Talk:Bates method/Archive 1

Bias

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) vgeddes

Swinging

This article doesn't give a fair treatment of Dr Bates' theory.

His premise is that strain is the cause of imperfect eyesight amd that once sufficient relaxation is attained, perfect sight will result. All his methods try to produce this relaxation except from 'swinging', though relaxation is a by product of 'swinging'.

'Swinging' encourages the proper use of the focal point on the retina, which persons with imperfect sight fail to do. 'Swinging' also results in relaxation, and is sometimes more helpful than other methods as it is an active means of attaining it.

If you read Dr Bates' book and note how often he talks about relaxation you will see that it is relaxation and not exercises which form the basis of his methods.

Other exercises?

Eye exercises redirects here (at least at the moment). Is this the primary/only method? There's a lot of hype around the "See Clearly Method" these days. —User:Mulad (talk) 16:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Change to introductory sentence

The first sentence states: "For the general public and the orthodox ophthalmology the Bates Method is a controversial system of techniques that is intended to improve vision through a set of practices that are claimed to relax the eyes." "Controversial" means essentially "marked by controversy" and "controversy" is defined as "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." The first part of the first sentence is redundant so I am going to delete: "For the general public and the orthodox ophthalmology". AED 2 July 2005 19:04 (UTC).

In my opinion this information is not redundant. The reason is that when you nowadays look in books written by and for the orthodox you will find pictures explaining myopia and hypermetropia which correspondent with the theories of Bates. Meaning that the eyeball is the cause of myopia ( to long ) and for farsightness ( to short ). In most books written for the general public you will find pictures showing that the lens is the cause.

See figure 4 of perfect eyesight without glasses. [1]

(foregoing comment added August 27, 2005 by seeyou)

Criticism section - Theory regarding the pathogenesis of refractive errors

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)

Looking at the sun isn't so dangerous.

[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)

I do not know any animal which has the strange habit to stare at the sun !!! In my opinion looking for less than half a second to the sun at noon is harmless. Looking or even staring to the sun for a longer period is not natural.

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)

Removing a section pending sources

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)

A grain of truth - the modern debate

Modern research does lend some support to Bateson's {who is Bateson?} 71.32.109.22 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) overall idea that reading and close-work play a part in the development of myopia in children and it is hard to find any other reason for the epidemic of myopia that afflicts our children, with the percentages of children reported as myopic in different countries appearing to be highly correlated with the amount of early study.

Whatever the mechanism, it does seem likely now that prolongued straining of the ciliary muscle does probably play a part in the development of myopia, and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development. . This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time.

An area of relevance that does not seem have been adequately researched concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses our eyes. Does it take its cue from a guess at object size (which links somewhat with Bateson's emphasis on memory)? Or does our perception of object size and distance take cues from the degree of focus effort needed? It seems obvious that whatever the cues, the wearing of glasses is going to mess them up, so that the wearer must develop two or more separate programs in the brain for aquiring focus with and without glasses, especially when presbyopia sets in and we start to focus through multiple lenses or varifocals. There would appear to be no way in which the eye can tell whether a blurred image is being brought to focus in front of or behind the retina, and hence which way to change focus, other than by using a trial and error approach (not very good) and so other cues would seem to be vital. It may be that there was a grain of truth in what Bateson was doing in so far as he tried to train the brain to improve its focus strategy, or ignore a false strategy.

Unsourced material in Bates method

(reply to your personal page was blocked by spam filter!)

See Talk:Bates method. You can put this section back, but first you need to provide sources that show that its major assertions have already been published by a reputable source. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, and I intended to look for sources, which I believe may already appear in associated articles like myopia. I'm thinking of a recent New Scientist article. Sorry, I got involved in a lot of writing for other areas, but will try to sort this section out. I sometimes feel that some things need not be sourced on the grounds that they are self-evident, that they follow from basis reasoning, and its hard to draw the line at where sources are cited, but since you've challenged I must try. I wonder for example whether it is acceptable to say, 'an area of research that does not seem to have been adequately researched concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses the eyes'. This is not original research, which is of course taboo, but comment on lack of research, and as such self-evident unless research comes up. This topic, which has existed in the shadows for so long, and is often put down by specialists who actually still do not understand all the mechanisms involved, can perhaps stand a little comment of this sort, which makes no great statement, but stands as a pointer and a challenge to others to come up with more facts. Regards --Lindosland 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope not to too much of a jerk about this, and in reality as I'm sure you've noticed plenty of unsourced "common knowledge" does get into Wikipedia. I think it was fair for me to challenge and remove the material in its present form, as it's really just a personal essay. With regard to reinsertion I'm not going to insist on perfection, and I intend to use verifiability in a good-faith way.

