From: shreeved@ece.orst.edu (David Shreeve)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Bates method
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:05:10 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:


>Look. It's really very simple.  Either the Bates method can improve
>your vision or it cannot.  Nothing mystical.  An eye chart pre- and
>post-test is all that's needed to substantiate efficacy in this case.
>Forget the "theory".  Bates proposed a training procedure over 50
>years ago.  Either it substantially works or not, and its verification
>should be as straightforward as anything can be.  So why has there
>been no investigation?  No fancy instruments or hocu-pocus is needed
>here.  It would be a very doable science project for a high school
>student.  One control group (no Bates), one experimental group
>(Bates), with the two groups chosen to be as similar as possible in
>terms of degree and kinds of visual defects, and statistically
>assigned on unknown or uncontrollable variables.  There is absolutely
>no reason in the world this can't be properly investigated for those
>of us that demand some simple logic.

And then in response,
   bsimon@elvis.stsci.edu (Bernie Simon) wrote:

>Thanks for the posting. This is the kind of thing I would like to see
>more of on this group. Either actual experience of improvement with
>some alternative treatment or clinical results. Let's see more facts
>and fewer abstract statements like "alternative medicine is all
>fraudulant" or "Western medicine is a conspiracy to make sick people
>sicker". 


     Would either of you accept as evidence that there is something to
the Bates method the case studies of Dr. Bates detailed in his book
"Better Eyesight Without Glasses" ? 
    What do you say about Dr. Bates' patients who have had cataract lens
removal surgery and yet can still focus at reading distance with no
correction?  This seemingly impossible situation is evidence that supports
Bates' theory that the cornea's shape can be altered by the enveloping
muscles of the eye.
    What do you say about Dr. Bates' patients who have split personalities
with one "personality" being near sighted, the other far?  ...more
evidence that it is within the mind's control to alter the condition of
the muscles enveloping the eye to change its shape.

     I doubt you would accept my personal anecdotal evidence: that my
eyes (since Bates) produce clear (20/20) flashes on a regular basis.  It
is true that on my worst days, when I am stressed or down, my vision gets
fairly poor again.  But the fact that it is POSSIBLE for my eyes to focus
clearly, is sure evidence to me that the wetern belief that myopes have
unalterably misshapen corneas is false!
     There are vision therapists out there with patients who pay to have
training in Bates-type techniques.  Is this evidence for you that there
is something to it?

     Bates vision therapy is a slow, demanding process producing results
that depend entirely on the consistency and self-discipline of the patient.
It is a method of changing habits. ...is there proof that those nicotine
patches help people to quit smoking?  Well, that depends on the person
and his psychology, his self-discipline, etc.  And so it is with the
Bates method.  Are people who have success with the method proof that it
works?  I think so---I think they are proof that the premises are true;
that the method CAN work.  But nothing is guaranteed in terms of results
because so much depends on the effort produced by each individual patient.
     Unlike the mask-the-symptom quick-fix that glasses are, Bates offers a
theory and a technique which I am convinced shows a way to correct visual
errors permanently.
     M. Simon, I am offering you my "actual experience of improvement with
some alternative treatment".  I am sorry to see the Bates method passed
off so easily by M. Grusec.  I understand and certainly admire the fact
that he is seeking truth.  But my inability to point to some study that he
would find acceptable proof should not be a reason to dismiss the Bates
method out of hand.  I have offered some evidence; my experience has been
enough to convince me.  I have offered reasons why it is hard to prove, in
a black and white manner, that Bates' ideas are correct because results
are not guaranteed.  I hope that minds have not been closed to this subject.

Keep searching...

Dave
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative