaxation effects change in the body does not invalidate the bates
method. It has been used for many years with many different ocular-
medical conditions with undeniable success. It is routinely being used
in a number of different locations to control pain without the use of
anesthetic. The line between allopathic medicine and alternative forms
of therapy is becoming more blurred all the time. While I can
understand the skepticism engendered by the use of the bates method
for the treatment of eye disease (I suffered with that stumbling block
myself to begin with), I feel it is important to keep an open mind.
Without that, we are of much less benefit to our patients. It is
important to have an integrated approach to medical care, regardless
of the problem. There is not one universal answer for anything or
everyone. Each patient has to be approached as an individual. Though
this is certainly more time consuming, the benefit to patients is well
worth it.

So it has to be wondered - if this treatment is so effective, why is
it so difficult to 'prove' with objective science?

As stated previously in this discussion group, it is impossible to do
a double blind study for this particular mode of treatment. I am
presently sitting on 21 months of accumulated data on the patients I
have treated by central fixation therapy, and I am interested in
getting this information to the medical community at large, but to
date I have not found a way to achieve this. I have no vested interest
in what is causing the improvement I see in patients treated with the
Bates Method. If there is some way to prove that the central fixation
is responsible for the improvement, great. If it can be proved that it
is placebo effect, or the result of "healing hands," or mind body
control, that's okay too. As long as a patient ends up seeing better,
I'm all for it.  I try to determine a patient's expectation of central
fixation treatment before I decide whether or not to treat them. While
most patients get a modest improvement in vision in the case of MD,
and a modest increase in vision/ field of vision for RP, I have had
some patients achieve a four-line improvement in vision, which has
remained for more than a year. I should add that it is my opinion that
the ultimate solution for all the retinal degenerative diseases will
be through genetic engineering.  Doing something positive instead of
accepting impending blindness also helps one of the most prevalent
side effects of these retinal problems, namely depression. This, in
turn, has a beneficial effect on a patient's immune system.

Best to you all,

Dr. E.