I don't, however, agree that you can just say, without sourcing, 'an area of research that does not seem to have been adequately researched concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses the eyes.' Without doing a literature review myself, how can I judge whether that's true? What would be OK in my opinion is to state that, say, "thus-and-such textbook of ophthalmology or optometry, in pages so-and-so through so-and-so, discusses the physical mechanism of accommodation but never addresses the issue of how the brain knows in which direction to accommodate." My reasoning here is that a standard textbook of ophthalmology would be a reliable summary of the important facts that are generally accepted about accommodation. What I'm saying is that I think you could have a negative source citation, thus-and-such source says nothing about so-and-so. That's objective and verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue this: the truth is I am not quite sure what I feel about some of the finer points of Wikipedia, but I'm hooked on it nevertheless and find trying to be NPOV, while trying to put out what I consider the right messages to be a fascinating and strengthening excercise! I'll see if I can do this better and learn in the process. --Lindosland 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now put the disputed section back with citations. I would ask that the final section be left for now, though I have yet to rephrase it with a reference. It does not attempt to mislead in any way, such as by presenting unsupported facts, and I think it may be very valuable and relevant, so perhaps if it is left others can consider it and firm up the basis for it, as I will if I can. --Lindosland 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted the recent additions. The Nova Southeastern study supports the common idea that hyperopic defocus due to lag of accommodation may cause myopia… not Bates' muscle squeezing theory. The "A grain of truth - the modern debate" section was clearly POV, most likely due to a misunderstanding of that study. AED 06:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstand the study, and did not claim that it supported Bates' muscle sqeezing theory, which I understand there is much evidence against. This article is about the Bates method, not Bates' muscle squeezing theory, and I meant that there is some truth in some of Baates' ideas, in particular the idea that habit can alter refractive error, which forms part of Bates hypothesis, and which is the conclusion of the Nova Southeastern study. I am putting my material, which in any case includes other ideas, back, though I will make some changes. I do not support Bates, who I think was mostly wrong, but I think it should be made clear that much recent research is casting doubt on prevailing ideas and treatment --Lindosland 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• • No, this (and the section entitled "The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought") is YOUR interpretation of recent research. Wikipedia is not the place to express original interpretations of what research may indicate. AED 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. The literature is pretty unanimous in saying that we do not yet have the definitive answers regarding Myopia, its causes and its treatment. That means that we as editors can only choose what WE consider to be most relevant. What I have written is now heavily cited, though I am working hard at researching this and intend to tie in everything with citations as I improve it, especially with regard to CA/C ratio and the use of prisms. I must admit that I started hypothesising about this (before I came to this article) on the basis of some personal obserbations, and have been surprised to find that I am not the first, and that a lot of quite involved hypothesising and investigating has been done along the lines I was developing. I find this quite shocking, as no opthalmologist ever made any attempt to bring such important details to my attention, to prescribe plus lenses for reading when I was young, or for example to prescribe prisms to balance the CA/C ratios now that I wear multiple glasses and find I am observing subtle jumps in size/depth perception, and an apparent ability to focus sharply beyond my far point if I make special mental efforts (I didn't arrive at these observations through any interest in the Bates method). This is good reason for me to fight to get knowledge of such things out there through Wikipedia. After all, people come to Wikipedia for understanding, to solve mysteries, not just to get a nicely balanced (likely to be revised/overturned)contemporary view. I can now say that nothing I have written is MY interpretation alone, though it reflects the direction my research has taken me in. If someone out there has said the same, and I quote them, then I don't think you should revert it. You are of course entitled to add your own selection.

