Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2008
Unofficial Biography of Dr.W.H. Bates, By Rishi Gatti
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Zetsu - 01 Apr 2008 16:54 GMT BATES, William Horatio, a doctor, was born in Newark, NJ, on December 23, 1860, the son of Charles and Amelia (Halsey) Bates.
Graduated (AB) at Cornell University in 1881, received his medical specialization to the College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1885. He started his practice in New York, and was for a period the Hospital clinical assistant for the Manhattan Eye el'Orecchio medical assistant and the Hospital of Bellevue, 1886-88, and the New York Eye infirmary "," Northern dispensary "and the" Northeastern dispensary, "1886-98.
In his professional work Bates initially devoted its attention to the various organs of the head but finally limited the sole eye. There was discharged from hospital appointments in 1896 and for several years has been involved in experimental work. After practicing for several years in Grand Forks, N. Dak. Is returned to New York and was assistant physician of the Hospital Harlem between 1907 and 1922.
In his research, Bates has shown experimentally that the normal setting of the central, but never stationary, and the technique he developed to treat imperfect view without the use of glasses was based on this principle.
From a physiological point of view, this technique was not only the practical application of psychological theory of the field of awareness, which is claimed as a point of fire, the so-called point of appercezione, surrounded by a field of increasing vagueness.
His method was to develop the central fixation training in the patient art of dual focus and relax your eyes. His method was to develop the central fixation training in the art of patient dual focus and relax your eyes.
While carrying forward his experiments developed a way to photograph the eye to detect changes in its curvature during its normal operation.
His work is discussed in the article "A Study of Reflected Images from the Cornea, Iris, Lens, and Sclera" (published on the NY Med. Jour., May 18, 1918).
His research on the influence of the memory function of vision are described in "Memory as an Aid to Vision" (published on NYMed. Jour., May 24, 1919).
In 1894 while trying to determine the therapeutic effect over the active ingredients of the endocrine glands, he discovered astringent properties and haemostatic aqueous extract of adrenal capsule, then marketed as adrenaline.
In 1896 he announced this discovery in a paper read at the Academy of Medicine in New York.
He introduced a new operation for the relief of persistent hearing loss in 1896, which was to sting or affect the membrane of the ear drum.
He has published a book, "Perfect Eyesight Without Glasses" (1919), which had printed at his own expense, in which he exhibited his theories, which were largely opposed to the practice oftalmologica established. He also wrote several articles to describe his methods.
He was a member of the Medical Society of the State of New York, and was affiliated to the Dutch Reformed Church.
He loved sports very much, especially tennis, in which he won many titles, and which was state champion when he lived in North Dakota. He was an excellent runner and at the advanced age of fifty-eight years was still capable of winning a race.
Bates was a quiet and modest man, a serious student of literature and astronomy, with a weakness for children.
He was married three times: (1) in 1883, Edith Kitchell of New York, which had a son, Halsey Bates, died in 1886; (2) to Margaret Crawford, who died in 1927, leaving two children, William Crawford, Milo and Bates, wife of Charles McComb, and (3) 9 August 1928, Ms. Emily (Ackerman) Lierman, daughter of Robert Ackerman, of Newark, NJ
Bates died in New York on 10 July 1931.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 01 Apr 2008 18:11 GMT Dear Zits,
Subject: My first "encounter" with the majority-opinion hostility towards Bates.
I got so much "hoopla" about it that I had to wonder how many crimes he had commited.
That has been the consistent reaction to Bates and his work.
The question of PREVENTION, as defined by "The Method" remains open.
There has been NO follow-up to the 1913 Study -- which, on the threshold was successful.
Best,
Otis
> BATES, William Horatio, a doctor, was born in Newark, NJ, on December > 23, 1860, the son of Charles and Amelia (Halsey) Bates. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Bates died in New York on 10 July 1931. Neil Brooks - 01 Apr 2008 20:00 GMT On Apr 1, 10:11 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> There has been NO follow-up to the 1913 Study -- which, on the > threshold was successful. Two easy and readily apparent choices:
1) Contact the appropriate institutions and try to get such a study going, or
2) sit back, pointing your accusatory finger at the eye care industry, shouting "conspiracy," and alleging that it establishes .... something ... where, in fact, it establishes nothing.
I'm guessing you'll choose #2.
You always have.
