Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2008
How Long Will It Take?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Zetsu - 22 Apr 2008 22:24 GMT [...How Long Will It Take?
This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish to be cured of Impetfeet sight that it seems worth while to devote a little space to its consideration. It is impossible, of course, to answer the question definitely. Cure is a question of the mind, and people's minds are different. While patients who have worn glasses are usually harder to cure than those who have not, elderly persons who have worn them for the better part of a lifetime are sometimes cured as quickly as children under twelve who have never worn them. These cases are very rare, but they do occur. Some patients can look at the letters on the test card, or in a paragraph of fine print, and imagine them at once to be perfectly black, with the result that they immediately become able to read them. Some patients are able to palm almost perfectly from the start, and nearly all can do it well enough to improve their sight; some never become able to do it until their sight has been improved by other means.
Most patients, when they look from one side of a large letter to another, or from one side of the card to another, can imagine that the letter, or the card, is moving in a direction opposite to the movement of the eye. Others, whose condition may be no worse, take a week, or a month, or longer, to do the same thing. A patient recently treated was able to do almost everything I asked her to at the first visit. I began, as I always do, by directing her to close and rest her eyes, and, as in the case of most other patients, she was able to improve her sight materially by this method. Then she went on to do a lot of other things, some of which very few patients can do at the first visit, while no one but herself, so far as I can remember, was ever able to do all of them. She was able to stare at a letter and make her sight worse, and she was able to look from one side of it to another and imagine that it was moving in a direction opposite to the movement of the eye. If the letter was seen perfectly, the movement was short, rhythmical and easy; if it was seen imperfectly, it was longer, and irregular. She could not imagine a letter stationary, and if she tried to imagine it so, it blurred. When she looked at a line of letters that she could read, she realized at once that one letter was seen best and the adjoining ones worse; and when she looked at a line that she could not read, she noted that they were seen all alike. She demonstrated at once - which was very remarkable, that a perfect memory is quick and easy, and an imperfect memory slow, difficult and even impossible; that the first relieves fatigue and the second induces discomfort. She also demonstrated that while it was easy to imagine that a letter remembered perfectly was swinging, she either could not imagine such a swing in the case of an imperfectly remembered letter, or else the swing was longer and irregular. It is hardly necessary to say that this patient became able at once to read the whole card, even in a dim light. It was only when she came to fine print that she failed. She could not imagine that the letters of diamond type were swinging. She could imagine the universal swing [1] when she looked two inches away from the letters, but she could not imagine it when she looked between the lines.
These peculiarities of the mind cannot be known in advance, and therefore it is seldom possible, in any given case, to make predictions as to the length of time that will be required for a cure. This much can be stated, however: that marked improvement is always obtained in a few weeks. and that all patients obtain some benefit at the first visit. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they are so rare that I do not remember them.
As more facts are accumulated. and better ways of presenting things learned, it becomes possible to cure people more quickly. I can cure people more quickly today than I did a year ago, and I expect to cure them next year more quickly than I do today. In the last three months, seven or eight patients have been cured in one visit, with a little additional help over the telephone.
When patients can give considerable time to the treatment they naturally get on faster than those who cannot or will not do this. When they follow instructions and do not waste time in discussion, or in carrying out theories of their own, they also get on faster. One of the advantages that children have over adults is that there minds are not so full of erroneous ideas, and that they are accustomed to doing as they are told.
The chief cause of delay seems to be that people will not believe the truth after it is demonstrated to them. You can demonstrate to anyone in a few minutes that rest improves the vision, but the idea that everything worth while must be gained by effort is so deeply ingrained in the average mind that you may not in a year be able to get it out, and so long as the patient believes that his sight can be improved by effort, he will make little progress.
In most cases it is necessary, in order to retain what has been gained, to continue the treatment for a few minutes every day. When a cure is complete it is always permanent. The patient need never think of the matter again, and may even forget how he was cured. But complete cures, which mean the attainment, not of what is ordinarily called normal sight, but of a measure of telescopic and microscopic vision, are very rare; and even in these cases the treatment may be continued with benefit, for it is impossible to set limits to the visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always possible to improve it
------------------------------------
[1] When the patient becomes able to imagine that the letters on the test card are swinging, everything else thought of also seems to be swinging. This is the universal swing...]
- Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
Neil Brooks - 22 Apr 2008 22:38 GMT Mike Tyner - 22 Apr 2008 22:43 GMT > for it is impossible to set limits to the > visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always > possible to improve it Ms.Brainy - 22 Apr 2008 23:03 GMT > [...How Long Will It Take? > > This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish.......... > > - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920 Right, how long will it take to get rid of the constant flooding of shoes spam, clothes spam, Bates spam and zetsu/otis?
The Real Bev - 23 Apr 2008 03:25 GMT >> [...How Long Will It Take? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Right, how long will it take to get rid of the constant flooding of > shoes spam, clothes spam, Bates spam and zetsu/otis? Blocking anything coming out of China would help...for a while. So would blocking anything coming from people who use googlegroups at the website. One day Thunderbird will have good filters...
BTW, does anybody really want me to keep posting the 'Welcome to s.m.v' post? Would somebody else like to do it?
 Signature Cheers, Bev ================================================================= "In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has had to worry about where the next meal would come from." -- Peter S. Drucker, who invented management
Dan Abel - 23 Apr 2008 08:02 GMT > BTW, does anybody really want me to keep posting the 'Welcome to s.m.v' > post? Yes. I see periodic references to it in different postings.
> Would somebody else like to do it? I'm not volunteering.
 Signature Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net
Zetsu - 23 Apr 2008 14:01 GMT > >> [...How Long Will It Take? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > would blocking anything coming from people who use googlegroups at the > website. One day Thunderbird will have good filters... Hi Mr. Real Bev. I was actually wondering if you would help me with this. What with the recent slurge of advertising and all, recently I tried to switch from Google Groups to using Mozilla Thunderbird (it looked good and since I already have Firefox, I thought 'why not complete the package?') but it was really confusing and I don't know how all this NNTP newsserver stuff works. I tried signing in with my hotmail account, but it didn't work (it was asking me for all these weird stuff like Port Link or something) then I tried with my googlemail account and it worked but it only let me access my mail and didn't let me access newsgroups such as sci.med.vision which was the whole point of me switching in the first place. So I was wondering if you could show me how? I went to the options and I haven't got a clue what to do now. What should I set as the newsserver URL? I searched on google but everything was so difficult to understand, and I am rather a n00b to the newsgroup world so I felt very overwhelmed and daunted. Please help! Or if you know of any other free and simple newsreaders that you can suggest to me, please do so! It's mainly so that I can block out all of the advertisements, but for other reasons too (I quite enjoy the newsreader interfaces).
riserman - 23 Apr 2008 01:42 GMT "... Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance."
Marten Gardner "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science" 1957
> [...How Long Will It Take? > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920 riserman - 23 Apr 2008 02:03 GMT "...Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance."
Martin Gardner "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science" 1957, Dover, p.231
> [...How Long Will It Take? > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920 Zetsu - 23 Apr 2008 13:52 GMT > "...Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case > records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance." > > Martin Gardner > "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science" > 1957, Dover, p.231 [Gardiner] can only suggest that the case records were exaggerated. The inferences are clearly drawn out.
As for anatomical ignorance... In 1885 Bates graduated with a medical degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at the prestigious Columbia University in New York. In 1886 he introduced a new operation for persistent deafness, consisting of puncturing or incising the ear drum membrane. In that same year, he discovered the stringent and hemostatic properties of the aqueous extract of the suprarenal capsule, later commercialized as adrenalin. From 1886-1888 he was clinical assistant at the Manhattan Eye and Ear hospital and attending physician at Bellevue hospital. From 1886-1891 he was instructor in ophthalmology at the New York Post Graduate Hospital and Medical School. From 1886-1898 he was attending physician at the New York Eye Infirmary, Northern Dispensary, Northeastern dispensary, Northwestern Dispensary, and Harlem Hospital. In 1894 he invented the astigmatic keratotomy operation. There is no dispute that during this time period he was an ophthalmologist of high standing who was well respected by his peers.
With all this, how is it possible that Dr. Bates was anything less than extremely proficient with the facts and accepted theories of anatomy? That Dr. Bates with this background, plus years of experimentation beginning in 1896, challenged the accepted theories of ophthalmology makes his statements all that more powerful. As noted above, he was well respected by his peers, yet when he began making statements about the cure of myopia and other vision problems, he was ostracized and ignored.
He published several articles on his cure of defective eyesight in well-known, reputable medical journals of his day. Any such journal would carefully verify the claims of every contributor in order to ensure its own respectable standing as a journal of accurate information, especially when those articles blatantly and accusingly disputed the very core accepted principles of medical science. For a doctor to make it into the medical journals is a high accomplishment. Dr. Bates was challenging up-front the theories on which practically every eye doctor in the country based his practice on, in doing so making significant enemies. With the editors of the medical journals knowing full well the controversy surrounding Bates's statements and how the reputation of the journal would be ruined should they provide inaccurate information, how could there be any chance that the editors would not put all the resources necessary into verifying the accuracy of the information Bates was submitting, before publishing it? That says a lot. -Kiesling
Mike Tyner - 23 Apr 2008 16:00 GMT > [Gardiner] can only suggest that the case records were exaggerated. > The inferences are clearly drawn out. Never mind that cases such as Bates describes have NEVER BEEN DUPLICATED BY ANY PRACTITIONER BESIDES BATES.
> As for anatomical ignorance... In 1885 Bates graduated with a medical > degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at the prestigious > Columbia University in New York. Yes but YOU could qualify for the degree offered in 1885. That hardly makes YOU an expert.
> In 1886 he introduced a new operation > for persistent deafness, consisting of puncturing or incising the ear > drum membrane. Nature introduced that operation hundreds of thousands of years earlier. Bates took credit for it, but tympanectomy with a sharp instrument is only slightly better than letting the eardrum burst on its own.
> With all this, how is it possible that Dr. Bates was anything less > than extremely proficient with the facts and accepted theories of > anatomy? Hmm.. microscopic staining, electron microscopy, nucleotide uptake, evolutionary and molecular biology, CAT/MRI, finite element analysis... 100 years of science that are MISSING FROM YOUR DICTIONARY.
> That Dr. Bates with this background, plus years of > experimentation beginning in 1896, challenged the accepted theories of > ophthalmology makes his statements all that more powerful. Problem is, the accepted theories proved more reliable. The oblique muscles do not control accommodation. Imagination does not cure myopia. Astigmatism does not disappear throughout the day.
> above, he was well respected by his peers, yet when he began making > statements about the cure of myopia and other vision problems, he was > ostracized and ignored. Because his peers COULD NOT MAKE HIS CURES WORK. NOR CAN YOU.
> inaccurate information, how could there be any chance that the editors > would not put all the resources necessary into verifying the accuracy > of the information Bates was submitting, before publishing it? That > says a lot. Except the CURES STILL DON'T WORK.
IF YOU CAN'T DEMONSTRATE STATISTICAL EFFICACY, YOU ARE A FRAUD.
-MT
|
|
|