While familiar with the guidelines, I think there is a sense in which Wikipedia articles like this one are forced in a to do 'original research' but with the proviso that the research is in sifting and comparing and selecting to try to provide the most useful answers, rather than in doing actual research. If such a process actually ends up arriving at the real answer, through straightforward application of logical thought (much as Watson and Crick did using others' results!) then I don't think Wikipedia can or would condemn that. It's paper research aimed at consensus through logical demonstration. How else do you try to acheive consensus? --Lindosland 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• My objections to it as being unsourced are withdrawn. Thanks. That doesn't make it immune to criticism on questions of POV/balance, though in general I'd prefer to see that handled by expanding the amount of high-quality content on both sides since regardless of what one thinks of the truth of the Bates theory, it is patently a fact that that theory does have many adherents. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I favour effort at expansion over effort to achieve 'balance' (which is forever subjective, especially on controversial topics). --Lindosland 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding Lindosland's comments above: “I can now say that nothing I have written is MY interpretation alone, though it reflects the direction my research has taken me in. If someone out there has said the same, and I quote them, then I don't think you should revert it.” First of all, this is not supposed to be about your research. Secondly, your interpretation of the facts is not mirrored by the references you have cited. Let's take a point-by-point look at the paragraph you wrote:

"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.

"Though modern research refutes Bates' claims regarding the role of the extraocular muscles in focussing, many studies are confirming that reading and close-work play a part in the development of myopia in children. It is hard to find any other reason for the epidemic of myopia that afflicts our children, with the percentages of children reported as myopic in different countries appearing to be highly correlated with the amount of early study [3]."

This citation reflects only the idea that environmental factors affect myopia… an idea that is not unique to Bates.

"A study of students with myopia showed that while their refractive error progressively worsened over the period of a year, it actually reduced during periods of vacation in which they reported doing less close-work[4]. While this in no way supports Bate's main ideas, it does support his 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."

Who stated that Nova Southeastern study 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”? This is a conclusion not supported nor declared by the study. It certainly does not support Bates’ idea that the eye accommodates through squeezing of extraocular muscles.

"Whatever the mechanism, 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 (a theory actually opposed by Bates), and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development [5]. This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time, and that in children in particular, anything that relaxes the eyes is likely to be beneficial."

This paragraph is filled with your conclusions. First of all, research does not necessarily suggest that “straining of ciliary muscles” causes development of myopia; however, it does suggest that retinal defocus may play a part. Secondly, the O’Leary study does not state that “corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten” the development of myopia. O’Leary’s study found that undercorrection of myopia cause an increase in myopia!

"An area of great relevance concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses our eyes and converges our binocular vision for near-sight. Basic optical principles suggest that there is no way in which the eye can tell whether a blurred image is being brought to focus in front of or behind the retina, and hence which way to change focus. This is supported by the fact that modern digital cameras with passive autofocus use a trial and error approach, shifting focus first one way and then the other while attemting to maximise contrast in areas of fine detail. If the brain uses this trial and error method, then it must remember what stage it is at and decide when to stop, a difficult task for a neural network, and one that does not always work reliably or quickly in cameras."

Good information about emmetropization and development of myopia, but nothing directly relevant to Bates.

"This suggests that the brain might use other cues like binocular convergence, or perceived object size and distance to direct focussing, perhaps with trial and error for fine trimming. In principle, convergence on near objects to avoid double vision need not be trial and error, but can use negative feedback from the two apparent image positions to adjust the extraocular muscles rapidly for coincident images. Convergence could therefore be the driver for accommodation. The whole issue of convergence and accommodation is discussed in detail in the 'Myopia Manual' by Klaus Schmid [6], which attempts to review the entire published literature. In section 3.4 of the Myopia Manual, Phoria is described as a defect in which convergence and accomodation do not track together properly. Too much convergence is called esophoria, and too little convergence exophoria. The manual refers to evidence that the progression of myopia is in fact linked with the degree of phoria, and refers to more technical details involving the AC/A and CA/C ratios."

Good information about emmetropization and development of myopia, but nothing directly relevant to Bates.

"If such cues are indeed used, then it follows that the wearing of glasses is likely to confuse the brain, and weaken its aquired algorithms, by changing the relationship between convergence and apparent focus distance, requiring the wearer to develop two or more separate programs in the brain for aquiring focus with and without glasses. The Myopia manual goes on to describe the use of prisms for correcting phoria, indicating that prisms added to prescription lenses might slow the progression of myopia."

Good information about emmetropization and development of myopia, but nothing directly relevant to Bates.

"Phoria could be part of the reason myopia progresses in young people wearing corrective glasses. It could also be relevant when presbyopia sets in and we start to focus through multiple lenses or varifocals. It may be that there was a grain of truth in what Bates was doing in so far as training excercises might help the brain to improve its focus strategy, or to ignore a false strategy."

An encyclopedia article is supposed to be about what is, not what one editor speculates “may be”. - AED 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

False logic regarding what is relevant to Bates method

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)

"Though modern research refutes Bates' claims regarding the role of the extraocular muscles in focussing, many studies are confirming that reading and close-work play a part in the development of myopia in children. It is hard to find any other reason for the epidemic of myopia that afflicts our children, with the percentages of children reported as myopic in different countries appearing to be highly correlated with the amount of early study [3]." This citation reflects only the idea that environmental factors affect myopia… an idea that is not unique to Bates.

• Again, just read what I wrote, not what you read into it! Environmental factors affect myopia. It follows that changes of habit may reverse or arrest myopia. Bates thought that too, so lets credit him for that one point now that we know.

• 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)

"A study of students with myopia showed that while their refractive error progressively worsened over the period of a year, it actually reduced during periods of vacation in which they reported doing less close-work[4]. While this in no way supports Bate's main ideas, it does support his 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." Who stated that Nova Southeastern study 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”? This is a conclusion not supported nor declared by the study. It certainly does not support Bates’ idea that the eye accommodates through squeezing of extraocular muscles.

• Who stated that the study supports Bates? I did, by logical deduction, not my opinion. That's allowed, it's used all the time in Wikipedia. I not saying that the man who wrote the study said that it supported Bates, I'm saying here is an article that says the same thing as one of the things that Bates said. That is, it supports his basic tenet ... One point and one point only on which to credit Bates. No it certainly does not support his accomodation theory! You reason as if any support for Bates has to be total support and cannot be dissected point by point. That's not fair at all, and not the way most people would interpret my statement.

• 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)

"Whatever the mechanism, 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 (a theory actually opposed by Bates), and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development [5]. This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time, and that in children in particular, anything that relaxes the eyes is likely to be beneficial." This paragraph is filled with your conclusions. First of all, research does not necessarily suggest that “straining of ciliary muscles” causes development of myopia; however, it does suggest that retinal defocus may play a part. Secondly, the O’Leary study does not state that “corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten” the development of myopia. O’Leary’s study found that undercorrection of myopia cause an increase in myopia!

• I did not say that "straining of ciliary muscles CAUSES ... I'm a scientist used to distinguishing association and cause. There is lots of research that concludes that where there is sustained ciliary muscle tension myopia tends to develop. There are many theories as to the why this association exists. Yes, retinal defocus is also seen to cause lengthening, probably by an interesting active process probably involved in emmetropization and possibly even localised micro focussing. I believe the jury is still out on the exact reasons for the association. There is a lot of association between esophoria and the progress of myopia, and also pre-existing esophoria and the development of myopia. Some note that positive lenses counter esophoria etc etc. Just read what I said! We can fine tune it by all means, but it is very relevant.

• 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)

"If such cues are indeed used, then it follows that the wearing of glasses is likely to confuse the brain, and weaken its aquired algorithms, by changing the relationship between convergence and apparent focus distance . . . . . Good information about emmetropization and development of myopia, but nothing directly relevant to Bates.

Bates is about Myopia, and some possible causes and cures. Emmetropization is fundamental to our modern understanding of Myopia and the axial lengthening that Bates wanted reasons for. Bates thought it was the eyeball getting squeezed. We now know he was almost certainly wrong. I think people interested in what Bates wrote are very interested in how exactly he was wrong, but how there is now scientific evidence for mechanisms that could explain why his excercises might nevertheless have value (as so many people clearly think that they do - or Bates would have been long forgotten). They might have value precisely for the reasons I give concerning brain mechanisms - this is reasoned linkage of relevant published facts, not original research. --Lindosland 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• I am not prepared to keep on replying to accusations based on things you infer, but which I did not say, with a mass of spurious new facts thrown in. You clearly have a good knowledge of the field, but I think we are actually both on the same side, and that it is your tendency to read things into my carefully worded contribution that were not written or intended that causes you to argue with me. It's pointless to continue trying to defeat your false reasoning, but I have defended by contribution with considerable effort. Please therefore leave my material up, for others to judge the matter, and if you have new things to contribute, then say them in the article. --Lindosland 10:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

