Stay away from "vision educators"

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » Stay away from "vision educators"

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Author

Message

Francine Eisner

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:14 am

Guest

I think one thing that some people might be unaware of is that the
docs here are clinicians, not vision researchers. They base their
practices on existing studies done by vision researchers. You might
approach the latter to do Bates studies. Most clinicians have an
entirely different orientation. They want to help their patients, but
using methods they are absolutely certain of.

Cheers,
Francine

On 30 Mar, 16:12, Jason Harper <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On 30 Mar, 13:46, LarryDoc <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

In article <MPG.19a0267a83607f95989...@news.ntlworld.com>,
Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is
still OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat?
I heard it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all
spacecraft that make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon
isn't made of cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?

--LB

The question is, Don't YOU really want to know? Since you are the
ones treating people, shouldn't you research this more instead of
mocking and ignoring something that you know nothing about. If there
is a cure for myopia, hyperopia, etc.; is it not in your patients
best interest to find this out?

Dan Abel

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:16 am

Guest

On 30 Mar, 13:46, LarryDoc <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

In article <MPG.19a0267a83607f95989...@news.ntlworld.com>,

Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is
still OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat?
I heard it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all
spacecraft that make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon
isn't made of cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?

--LB

I've already commented earlier on the flat earth concept. It was
certainly reasonable in its time.

As for the moon being made of green cheese, I think that's been taken
out of context. If someone was to say that their car is "candy apple
red", nobody would think that the car was made out of apples. "Green
cheese" does not refer to a green color. If I referred to a new
employee as being green, you would not expect their skin to be green.
"Green" means new. If you have ever seen green cheese (cheese that was
just made and hasn't ripened at all), you would instantly realize that
it is exactly the color of the moon.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net

Mike Tyner

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:17 am

Guest

On 30 Mar, 16:12, Jason Harper <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

If Bates techniques worked as well as you claim, then SOMEBODY besides
Bates would have published incontrovertible, repeatable confirmation
of his findings. I've looked for evidence in the literature that
palming, sunning, imagining black, centration and the "long swing" are
of any benefit. It really would be Nobel-quality news. I don't find
any confirming studies, except by Bates.

YOU assume the evidence isn't there because nobody else has tested
Bates' claims. You assume that Bates had no colleagues interested in
proving his techniques or sharing his success. I believe those
confirming studies were never published because nobody has been able
to duplicate the dramatic results that Bates claimed to have "in every
case" and in "thousands of cases".

Since you know my patients' best interest so well, you'll understand
how I have to recommend treatments that work reliably. It appears to
me that Bates' techniques don't work unless HE performs the therapy
and HE does the before-and-after evaluations. Maybe there are others
with his gift, alive today. But results that depend on a personality
rather than a process are not considered effective.

-MT

Jason Harper

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:18 am

Guest

On 30 Mar, 16:17, Mike Tyner <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

YOU assume the evidence isn't there because nobody else has tested
Bates' claims. You assume that Bates had no colleagues interested in
proving his techniques or sharing his success. I believe those
confirming studies were never published because nobody has been able
to duplicate the dramatic results that Bates claimed to have "in every
case" and in "thousands of cases".

Yes, I assume there has never been another test of Bates experiments
done, because I have never seen any. YOU assume that his experiments
have been tested even though you have never seen any evidence of
this. Who is making the bigger assumption?

LarryDoc

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:20 am

Guest

On 30 Mar, 16:18, Jason Harper <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On 30 Mar, 16:17, Mike Tyner <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

YOU assume the evidence isn't there because nobody else has tested
Bates' claims. You assume that Bates had no colleagues interested in
proving his techniques or sharing his success. I believe those
confirming studies were never published because nobody has been able
to duplicate the dramatic results that Bates claimed to have "in every
case" and in "thousands of cases".

Yes, I assume there has never been another test of Bates experiments
done, because I have never seen any. YOU assume that his experiments
have been tested even though you have never seen any

Ahh-- so you make the assumption that because you haven't seen it, it
doesn't exist. How open minded of you.

And let's assume there has not been any formal testing of The Method.
Care to ask why not, after a century goes by? Do not Cultists care
about reality? (Rhetorical.)

Quote:

YOU assume that his experiments have been tested
even though you havenever seen any evidence of this.

Can you read or not? MT wrote about publishing, not performing the
tests.

In any event, the burdon of proof is on the Bates Cultists and, as the
saying goes: "put up or shut up."

Or just go away and palm away the strain.

--LB

Dr Judy

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:21 am

Guest

On Mar 30, 8:05 am, Kory Postma <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

On 30 Mar, 13:04, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I missed something. What happens to make the vision improve?

Does this work for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia?

-MT

The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more
relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the
sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after
reading Bates.

Here is my problem with understanding this. The retinal anatomy and
neurology are organized so that only the small central area is seen
most clearly, it is not a habit that needs to be learned. As it is
anatomically not possible (except for genetic defects in retina) to
not see centrally, how do people learn that "bad habit".

Same goes for scanning and retaining memory. The eye has
micromovements, the visual system relies on short term memory and
persistence of vision --- this is the normal, inborn way of seeing
that requires no conscious effort. Where is the evidence that those
with refractive error are not seeing that way?

Dr Judy

Dan Abel

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:22 am

Guest

On 30 Mar, 16:12, Jason Harper <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On 30 Mar, 13:46, LarryDoc <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

The question is, Don't YOU really want to know? Since you are the
ones treating people, shouldn't you research this more instead of
mocking and ignoring something that you know nothing about. If there
is a cure for myopia, hyperopia, etc.; is it not in your patients
best interest to find this out?

Of course you aren't aiming your comments at me, since I am a computer
person and not a medical person, but...wake up folks, there *is* a
cure for all of these refractive problems. There are several
different methods. I wouldn't personally recommend them, but they are
very common and very popular. Currently the most popular is LASIK.
As far as I am concerned, it is a true cure.

Of course, although most people don't consider glasses and contacts as
a true cure, they certainly do the job with few side effects. They
have been called "crutches" on this group, but they certainly work
better at helping people see than crutches do at helping people run or
walk.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net

Jason Harper

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:23 am

Guest

"LarryDoc" <larry...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:larrydoc-6EAF69.12591411082003@news06.west.earthlink.net...

Quote:

Ahh-- so you make the assumption that because you haven't seen it, it
doesn't exist. How open minded of you.

How open minded of you to mock and try to discredit something that you
know nothing about.

Quote:

YOU assume that his experiments have been tested even
though you have never seen any evidence of this.

Can you read or not? MT wrote about publishing, not performing the
tests.

In any event, the burdon of proof is on the Bates Cultists and, as the
saying goes: "put up or shut up."

Have you seen any evidence that the tests have been performed?

Kevin

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:25 am

Guest

On 30 Mar, 13:41, Jan <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Kevin,

With minus glasses of a higher power the peripheral visionfield has
MORE formation instead off less compared to myoops without glasses. In
a small angle they get the same information twice.(rimless frame)

With plus glasses (even rimless) they get less information. In a small
angle they could not "catch" a thing.

Asking this, should there be a difference in myopics and
hypermetropics wich we may not ignore speaking about the retina when
wearing glasses?

And what do you suggest if these myoops and hypermetroops wear
contactlenses? Do not say Bates has no answer, contactlenses are
already present at the time Bates wrote his book.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

On 30 Mar, 13:26, Kevin <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

In article <2zEYa.1631$vo2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
mty...@mindspring.com says...

Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."
Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
objects are "drawn into" the field.

The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by
the simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual
field. To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the
point.

There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight
which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames
themeselves block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the
frames are no longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes
accustomed to working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus
lenses minify is quite correct, - they draw more information into an
area of sight that has been contracted.

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at
the very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.

Kevin

Contacts in general have some advantages over glasses in that they
provide a slightly more normal experience for visual focusing.

I do understand that more visual information is available in the casw
of lenses for myopia, but you are skipping the point - the retinal
area used to see that 'greater visual information' is a smaller area
of the retina than if the whole eye is used without lenses.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said, 'the area of visual information
which is perceived as useful by the subject takes up a smaller space
on the retina than on the retina of a person who uses their eyes
without glasses'. Stuff outside that clarity bubble that glasses
provide is generally disgregarded. The connection between eye and
brain of the reception of light on those retinal cells at the outer
periphery is thus ignored.

Kevin

Kevin

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:28 am

Guest

In article <larrydoc-5F1000.00065511082...@news06.west.earthlink.net>,
larry...@nospam.yahoo.com says...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Quote:

In article <MPG.19a0267a83607f95989...@news.ntlworld.com>,
Kevin <sevenths...@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

------------------

Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
astonishing raeaction!

I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.

Hogwash! I'd suggest you read your own words again. I quoted it here,
above directly from your post.

Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
your words won't sound so hollow.

Not hollow.

Your statement is simply false. It is not "well known that all
myopes............" That is wrong. Just say: "I should have been more
careful how I chose my words. Or admit you are wrong. It has to be one
or the other.

Yes, I agree with that. It would be truer to me to say 'I am under the
impression that it is more likely for myopes, and particularly high
myopes to have some degeneration at the peripheral edges of their
vision.'

