 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2008You can't beat Bates
Subject: His opinion on the "cause" of myopia. http://www.i-see.org/early_bates/bates_myopia1912a.html As always, Enjoy, Sad thing is you're old enough to know better. > Sad thing is you're old enough to know better. One might wonder why Otis hasn't used all this wisdom and lore to ... um ... do anything about his six diopters of myopia. Hmmmm. Instead he leans toward prevention. Ask Mike Tyner about shark repellent. It's a far more compelling case than anything Otis ever put forward. Dear spammer, Dr. Bates is not a fraud. If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates' claims before publishing it? Do you think Dr. Bates was some kind of evil genius? That he could fool the most intelligent, high class scientists of his time? That the publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man! Dear Zetsu, Subject: How a second-opinion develops. No, Dr. Bates was not a "fraud". He expresses the concept that the over-prescribed minus is dangerous, or has a serious "secondary" problem. Some of his concepts are correct -- like this one. Other concepts perhaps need further review and evaluation. But he was a very vocal critic of that minus -- and we can agree that OBJECTION to that minus is indeed the second-opinion. Enjoy, > Dear spammer, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every > single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man! > Dear spammer, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates' > claims before publishing it? His theories have proven invalid, anything after becomes a fraud. > Do you think Dr. Bates was some kind of evil genius? That he could > fool the most intelligent, high class scientists of his time? That the > publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every > single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man! Evil, no. I'll take my reality over yours any day. > > Dear spammer, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > His theories have proven invalid, anything after becomes a fraud. How? If I cry 'wolf', 'wolf' on one occasion, when there really is no wolf, then that makes me a fraud on that occasion. If on a later occasion I cry 'WOLF, WOLF!' and there really is a wolf, then I am not a fraud. Basically I am saying, even if one theory has been proven invalid, you can't say EVERYTHING else was invalid. You have to investigate first. |
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
|
©2008 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.