Talk:Bates method/Archive 1

message: This article currently sounds like a Hatchet job on poor Mr. Bates. It's not balanced at all. Can some please edit it to move all the criticism into one section or at least remove some of it.
Something else about the tone of this article bothers me. It seems to be holding this holistic therapy up to the standards of conventional, western surgery/medicine/science. Can we please discuss Bate's Method within the realm of Holistic, alternative healing.
41.245.138.107 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I'm going to remove what is currently the second paragraph in this section.  The author(s) of this paragraph do not fully understand the mainstream explanations for how the eye works, nor do they understand the Bates advocates' claims:
The mainstream objection to the Bates Theory of Myopia Pathogenesis is that the ciliary muscles which control focusing contract to focus on near objects and relax to focus on distant objects [Rather than what?]. It is near focusing, not far, that exercises these muscles. Thus, the effect of weakened eye muscles ought to be farsightness (hypermetropia) rather than nearsightness (myopia).  [Bates Method advocates do not claim that weak ciliary muscles cause myopia.] The negative lenses that are used to correct myopia cause the muscles to work harder than they would otherwise need to and might, if anything, be expected to strengthen them.  [Minus power lenses cause light to diverge.  If an eye is overcorrected with a minus power lens, accommodation may be required to bring the point of focus back to the retina, but there is no evidence to show that that strengthens the ciliary muscle or has a long term beneficial effect.] Accommodation to distant objects is a passive process and does not involve the use of muscles.  [There is no such thing as "accommodation to distant objects".  [[Accommodation is the process by which the eye changes focus from distant objects.] In distant accommodation, the ciliary muscles simply relax; accommodation results from the elastic action of the suspensory ligaments and the lens of the eye itself.  [Again, there is no such thing as "distant accommodation".  AED 7 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)
I question the assertion that 'there is no such thing as distant accommodation'. Accommodation is surely just about changing focus, whether this requires muscle effort, relaxation, or slow recovery of shape after muscle effort, and regardless of refractive change necessitated. --Lindosland 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section - Theory regarding the pathogenesis of refractive errors

message: :[L]ooking directly at the sun [...] is very dangerous.
That's not completely true. Under normal conditions, looking at the sun with the naked eye cannot cause any permanent damage, unlike commonly believed. See Talk:Sun#The_Sun_and_eye_damage. I myself have stared at the sun for tens of minutes, and my vision hasn't suffered any noticeable damage. --Army1987 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you mean by "not natural", it isn't very dangerous either (unless you look at it through magnifying lenses or binoculars...)--Army1987 21:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking at the sun isn't so dangerous. 

message: I asked a week ago for sources for key assertions in this section; so far they haven't been provided so I'm removing the section until they are. It should not be reinserted without sources. Per the verifiability policy "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."
To reinsert the material, it is not necessary to prove that these facts are true, but it is necessary to show, by citing sources, that they have already been published by reputable source. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a section pending sources 

message: Modern research does lend some support to Bateson's {who is Bateson?} 71.32.109.22 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A grain of truth - the modern debate

