Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2008
Dr Bates Cures His Sight
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Zetsu - 13 Mar 2008 20:51 GMT The Cure of Imperfect Sight By Treatment Without Glasses - CHAPTER XX - Presbyopia: Its Cause And Cure
[..The first patient that I cured of presbyopia was myself. Having demonstrated by means of experiments on the eyes of animals that the lens is not a factor in accommodation, I knew that presbyopia must be curable, and I realized that I could not look for any very general acceptance of the revolutionary conclusions I had reached so long as I wore glasses myself for a condition supposed to be due to the loss of the accommodative power of the lens. I was then suffering from the maximum degree of presbyopia. I had no accommodative power whatever, and had to have quite an outfit of glasses, because with a glass, for instance, which enabled me to read fine print at thirteen inches, I could not read it either at twelve inches or at fourteen. The retinoscope showed that when I tried to see anything at the near-point without glasses my eyes were focussed for the distance, and when I tried to see anything at the distance they were focussed for the near- point. My problem, then, was to find some way of reversing this condition and inducing my eyes to focus for the point I wished to see at the moment that I wished to see it.
*** ONLY ONE MAN WHO COULD CURE ME
***
I consulted various eye specialists, but my language was to them like that of St. Paul to the Greeks, namely, foolishness. "Your lens is as hard as a stone," they said. "No one can do anything for you." Then I went to a nerve specialist. He used the retinoscope on me, and confirmed my own observations as to the peculiar contrariness of my accommodation; but he had no idea what I could do about it. He would consult some of his colleagues, he said, and asked me to come back in a month, which I did. Then he told me he had come to the conclusion that there was only one man who could cure me, and that was Dr. William H. Bates of New York.
"Why do you say that?" I asked.
"Because you are the only man who seems to know anything about it," he answered.
Thus thrown upon my own resources, I was fortunate enough to find a non-medical gentleman who was willing to do what he could to assist me, the Rev. R. B. B. Foote, of Brooklyn. He kindly used the retinoscope through many long and tedious hours while I studied my own case, and tried to find some way of accommodating when I wanted to read, instead of when I wanted to see something at the distance. One day, while looking at a picture of the Rock of Gibraltar which hung on the wall, I noted some black spots on its face. I imagined that these spots were the openings of caves, and that there were people in these caves moving about. When I did this my eyes were focussed for the reading distance. Then I looked at the same picture at the reading distance, still imagining that the spots were caves with people in them. The retinoscope showed that I had accommodated, and I was able to read the lettering beside the picture. I had, in fact, been temporarily cured by the use of my imagination. Later I found that when I imagined the letters black I was able to see them black, and when I saw them black I was able to distinguish their form. My progress after this was not what could be called rapid. It was six months before I could read the newspapers with any kind of comfort, and a year before I obtained my present accommodative range of fourteen inches, from four inches to eighteen; but the experience was extremely valuable, for I had in pronounced form every symptom subsequently observed in other presbyopic patients.
Fortunately for the patients, it has seldom taken me as long to cure other people as it did to cure myself. In some cases a complete and permanent cure was effected in a few minutes. Why, I do not know. I will never be satisfied till I find out. A patient who had worn glasses for presbyopia for about twenty years was cured in less than fifteen minutes by the use of his imagination...]
Neil Brooks - 13 Mar 2008 23:38 GMT Is there any objective verification, before and after, of the changes in his underlying vision??
If not, then are you aware that -- like many other things -- this is an unverifiable, third-hand anecdote?
"My sister was a high myope ... until she ate a fish taco. After that, better than 20/20 vision."
Unverifiable. Third-hand. Anecdote.
Why bother?? Why not just participate on Otis's website ... taking him with you?
Zetsu - 14 Mar 2008 08:49 GMT This is not meant as a proof of anything. I have posted this article because I feel that it is valuable in one's journey coming to understand Perfect Sight. If you wish to believe that Dr. Bates cured himself, then believe so. If you wish to believe he did not, then that is also fine. I have posted this anecdote, as it is: an anecdote, a person's own experience in his journey to recovering sight, after being told his lens was 'as hard as stone', and that 'there is nothing you can do'.
Now the subject of 'PROOF' is a different matter. If you wish to prove something to yourself, then you can demonstrate the methods of the normal eye. There are no need for controlled tests.
It's akin to this: If you and a friend go out to a park, and you say 'Look over there George. That grass is green. Isn't it splendid?', and he replies 'No you fool, how can I possibly believe you that its green? Do you have any controlled tests to prove this to me? Are you some kind of absolute idiot? Do you expect me to believe that this grass, right before me, is green?'.
To me, you sound like George. The truths in Perfect Sight are something readily demonstratable, just as anyone can readily tell you that 'the grass is green'. You don't need to use controlled, group testing. It's just a fact of life, that you can know because you, as a human, are demonstrating the fact through your very own bodily self.