I don't mind being wrong about that, but it is a strong impression
I've gathered from hearing talks and advice from some of the
ophthalmologists I'm in contact with over here in the UK. I usually
attempt to avoid making generalizations perhaps in this case I
misunderstood what was being said, and I don't have the statistical
data to follow it up.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Quote:

I'm sorry if clincal observation and the reporting of data based on the
scientific method gets in the way of Bates rhetoric. It's simple to
find lack of credibilty in The Method when parts of it are known to be
false, invalid, or detrimental.

On the other hand, it seems that the Bates Cultists have not been able
to come up with any credible evidence that there is validity to The
Method. Nothing. If you want to discuss Bates in a sci.med heirarchy of
UseNet newsgroups, then you've got to come up with some science.
Otherwise, the proper place to promote Bates is in an alt. newsgroup or
perhaps misc.health.alternative. Not here.

I've been around here long enough to know that every couple of years a
new crop of Bates zealots shows up here for a while, usually just after
the pin-hole glasses people leave. This current crop is taking longer
than usual to go away.

TYhere's a significant problem here - the current crop are mostly
neither zealots nor charlatans, but the mix of different worlds
creates that impression. Actually for both sides it appears that the
other side is somewhat insane.

To be fair, Bates does attract a fair number of people looking for the
magic answer to life and you will get a degree of unperceptive
delivery which is in no way helpful. This sort of thing is what makes
the method produce a kind of cultic impression and people who are
deeply like that tend to be more vocal. But they can't discuss very
well.

Quote:

Personally, I love to see you cultists get it together and fund a study
to try to prove your point. It doesn't matter whether YOU think it
works or even if a whole cult of users thinks it works. You've got to
able to show cause and effect relationship.

Yes, and I totally agree. There's a reason that this has never been
done before. Back in the 1940s when Corbett was taken to court (twice)
for practicing medicine without a license one of the long term results
was a very effective damping down on all Bates teachers. Although she
was acquitted, Corbett herself was seriously alarmed and began to
suppress publicity around the method. As she was one of the most
influential teachers her subsequent advice to all Bates teachers to
keep their heads down was taken seriously.

By the time I trained in the 90s, this overall 'survival' approach had
created what I'd call a serious 'community rot' amongst Bates teachers
and vision educators in general.

Over the last couple of years I have become increasingly acutely aware
of just what happened and why it happened. Colleagues of mine would be
only too happy to discredit 'scientific method' and its
representatives, because it was considered a good way of justifying
the contiunued lack of well designed studies - not in a conscious way
nor with malevolent intent, but with an accepted 'this is how things
are' approach.

Unfortunately, it is also bull**** and time it was rooted out and
exposed for what it is. Any optician who wants to try and expose this
lack will be shouting themselves hoarse for a long time. From a Bates
community point of view the orthodoxy is unable to speak much sense by
default, so this is part of the reason that it appears that there is
this constant butting of heads with no-one really grasping the
essential points which help things to move forward.

But I agree with you completely, there needs to be some really well
designed studies, and done with the co-operation of opticians,
optometrists and ophthalmologists. Results do not have to be as
spectacular as what Bates claimed - just an indication that
progressive myopia is slowed, or overall reduced in impact would be
significant enough don't you agree?

Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that
will, if promising, lead to a long term study about the effectiveness
(or not) of the method.

Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
behind something which is on inadequate foundations.

Kevin

Rishi Giovanni Gatti

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:32 am

Guest

Quote:

Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that
will, if promising, lead to a long term study about the effectiveness
(or not) of the method.

Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
behind something which is on inadequate foundations.

Kevin

Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!

Nice to see you here!!!

How are you doing with your myopic refraction? Do you still use
glasses?

Too bad that you are investing in a study about your "method", because
I know it will be failed and we will all suffer from this.

Maybe Corbett, the greatest charlatan of all, was right: keep your
head low, commanded her to you all! She knew she was not right and was
not able to REALLY cure people, so she chose to do very low profile
work, discrediting Bates himself (whom she never knew).

I think the only way to exit from these bad waters is show that cures
happen, and advocates of Bates should be cured before speaking or
teaching. What is the use to propose studies trying to show some
"improvement" (which in most cases is as faint as a ghost?) when the
proposer himself hasn't got much success?

If you need help to cure your high myopia permanently, I am available.

Kevin

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:34 am

Guest

In article <c72b1499.0308150532.1dc5...@posting.google.com>,
g.ga...@agora.it says...

Quote:

I drop in and out occasionally.

Quote:

How are you doing with your myopic refraction? Do you still use
glasses?

Doing very well thank you, no I haven't worn glasses once in over 15
years.

Quote:

Too bad that you are investing in a study about your "method", because
I know it will be failed and we will all suffer from this.

Well fact is you know very little of what I teach.

Quote:

Maybe Corbett, the greatest charlatan of all, was right: keep your
head low, commanded her to you all! She knew she was not right and was
not able to REALLY cure people, so she chose to do very low profile
work, discrediting Bates himself (whom she never knew).