RT - 01 Apr 2008 19:36 GMT In article <7525c71b-f7b0-48d3-bf05-12fcc31b1c6e@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Zetsu <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote (WITH MY ADDED EMPHASIS):
"He [Bates] has published a book, "Perfect Eyesight Without Glasses" (1919), WHICH HE HAD PRINTED AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, in which he exhibited his theories, which were largely opposed to the practice oftalmologica established. He also wrote several articles to describe his methods."
Just wanted to let you know, that these posts about Bates have inspired me. I mean, if he can come up with a theory and is willing to spend his own hard earned cash on printing his own book, that is such an inspirational story of putting your money where your mouth is.
So, I'm taking this time to announce, although it is a bit off topic, I'm printing my own book on how to remain immortal. It works, I've been practicing since birth and I haven't died yet!!!!
Details to follow on where you can send your money to me for my amazing discovery. Of course it's against established practice (which is why I haven't yet found a publisher), but you only have to practice what I write, based on my amazing experience of NOT dying, and you too can be immortal. Just try it, and you'll be amazed at how much sense it makes. You can throw away the fear of death, that yoke we are forced to wear around our necks by professionals, like doctors and life insurance salesmen, who conspire to have us believe otherwise. Thousands, nay millions, maybe even billions, of people have remained alive on this system outlined in my upcoming self-published book.
 Signature ~RT
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 01 Apr 2008 19:58 GMT Subject: Bates credibility.
RT> Wanted to let you know, that these posts about Bates have inspired me. I mean, if he can come up with a theory and is willing to spend his own hard earned cash on printing his own book, that is such an inspirational story of putting your money where your mouth is.
Otis> Exactly so. He was a highly qualified medical doctor, and he took that major step. That truly defines the nature of the second-opinion.
Otis> Further, he spent 10 years getting kids to read their Snellens, to help them AVOID ENTRY INTO A NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE STATE.
Otis> It is of course profoudly EASY to put a minus lens in front of the eye (at 20/60) and IMPRESS the person at to how WONDERFUL that minus is. But that is the majority-opinion.
Otis> Bates was made of much "tougher" stuff than that.
Otis> But any solution now, must recognize that truth. So far -- few have.
Otis> So his opinion about the dynamic behavior of the eye is DIFFERENT that your opinion? So that is the nature of "medical" dispute.
Otis> Or, according to Buckley, we can disagree about the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye -- without being disagreeable.
Otis> It depends on how you look at it.
Enjoy,
> In article > <7525c71b-f7b0-48d3-bf05-12fcc31b1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > -- > ~RT Neil Brooks - 01 Apr 2008 20:04 GMT On Apr 1, 11:58 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
I notice you've summarily dumped any claims and posts regarding your long-held "plus lens" method.
That makes sense. There was absolutely no evidence that it did anything any better than placebo/no intervention whatsoever. It DID, however, seem to hurt more than a few kids (go figure).
But now you seem to be jumping on the Bates bandwagon, with yet another really credible and compelling compatriot at your side.
So, I'll put it to you again: most refractive error changes over time. In some cases, it gets better. In some cases, it gets worse. In some cases it stays the same.
That's the natural evolution, over time, of most refractive error ... without any 'intervention.'
Do you have any evidence that .... whatEVER it is you're NOW touting ... has a statistically significant impact on those fairly well established trajectories?
Or .... as usual ... are you just talking out your a.s, but this time wearing Bates as your underwear ... instead of "plus lenses?"
MsBrainy - 01 Apr 2008 20:31 GMT >Just wanted to let you know, that these posts about Bates have inspired >me. I mean, if he can come up with a theory and is willing to spend his [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >millions, maybe even billions, of people have remained alive on this >system outlined in my upcoming self-published book. RT, You should provide a PERSONAL guarantee for the success of your method in a form of a full refund of the purchase price. Of course, the demand for refund should be signed only by the purchaser of the book if the method failed and s/he died. I know from experience that your method cannot fail, and those who may claim otherwise are dead anyway or lacking any personal evidence... This guarantee cannot be transferable to any other person.....