Don W - 14 Mar 2008 16:22 GMT Actually the grass isn't green, it just looks green.
Neil Brooks - 14 Mar 2008 16:39 GMT You seem to have NO idea about why "anecdotal" is not considered acceptable.
It's back to Mike Tyner's infamous shark repellent spray. He sprays it, daily, in his yard. As yet, he's had no shark infestation.
Google "false cause," "correlation does not equal causation," or "post hoc ergo propter hoc."
Otis's method seems quite similar: try X for years. If it works, it was because of X. If it fails, you didn't do it right.
Yet, as always, there's NO evidence that these methods/interventions cause ANY change in the statistical probability that:
- some people get better without treatment, - some people get worse without treatment, - and some people stay stable without treatment.
Absent that sort of control, you really SHOULD be on faith.vision. You're asking people to believe things for which there is simply no evidence.
And ... Don's right.
Zetsu - 14 Mar 2008 18:19 GMT Yeah yeah, fine the grass isn't green but the point remains... now I will repeat that this post is not meant to serve as evidence. IT IS AN ANECDOTE AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT. I HAVE POSTED THIS TO HELP THOSE WHO TRULY SEEK PERFECT SIGHT (OBVIOUSLY NOT YOU). And I repeat that this is not something you prove or don't prove. It is A FACT OF LIFE THAT THE SIGHT IS RESTORED WHEN THE STRAIN IS RELIEVED, AND THIS IS READILY DEMONSTRATABLE, BY ANYONE ANY TIME ANY PLACE.
DON'T BE LAZY, PROVE THE FACTS TO YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO AT LEAST TRY.
Dr. Leukoma - 14 Mar 2008 18:26 GMT > Yeah yeah, fine the grass isn't green but the point remains... now I > will repeat that this post is not meant to serve as evidence. IT IS AN [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > DON'T BE LAZY, PROVE THE FACTS TO YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO AT > LEAST TRY. Then if the sight is not restored, the strain must not have been relieved. Is this the logic?
Look here. Anything that is so readily demonstrable and repeatable must have a scientific basis. If that is the case, then I would expect to see pages of studies in the scientific databases. I think the fact that there are no studies found in the scientific databases serves to contradict your assertion, or so it would seem.
Zetsu - 14 Mar 2008 18:32 GMT There have been studies carried out (see David Kiesling's 'Evidence' page) but they are UNIMPORTANT. Now what is truly utterly remarkable is that you refuse to try out and demonstrate something. If I give you an apple, and I say it tastes nice, now that is a matter of subjective opinion. On the other hand if I give you a sum, 1+1, and you go ahead and calculate it (hopefully it won't take too long) the answer in the decimal system is always 2 no matter what. Now if I give you an equation:
Imperfect sight = Norm. + Effort
Then you take a little short time to calculate the equation.
Imperfect sight - Effort = Norm. + Effort - Effort
On the right side Effort cancels each other out, so you are remaining with just Norm. What is strange is that, YOU REFUSE TO DO A LITTLE EQUATION.
Don W - 15 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT Is division by zero permitted?
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 15 Mar 2008 04:53 GMT Sure, Don -- it equals infinity.
Which is the amount of time that Zit and Brooks are going to spend posting their stuff here.
> Is division by zero permitted? Neil Brooks - 15 Mar 2008 04:56 GMT On Mar 14, 8:53 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Sure, Don -- it equals infinity. > > Which is the amount of time that Zit and Brooks are going > to spend posting their stuff here. The irony, and audacity, of Mr. Otis "Probably >15,000 posts on the 'Net, PLUS his own website dedicated to his crap" Brown saying that is uncanny.
But not surprising.
Who's "Zit," by the way? Having a little adult acne problem, are you?
Jason Sperry - 15 Mar 2008 06:34 GMT LMAO
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 15 Mar 2008 12:38 GMT " At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.."
- Maurice Maeterlinck, Belgian poet, playwright, and 1911 Nobel Laureate in literature
> LMAO Zetsu - 15 Mar 2008 12:42 GMT Neil Brooks - 15 Mar 2008 13:51 GMT On Mar 15, 4:38 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> " At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition > has > placed 10,000 men to guard the past.." Here, again, is the ultimate irony and idiocy of Otis Brown.
In the PAST, these things were taken on faith.
In the present and the future, we use scientific testing to validate what actually works and what does not.
Whether or not Jason "Deck Shoe" Sperry and Atchoo are laughing their respective a.ses off does nothing to alter this fact.
You, Otis, are the dinosaur. If you think something will help, work to have it tested in RCCTs.
Zetsu - 14 Mar 2008 18:22 GMT >Otis's method seems quite similar: try X for years. If it works, it >was because of X. Where have I asked you to try anything for years? THE TRUTHS OF PERFECT SIGHT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED, IN MINUSCULE MOMENTS. Years of anything are not required.
|
|
|