I think the only way to exit from these bad waters is show that cures
happen, and advocates of Bates should be cured before speaking or
teaching. What is the use to propose studies trying to show some
"improvement" (which in most cases is as faint as a ghost?) when the
proposer himself hasn't got much success?

If you need help to cure your high myopia permanently, I am available.

Thanks.

What puzzles me Rishi is why you go to such lengths to cause
dissension and discord. There are many many people involved in the NVI
movement and the orthodox vision world in general. Some will be better
at passing on helpful advice than others, some will have a more
clearly Batesian approach than others. Some will not understand it
all, some will understand very little. Yet you will persist in
alienating yourself from them all. If you want to communicate with
them in order to pass on your 'knowledge', why make sure that you've
offended them all first?

But I guess the real point I want to make is that you seem to be
totally unable to communicate in any other way. Oh, unless you want
something of course in which event you can become very chummy.

So how many Bates teachers are now in the list of those who have told
you to go away?

Doesn't it bother you that you can't actually communicate with anyone
without being offensive?

Personally, I don't have any problems with dealing with Bates oriented
person vs. ophthalmologist, in a civil and organised manner, where
things get discussed and information is passed and shared. There's no
agenda to convince but a genuine desire to exchange. It works, and
things move forward.

But whether you like this or not, or think this is silly or not, or a
waste of time or not, the fact is that to those of orthodox
inclination you epitomize the image of the Bates cult member. Unable
to communicate without offense, unaware that this gets you nowhere and
in fact provides ammunition for the orthodoxy to dismiss the method
outright.

I know you are annoyed at me because I put you on moderation on the
Bates yahoogroups list because you were unable to talk without being
rude or childish, but really going from writing to me and telling me
that you considered I was one of only two Bates teachers who could
really teach it (and asking me if I would train you) to this apparent
childish diatribe above, I mean, what a mess.

It's a shame, because your heart's in the right place, but your people
skills suck big time.

Kevin

LarryDoc

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:36 am

Guest

On 30 Mar, 16:25, Kevin <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On 30 Mar, 13:41, Jan <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Kevin,

With minus glasses of a higher power the peripheral visionfield has
MORE formation instead off less compared to myoops without glasses. In
a small angle they get the same information twice.(rimless frame)

With plus glasses (even rimless) they get less information. In a small
angle they could not "catch" a thing.

Asking this, should there be a difference in myopics and
hypermetropics wich we may not ignore speaking about the retina when
wearing glasses?

And what do you suggest if these myoops and hypermetroops wear
contactlenses? Do not say Bates has no answer, contactlenses are
already present at the time Bates wrote his book.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

On 30 Mar, 13:26, Kevin <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

In article <2zEYa.1631$vo2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
mty...@mindspring.com says...

Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree."
Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of vision. They
don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus lenses minify, and more
objects are "drawn into" the field.

The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by
the simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual
field. To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the
point.

There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight
which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames
themeselves block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the
frames are no longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes
accustomed to working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus
lenses minify is quite correct, - they draw more information into an
area of sight that has been contracted.

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at
the very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.

Kevin

Contacts in general have some advantages over glasses in that they
provide a slightly more normal experience for visual focusing.

I do understand that more visual information is available in the casw
of lenses for myopia, but you are skipping the point - the retinal
area used to see that 'greater visual information' is a smaller area
of the retina than if the whole eye is used without lenses.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said, 'the area of visual information
which is perceived as useful by the subject takes up a smaller space
on the retina than on the retina of a person who uses their eyes
without glasses'. Stuff outside that clarity bubble that glasses
provide is generally disgregarded. The connection between eye and
brain of the reception of light on those retinal cells at the outer
periphery is thus ignored.

Kevin

You are still wrong and that stems from basic lack of understanding of
the physiology and neurology of the retina. I will be quite brief:

The peripheral retina photoreceptors do not care if the image is
focused or not. Their purpose is to "sense" form awareness and motion
detection.

So, " stuff outside the clarity bubble" is not ignored.

You might want to research the neuro function of the retina, as theren
are three separate systems there----the central fixation (focused
image expected), the certral visual field, paracentral extrafoveal
visual field and peripheral visual field.

--LB

--
Dr. Larry Bickford, O.D.
Family Practice Eye Health & Vision Care

The Eyecare Connection
http//www.eyecarecontacts.com
larrydoc at m a c.c o m

LarryDoc

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:37 am

Guest

In article <MPG.19a692d770af9bc7989...@news.ntlworld.com>,

Kevin <sevenths...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my
conviction behind something which is on inadequate foundations.

Very nicely said, Kevin.

Then I gather you'll be gone from this newsgroup until such time as
you have some data to report?

--LB

Jason Harper

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:03 am

Guest

test

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:29 pm Science Forum Index