Then please do it one point at a time. I do not accept that it is POV, though no doubt it can be improved on. I am not the first to say here that this article does not give fair treatment to Bates, and you seem to want to put down any suggestion that anything he ever said was right. --Lindosland

• Then please do it one point at a time. [I thought I had, but I'll gladly do it again.] I do not accept that it is POV [Given that you wrote it, I didn't expect that it would be easy for you to tell that it is.], though no doubt it can be improved on. I am not the first to say here that this article does not give fair treatment to Bates [The article would have to say "Bates was right!" for some to accept it as fair.], and you seem to want to put down any suggestion that anything he ever said was right. [Nope. I just want the inaccuracies rectified.] AED 07:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the section entitled "The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought"

1) I am changing the title from "The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought" to "The modern 'debate'". There really is no debate, and as I mentioned previously, it was never explained what was previously thought. AED 07:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

2) I am removing "Though modern research refutes Bates' claims regarding the role of the extraocular muscles in focussing, many studies are confirming that reading and close-work play a part in the development of myopia in children. It is hard to find any other reason for the epidemic of myopia that afflicts our children, with the percentages of children reported as myopic in different countries appearing to be highly correlated with the amount of early study [3]." Bates claimed that "mental strain" caused refractive errors and other ocular abnormalities. He never claimed near-work in and of itself caused myopia in children. I will save the link, however, for a large re-write. AED 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3) I am removing "A study of students with myopia showed that while their refractive error progressively worsened over the period of a year, it actually reduced during periods of vacation in which they reported doing less close-work[5]. While this in no way supports Bate's main ideas, it does support his 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." The Nova Southeastern did NOT find that reducing near-work would reverse myopia. It found that reducing near-work would reduce the progression of myopia. This contradicts Bates who held the tenet that near-work need NOT be reduced to decrease myopia. (e.g. “The remedy is not to avoid either near work or distant vision, but to get rid of the mental strain which underlies the imperfect functioning of the eye at both points”) He did not consider reducing near-work to be a “change of habit”. I will save the link for the re-write. AED 07:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

4) I'm splitting the later half to a section entitled "Pathogenesis of myopia". It doesn't even really belong in this article, though, since this is supposed to be about Bates. AED 07:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

5) I'm moving some of this paragraph and rewriting the rest of it: "Critics of bates over the years have often made bold statements such as the following one quoted in 'Fallacies of the Bates system' (1956). "The matter is summed up succinctly by Dr. Glen R. Shepherd, who stated that eye exercises cannot reduce or eliminate any condition caused by "structural defect of the eyeball" -- hence they cannot possibly reduce or eliminate any refractive errors" [5]. 'Cannot possibly' is a dangerous thing to say, and we now have considerable evidence, from experiments on animals as well as human subjects, that the eyeball adjusts its length by cellular growth processes occuring behind the retina and possibly elsewhere, which are triggered whenever a blurred image occurs on the retinal in conditions of high brightness and contrast. Some studies even indicate that the direction of growth may depend on whether the blurred image is focussed in front of the retina or behind it, though the mechanism for detecting this is not known. It follows that if the state of focus of the image can stimulate such growth, then eye excercises might well alter the refractive errors by virtue of the fact that they alter the state of focus at the retina." AED 07:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

6) I'm rewriting this sentence: "Whatever the mechanism, 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 (a theory actually opposed by Bates), and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development [6]." As I mentioned previously, the citation references the O'Leary study which does NOT state or suggest "that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development". The O'Leary study found that undercorrecting myopia caused myopia to worsen faster. The citation completely contradicts the sentence that follows: "This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time, and that in children in particular, anything that relaxes the eyes is likely to be beneficial." AED 07:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

7) I'm removing this sentence: "This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time, and that in children in particular, anything that relaxes the eyes is likely to be beneficial." It is not OUR current understanding that children may have been damaged by corrective lenses, nor is it evident that "relaxing the eye" (given its ambiguity) is beneficial. O'Leary study found that undercorrecting myopia caused myopia to worsen faster! AED 07:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

8) I'm removing this sentence: "It may be that there was a grain of truth in what Bates was doing in so far as training excercises might help the brain to improve its focus strategy, or to ignore a false strategy." Vergence training in vision therapy is vastly different than the techniques Bates used. AED 07:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