 Signature MsBrainy
RT - 01 Apr 2008 21:39 GMT > RT, You should provide a PERSONAL guarantee for the success of your method in > a form of a full refund of the purchase price. Of course, the demand for > refund should be signed only by the purchaser of the book if the method > failed and s/he died. I know from experience that your method cannot fail, > and those who may claim otherwise are dead anyway or lacking any personal > evidence... This guarantee cannot be transferable to any other person..... There is most certainly a money back guarantee as long as my method is followed and the person can prove that s/he died despite fully committing to the program. I can say with upmost certainty that I have not died while following my own advice on a daily basis. Of course, those who do not practice my method every day have a very high chance of dying at some future date.
 Signature ~RT
Zetsu - 02 Apr 2008 01:07 GMT Well, personally I think immortality isn't that far off actually. You might think it's something to react to with derisive laughter and jokes, but I think it should be considered a possibility.
I mean, just look at how fast the genetics side of science is progressing. Just today I saw on the news that now the latest experiment is to develop stem cells by combining the membrane of a cow's egg cell with the innards of a human's egg cell (the reasoning for the use of animal cells being that human cells are much more rare, and so need to be given higher preservation priorities), and supposedly this would allow them to become better able to combat diseases like Alzeimer's and such like.
Surely it's not so much a preposterous supposition that sooner or later some genius scientist (ahem, Mohinder) will come up with the recipe for immortality?
In my opinion, the only real term barrier to its eventual commercialization will be ethics, morality, and that kind of touchy feely stuff. When the public manages to come to terms with the whole thing and gets over it, I think then it will be able to enter the market. (In the form of a drug, operation, pill, injection, drink, etc). I'd go so far as to predict that there might even be product competition! I mean, when other companies catch on to the 'immortality formula', so to speak, they'll all be competing to sell it at the lowest price - just like with the console-home-entertainment system war currently going on between 360, PS3 and Wii! Just imagine it. What an incredible yet thoroughly disturbing thought.
After all, it's not uncommon for sci-fi concepts to become a reality as time passes. It's only a couple of decades ago that Robots were the dream of man - yet now they have become a widespread reality, quite popular in Japan right now from what I hear. Holographic image technology (as featured extensively in the Star Wars films) is already in its primal stages of development.
Anyone watch NBC's Heroes?
Well, I actually DO think something will crop up along the lines of spontaneous cellular regeneration (as in, Claire/Adam style power) one day. It's just a matter of messing about with the gene makeup, tweaking a couple of deoxrybonucleaicacid strands here and there (wow, did I spell that one right?). The point is, we are living in such exponential times that IMMORTALity may someday become REAlity.
RT - 02 Apr 2008 01:37 GMT In article <3054d11a-741b-4946-b21c-7e9e06b60ef9@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Well, personally I think immortality isn't that far off actually. > You might think it's something to react to with derisive laughter and > jokes, but I think it should be considered a possibility. Who's joking? You're right. Heroes can be our reality. Send me your name and email address and I will send you the order form for my book. Thousands of us continue to enjoy our immortality every day and you can too. Just follow my system, practice it every day. Not a single person has died while adhering to my system. Hundreds of case studies are included in the book. I'm thinking of starting my own magazine too.
 Signature ~RT
Dan Abel - 02 Apr 2008 01:51 GMT > In article > <3054d11a-741b-4946-b21c-7e9e06b60ef9@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who's joking? I don't know. Anyone who uses "absolutelyinvincible" as their Email address must have a different idea of life and death than most of us. It gives us pause to think before adding it to our killfile.
 Signature Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net
Zetsu - 02 Apr 2008 01:59 GMT being absolutelyinvincible is cool =D
Mike Tyner - 02 Apr 2008 02:11 GMT > being absolutelyinvincible is cool =D Another fraud.
-MT
Zetsu - 02 Apr 2008 02:16 GMT >Who's joking? You're right. Heroes can be our reality. O ho! So I'm not the only one thinking like that...
I thought I was weird... RT, you can be my new buddy! Let's build teh 1337 potion that makes you invincible!
Ingredient 01: Drop of saturated 'Mike Tyner Hair strand' Ingredient 02: Wee bit of Snellen eye chart cuttings
Et wala!
RT - 02 Apr 2008 03:05 GMT In article <c3cc2296-03b1-4f2b-9327-0b6e8ce2a071@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >Who's joking? You're right. Heroes can be our reality. > O ho! So I'm not the only one thinking like that... Maybe not. But I've never seen the show so I have no idea what you're talking about or what reality Heroes is offering. (please don't explain, I'm not interested)
> I thought I was weird... I don't think you're weird. Just gullible and ignorant with a lot of growing up to do. Do your parents know you converse with strangers on the internet?