message: I find all of the statements by AED about my section on the modern debate to be based on false reasoning:
"The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought" 
In the context of this article, this title makes it seems as though the idea that myopia, or various forms of myopia, can be prevented or reversed is unique to Bates. That is not true.
* It does no such thing! It makes no such assertion. However, it is a fact that for almost a hundred years following Bates' writings, opticians have mostly advised their patients that myopia was not reversible, and they have certainly not told them of anything they might do to reverse it. Now, as you seem to agree, there is considerable scientific evidence that it can often be reversed, or arrested. Time therefore, I suggest, to give Bates credit for being right - not about the focus mechanism, not about extraocular muscle involvement, not necessarily about the best way to reverse it - but just about reversibility! It's one point, anything else you choose to read into it is uncalled for, however much you think (as I do) that Bates' was mostly wrong about mechanisms.
:*You wrote “myopia is not as irreversible as was thought” without explaining what was previously thought on the subject. If medicine flatly discounted the possibility that myopia could be prevented, arrested, or reversed, how does one explain advances in myopia control such as atropine, pirenzepine, orthokeratology, and refractive surgery? Nevermind the fact that eyecare professionals have known for years that myopia secondary to near-work induced accommodative spasm is amenable to vision therapy and plus-power lenses. Singling out Bates to give him credit for merely attempting to solve the issue of myopia is like giving credit to the inventors of trephination for modern brain surgery. AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The article you references is entitled: “Lifestyle causes myopia, not genes”. Nevermind that that article’s title is an oversimplifcation of the issue, are you actually suggesting that Bates was the first to hypothesize that environmental factors affect myopia? AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *The findings of the Nova Southeastern study “support the notion that myopic progression is related to high near work demands and suggest that this progression can be slowed by a period of reduced near work”, but you wrote that it supports Bates’ “basic tenet that refractive error is not just something that has to be accepted, and that it can to some extent be reversed by change of habit”. Given that the study did not state that near-work induced myopia could be reversed by a change of habit to some extent, it is only your opinion that it supports Bates’ “basic tenet”. AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *You said “more and more research is supporting the idea that prolongued straining of the ciliary muscle does probably play a part, along with herditary predisposition, in the development of myopia”. Again, this is merely your interpretation of this research. The Nova Southeastern study didn’t say this and neither did the O’Leary study. Regardless, this information much more appropriate in Myopia than in Bates Method. AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *First of all, Bates method claims are much, much more than myopia control. The later bits of information you have posted are indirectly related to Bates.  Secondly, I do appreciate your interest in myopia pathogenesis, but your interpretation of what has been published and its application to this article is not what I would call “reasoned linkage”.  AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *The section entitled “The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought” is clearly POV, so I’m going to begin making unilateral changes if you’re not interested in repairing it. AED 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False logic regarding what is relevant to Bates method 

message: The text of what is said to be his entry in "The National Cyclopaedia of American Biorgraphy" [sic} is online at http://www.i-see.org/bates_bio.html and I expect it's accurate. What I'm wondering about is this. It seems clear that he published articles in the mainstream, peer-reviewed medical literature. What is not so clear is: during his lifetime, did he publish articles about his vision theories and treatment methods in the mainstream, peer-reviewed medical literature? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published papers by Bates? 

message: I'm surprised by your removal of my 'see also' links AED. Can you quote a wiki rule regarding this. I find that it is normal to list all relevant pages together under see also, in order of likely relevance, and when I read pages I make this assumption and I certainly do not wish to search the text for relevant links. I have never before seen any objection to my principle of listing all links.
I recently proposed the Root page concept, in an attempt to make it easier for editors to tie together pages that were created independantly. Though it has not had a lot of interest, and is currently on hold, it appears that I am not the first to note the need for some way of giving editors a 'base' from which to work and coordinate their contributions. Intrinsic in the root page concept is the idea of listing all associated pages in 'see also', and I suggest that even if my concept is not approved policy, there is merit in listing associated pages to assist coordinated editing. I did not realise immediately that Bates had a page, and that is why I added the link. --Lindosland 12:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'see also' 

message: In my opinion the text had become worse.
I do not think the word system is good choice. The BM presented in his first book is not very clear explained. So it to positive to call it a system. Also in my opinion the word vision instead of eyesight is not handy. ( You need vision to improve your eyesight. You do not need eyesight to improve your vision. ) And Bates himself talks about eyesight.
Maybe we should introduce the term classical bates method and second generation Bates method.
Also in my opinion the text should stay simple to read and informative. Ocular disorders can be replaced by eyeconditions like myopia, farsightness, astigmatism , strabismus and amblyopia.
*Not sure who wrote the above, but I think the "classical" vs. "second generation" idea is a gone one. For example, the section currently entitled "Close work" mention what Bates advocates think. Although modern interpretations of Bates' work should probably be included, I think the sections on Bates' theories should reflect what he thought. AED 23:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remarks and changes 