9) I'm removing this sentence: "Too much convergence is called esophoria, and too little convergence exophoria." Convergence excess is not called esophoria, nor is convergence insufficiency called exophoria. AED 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

10) I'm removing this paragraph as an original interpretation of Bates' work: "Modern research confirms that the eyeball changes length in response to a blurred image at the retina, but those opthalmologists who attribute the change to the blurr itself fail to explain how the eye knows which direction to adjust in, since no mechanism has been identified by which the retina might sense whether the blurred image is coming to a focus too early or too late. The fact that accommodation is part of a negative feedback system makes it impossible to determine whether blur is the driver for lengthening without breaking the feedback loop, since several things are forced to change in unison (see 'Pathogenesis of myopia' below for more details). Bates 'straining' would appear to mean 'willing' a correction signal into this feedback loop when it fails to perform properly. His assertion that it is 'mental tension' that has blocked proper functioning of this normal feedback process is not unreasonable according to current thinking. Athletes of all kinds place great emphasis on state of mind as vital for best performance, and relaxation excercises are promoted by mainstream medicine as well as alternative practitioners, as a way curing many ailments, high blood pressure being a prime example. Musicians, who rely heavily on pre-programmed motor activity, also recognise that stress interferes with good playing. Biologists refer to negative feedback as homeostasis." There is nothing to reference Bates method as affecting a feedback mechanism. Sorry. AED 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept what you have done, as it completely wipes out the meaning of what I put into a section that I created. You say above 'there never was a debate'. I think you want to suppress such debate. Much of what you wrote begins with 'despite ...' or similar phrases, playing down the 'pro' and the giving the 'anti'.

I'm reverting, as there was a lot of work in my contribution (as there is now in yours) and I suggest that you put yours in a section created by you, or in the section against Bates. The Wikipedia advice is to present both sides where both sides exist significantly, and not to try to create balance. I don't think POV is the problem we have, its two mainstream sides in a debate, and I want both put.

-

I was thinking that it might be better to reorganise the whole article to clearly state firstly that Bates' method is about two things - his theory of vision, and his excercises. Then list each of his points in each of these two main categories separately with a section to each, like accomodation by sqeezing, et, and give an analysis based on current knowledge, in terms of both sides. Would you go along with that? It gets round the problem that you interpret my statements as being broader than they are. It also allows both sides to add to sections without wiping out views on the other side. --Lindosland 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-organising article

Reading the article through as it stood appeared as a jumble or poorly organised ideas. There was much duplication of works and ideas in the introduction, so I have made this more concise. I have clearly listed the techniques, and added an important one to the list - central fixation.

Is this approved of? If so I plan to carry on the re-organising starting with a theory section. --Lindosland 12:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry AED, I now realise that in my haste I missed the point that you had moved my contribution to 'Pathogenesis of Myopia', which is fair enough. I wouldn't have reverted if I'd realised that! I'm coming to regret introducing 'The modern debate' as I'm beginning to agree that there isn't one as such. Rather there are two camps, as there were in Bates' day, without much debate, though there are matters of relevance in current thinking on myopia. --Lindosland 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think the yoga reference needs a citation. Enter "bates method" and yoga into Google and you get 23,200 results. The comparison is everywhere, and a single 'authoritative' reference would be hard to choose. --Lindosland 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Choose one and insert it, please. I'm not too picky, but I want to see a source. (If pressed, I'd say the best source would be a book on yoga, since it is yoga practitioners who would be most knowledgeable about what techniques are and aren't like yoga). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• If we're going to use the yoga reference, we need to attribute it to someone. Here's a link for starters: [2]. AED 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll do. Done.