> RT, you can be my new buddy! Neato! You're making me blush. However, I'm not your buddy, nor am I going to be. Concentrate more on your school work and keep off this newsgroup looking for buddies. You're wasting your time that could be better spent studying so you can get into a good college. The internet can be a dangerous place. You make yourself an easy target. Beware.
> Let's build teh 1337 potion that makes you invincible! Don't need it. I wrote the book on immortality.
 Signature ~RT
Zetsu - 02 Apr 2008 03:24 GMT Of course I didn't want to be your buddy. You are not my buddy, because you mock me. Zetsu does not like people who mock Zetsu. Besides, Zetsu trusts no one except himself. I 'is quite aware of 'internet safety' precautions, does not require lecture by some random dude thanks very much. Appreciate it but no thanks.
Anyhow, did not you spot my sarcasm? >.<
>Maybe not. But I've never seen the show so I have no idea what you're >talking about or what reality Heroes is offering. (please don't explain, >I'm not interested) OK OK let me get this straight. You've NEVER heard of Heroes?! OMG! You don't know what you're missing. And yes, all I can hear is you pleading 'please explain, I'm interested very much'.
Well basically, Heroes is this comic style show (in real life though) where there's all these different people who have a special genetic makeup that gives them super powers. For example, one girl has the ability to spontaneously heal from her wounds, which makes her practically invincible against injury. The only way you can kill her is if you attack the cortex brain centers. But even then, she can survive. Another Japanese guy called Hiro has the ability to manipulate the space time continium (don't ask). Another one can fly. Then there's the super cool, main guy who threatens to blow up the whole of New York (unless he can be stopped by the other Heroes). He can absorb anyone's ability, which makes him the most powerful. Then we have the main villains, Sylar and Adam. Sylar is the demented guy who likes to steal other people's powers by cutting their heads open. Adam is a guy with a mission to 'clean up the world' by unleashing a deadly virus.
Well, it's awesome, you gotta' watch it. It's much better than Lost, PB, CSI, 24,House, etc.
Simon Dean - 02 Apr 2008 06:49 GMT > Of course I didn't want to be your buddy. > You are not my buddy, because you mock me. > Zetsu does not like people who mock Zetsu. > Besides, Zetsu trusts no one except himself. You make yourself by referring to yourself in the third person.
> OK OK let me get this straight. You've NEVER heard of Heroes?! OMG! > You don't know what you're missing. And yes, all I can hear is you > pleading 'please explain, I'm interested very much'. I've seen it once. It's crap. He's not missing much.
> Well basically, Heroes is this comic style show (in real life though) > where there's all these different people who have a special genetic > makeup that gives them super powers. In real life?
Wow! That's amazing. Is it some kind of documentary then?
Zetsu - 02 Apr 2008 07:08 GMT Yes, Zetsu enjoys referring to himself in third person. Sounds cool! Do you have a problem which you should want to take up with Zetsu about this issue?
And no, Heroes is not crap! You seen it once? Once? How can you make a judgment just seeing it once? How can you know anything of the plot from watching once? You have to watch at least 5 episodes (at the beginning) then it gets interesting. You just need to get into the plot and it's awesome.
And yes, in real life! No, I don't mean like documentary. I mean,set in real people, real world, as opposed to comic book world (anime).
Zetsu - 02 Apr 2008 07:32 GMT >"He [Bates] has published a book, "Perfect Eyesight Without Glasses" >(1919), WHICH HE HAD PRINTED AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, Sorry, this got mucked up in the translation.
It was meant to say 'which he had printed via his own company' or something like that, but not 'at his own expense', as in to say using his own money.
Simon Dean - 02 Apr 2008 18:26 GMT > Yes, Zetsu enjoys referring to himself in third person. > Sounds cool! Do you have a problem which you should want to take up [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And yes, in real life! No, I don't mean like documentary. I mean,set > in real people, real world, as opposed to comic book world (anime). Listen, kid, the phrase you're looking for is "live action". "real people" invokes the notion of fact instead of faction...
Ahhh. Now I get it. You think Bates is a comic strip but with live action actors and you therefore think its "real"
Zetsu - 02 Apr 2008 19:58 GMT Oh sorry yes, that's just what I meant! Live action!
|
|
|