message: We can have facts about opinions; in particular, statements such as "X said Y about Z" are acceptable, although it is much better if they are sourced: "X said Y about Z in thus-and-such a place."
:Bates believed exposure to light was good for the eyes
is an unsourced but almost certainly verifiable statement of something Bates said. People may disagree about whether it's true, but there's no reason to disagree about the fact that Bates did believe this. The expansion to
:as limited exposure to, say, sunlight, induced an intolerance to it. This intolerance is a characteristic of many visual disorders, especially myopia, and relieving this intolerance often improves visual function.
adds unsourced opinion to a simple factual statement. If Bates actually said this, this should be made clear. If a published work on the Bates system said this, this needs to be clear, too. This material can be reinserted if it is accompanied with a good source citation. If it is just the ex cathedra pronouncement of a Wikipedia editor, it is not acceptable.
:Martin Gardner, in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, characterized Bates' book as "a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences and anatomical ignorance." He suggested that the Bates method may however work, to a limited degree, by increasing the trainee's ability to interpret and extract information from blurred images.
is a (vaguely) sourced statement about something that Martin Gardner said. Again, this is a factual "X said Y about Z"
:Martin Gardner, in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, characterized Bates' book as "a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences and anatomical ignorance." However, his suggestion that the Bates Method may, to a limited degree, work by increasing the trainee's ability to interpret and extract information from blurred images is nonsensical. Even a small child can distinguish between the phenomenon of "blur interpretation" and the experience of clearer vision.
is unacceptable as written because the second sentence includes an opinion for which no verifiable source is indicated. It appears on the face of it to be the personal opinion of the editor making the edit.
:Bates Method Discussion Group 
is described as a "discussion group," but in fact is a commercial website. I believe this to be linkspam. It has been removed as linkspam several times and nobody has come forth to explain why it should not be considered linkspam. This should not be reinserted unless it is discussed here and there is consensus that the amont of valuable, encyclopedic information it contains outweighs its obvious commercialism. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of reversions of three recent edits 

message: Guys,
I'm concerned that this section on Bates method has been written by people who haven't used it, and have soemething against it.  I AM using it now to improve my vision and my vision is improving (3 weeks in, my vision has changed from -5.50D with 1.0D of astigmatism to -5.25D with .75D astigmatism as measured by my non-believing optometrist).  I can attest personally to the truth of many things mentioned by Bates.
I'd like to change a few simple words throughout the text, for example "claims" to "believes".  You've made it sound like Bates was some wild ranting thing, rather than the scientist and practitioner he was.  There was plenty of proof in his book, of improvements in patients' sight.  And there have been more since.  If people are looking at natural vision improvement, the Bates method is grandaddy of them all. 
If people are looking in wikipedia for information on Bates method that's what they should find.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HazelR (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: I have removed the following:
:"Ophthalmologists acknowledge a simlar phenomenon, a type of hysteresis, where the eye takes time to restore its range after extended use at one distance. They also observe that hysteresis is greater in myopic subjects, who they find cannot adjust their focus so quickly as normal subjects. They would not regard this as 'injuring the eye' to any significant extent."
In context, most of this makes no sense. Accommodative infacility (assumming that is what the author of these comments was referring to) is different than Bates' assertion that the amount of myopia or hyperopia present changes from day to day or from hour to hour. AI is not an ocular injury but it is certainly an ocular disorder. Still, I don't see the relevance. -AED 20:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The practice of opening the eyes briefly while looking at the sun is claimed to be effective by some supporters but this is one aspect of the Bates method that must be considered potentially dangerous."
Multiple problems exist with this sentence: 1) Without citation, "some supporters" is weasel wording. 2) Effective for what? Reducing myopia? "Strengthening" the eyes? 3) That sungazing must be considered dangerous, or potentially dangerous, is POV. The prognosis for solar retinopathy is often good. -AED 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material removed

message: It is interesting to read what the owner of the website with worldwide list of natural vison improvement sites says about the court order on the see clearly method.
:I agree with the court order, and I am glad this product will no longer be for sale.  I am eager for people to learn about natural vision improvement through the Bates Method, yet products like the See Clearly Method misled many people into believing that natural vision improvement involves eye exercises.  It doesn't.  People who have good vision do not do eye exercises.  Blurry vision is not due to a lack of eye exercises!  Therefore eye exercises are not the solution.  Muscles that are tight from strain do not need exercises put on top of their strain.  They need relaxation first and foremost.  Learn the Bates Method from an experienced teacher, and you'll soon know the difference.  Actually, you'll SEE the difference.Seeyou 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you explain what the BM actually is, instead of lecturing us on what it isn't? Famousdog 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See clearly method or reference 23 versus 25

message: removed the following sentence :
Although these symptoms are still experienced from time-to-time by some of today's eyeglasses wearers, improvements in modern lenses have generally improved vision quality, such as anti-reflective coatings that have improved image contrast by reduced scattering.
Reason :
This is an opinion. Fact is that dispite the quality of the glasses, glasses will always filter some light. Resulting in a less stimulation of the collour sensitve cells in the retina. Fact is also glasses will become dirty. Resulting also in an filtering of light, before it reaches the fovea centralis.Seeyou 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: disadvantages to eyeglasses

message: I'm removing the 'citations missing' tag. I think this is now a reasonably referenced article. Famousdog 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations