From: shreeved@ece.orst.edu (David Shreeve)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Bates method
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:43:32 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis
NNTP-Posting-Host: chemeketa.ece.orst.edu
Originator: shreeved@chemeketa.ECE.ORST.EDU

ted@dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec) wrote:


>This Bates thing has been around for 50 years that I know about, and
>probably a lot longer than that.  Surely, if there was something to
>it, there should be lots of evidence by now.  If not, why not?

     This is a good question.  It is not a good reason to dismiss Bates
therapy out of hand, but it is a very good question.  I would like to
offer a guess or two:

     Scientific studies are made difficult by the very nature of the
technique.  Changing habits (i.e., visual habits) is a slow difficult
problem, and challenges different people in different ways.  It requires
motivation, mental focusing, consistency.  The habits of strain that
we are trying to correct may well have a psychological source.  It may
be that the "disease" called myopia, is the tendency to handle stress
by straining eye muscles.  Changing a tendency (or habit) is not the
same as administering a drug and waiting for a result.  It is not the
same as performing a surgery or prescribing a lens.
      That paragraph was unclear.  The point is that these techniques
may not work the same for all people and there are so many factors
involved in changing a habit over a long term that it is difficult to
create a "scientific" study.
     Perhaps this is not a good reason.

     Another guess.  There is a strong bias in the medical community
that makes it favor attack-the-symptom, drug-based medicine.  Since the
Bates method involves quite a bit of psychology, it may be dismissed by some
out of hand.  [Western medical] "Doctors" do not deal with pshychology.
     Dr. Bates, who was at one point in his career a well respected 
member of the optical community, was discredited as soon as he came out
with his "unorthodox" theories of focusing and the nature of most visual
error.  [I can't remember the exact history as I sit here, but this
happened back in the 1910s]  I believe that the entrenched orthodox
doctors have a vested interest in NOT looking into these techniques.
     Am I being too cynical?
     I honestly do not understand why there are not more Bates doctors
around, because it has been my experience that his assumptions are true.

     Another problem with Bates therapy:  (this is not reason why there
is little scientific support of Bates' work, but rather a reason why
it remains a little used therapy) it demands that glasses be used as
little as possible during the therapy (which could last for months and
months).  This is a very difficult obstacle to deal with in this society.
Driving is a must, etc.

     In any case, I believe that it is worth looking into oneself.  There
are numerous historical examples of long-held medical beliefs (held by
the experts of the day) that were later shown to be false.  If you are
interested in trying to restore health to your vision, I hope that you
will consider this unorthodox method and judge with your own personal
experience as to its truth.

Dave
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative