It is a known, but sometimes forgotten, principle that for any idea
to be called "scientific", it has to be refutable.  For example, the
statement "200 angels can dance on the head of a pin" is not science,
because we don't know what an "angel" is or how to detect one's presence
and location.  So the idea cannot be refuted and therefore does not fall
into the realm of science.

We have two so-called "alternative" ideas being posted here, namely the
Bates method and what we might call the plus lens method.  Regarding these,
all the eye care professionals who post here have (at one time or another)
expressed that they would accept either of these if it could be shown to
work in a clinical trial.  So the eye care professionals pass the
refutability test; they are willing to allow their current ideas to be
refuted and have stated the conditions under which they will allow this.

But for our two proponents of these ideas, it is another story.  

Otis (plus lens method) does not answer the refutability question
directly, but instead substitutes another question for it and answers
that one instead.

Lelouch (Bates method) will not even discuss the question at all.

The failure of these people to correctly address the refutability question
shows that they are not thinking scientifically, and therefore their posts
have no place on a SCI forum.

I encourage people here to simply stop responding to Otis and Lelouch.
Don't even bother to call them "idiots".  Simply ignore them.  Their posts
are not worthy of any attention.

If you are worried that they might mislead people, don't worry.  Just
warn the new people when they show up.  Most people are smart enough
to not be fooled by them anyway.