Works for me. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, we clashed on edits, try again: AED: you say that Bates method supporters 'cling to the idea that mental strain is responsible through extraocular squeezing'. Bates himself placed great emphasis on lack of central fixation, resulting from mental strain, and refers to consequent unsuccessful attempts to focus. I am not sure that he actually claims any specific mechanism for residual accommodation remaining after squeezing. I am trying to say that this lack of proper focus which he postulates is actually consistent with the modern realisation that a blurred image leads to gradual eyeball elongation. Can you not agree that there is a significant correspondence here, without any need to accept his extraocular theory, which can be taken separately. --Lindosland 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Bates considered a blurred retinal image to be merely an effect whereas modern research considers it to be a cause. I think the only similarity between the two is that both were/are attempting to explain the development of refractive error. AED 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes AED, perhaps, but those who jump to the conclusion of cause seem to me to be falling for the same trap as many systems engineers do when dealing with negative feedback systems. Everything is linked in a feedback system, so a blurred image is normally concommitant with several other states in the brain and the muscles. Without breaking the loop it is impossible to say which of these states is the cause. Some have presented a blurred image without defocus using translucent or frosted material, but that only presents a 'fault' condition, which we would expect to confuse the system, so a drift one way means little. There does seem to be a lot of evidence that the direction of focal error determines the direction of change, and that is fascinating because it would appear to be almost impossible for the retina to detect the direction. A theory that chromatic aberration is used to sense the direction claimed to eliminate this as possible. Retinal sensors at different depths is possible, but is there any evidence for this? That leaves the brain as the source of the directional cue, with convergence as a contender as the thing in the loop that can indeed provide the check on distance, and the degree of esophoria as perhaps the variable that drives elongation. This is my research, and my conclusion, I know, but do you see why I think as I do. It challenges the quote 'there is no scientific rationale'. I'm interested in whether you agree with the above, or would fault it. Working out whether it can be reasonably put into Wikipedia is another matter of course, put presenting 'rationale', based on a series of citations is perhaps permissible. That's what I was getting at earlier. Would you agree that providing rationale is not research, its making the logical connections. --Lindosland 13:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No original research is pretty clear in stating that an edit is original research if "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." AED 06:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No original research also says "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I think this is a very difficult area. If 'collecting and organising' makes a conclusion obvious, then that seems to be allowed, so long as, perhaps, we don't state the conclusion! I can probably manage that. If I were to 'publish' my theory on the web would you say that 'counts'? Yes it's not 'third party', but then what if I got it published in Nature? Can we refer to our own papers?

I did say I was interested in your comments on my analysis though, and of course Wikipedia does encourage all such things on the talk pages. You don't have to comment of course, but it might help us make a good article if we knew what we were agreed on.

Citing sources

Actually, the yoga reference is only one of many, many places where this article needs to cite sources. It caught my eye because it was new. But this problem exists throughout the article, both in portions that are supportive of Bates and portions that are critical of Bates. For example:

"The vast majority of optometrists and ophthalmologists do not recommend the Bates Method."

Probably true, but needs to be sourced... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• How about this one? [3] It's a bit biased in its explanation, but it'll do for me. AED 01:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I found that one, too. And as it happens, I personally thought it wouldn't do. (Also, after getting scads of hits about "functional optometry" I began to think that there are a substantial number of optometrists who, if they are not recommending the Bates method by name, are personally using something at least vaguely akin to it). I couldn't find anything about Bates, pro or con, on the obvious professional-association sites, either.

I rather liked this passage:[4]

The mainstream medical community criticized his theories then and remains skeptical today.

Individual success stories may make people feel good about a particular treatment, but they don't prove that it works, said Dr. Kathryn A. Colby, an ophthalmologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.

"There's no scientific rationale to support this treatment unless you're in the wrong glasses to begin with," she said. "It probably wouldn't hurt you, but there's no scientific data to suggest that it works. [And] it might hurt your pocketbook if you shell out X hundreds of dollars and it doesn't work."

That seemed to me like a good, well-sourced, authoritative statement of what might be called the mainstream view. Might be a place for it in the article somewhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the following, as Bates does not propose weakened muscles.

"Some advocates of the Bates Method propose that myopia is not caused by weakened muscles, but by muscles that are being used improperly. They suggest that when a myopic person focuses on distant objects, they are no longer relaxing the muscles used in accommodation. Instead, they are "straining" to see the distant objects with the same muscular tension exhibited when viewing at the nearpoint."

I think I've now completed my re-organisation, with comprehensive a list of Bates' theories, set alongside modern comment. I realise that some of the modern comment may be improved by citations, but I hope what I've written can be agreed in principle. --Lindosland 15:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories. Quackery, ophthalmology are BOTH valid

The purpose of categories is not to make some pronouncement of truth, but to help readers find articles.

Many people feel that the Bates system is valid ophthalmology. Therefore it is completely appropriate to have it in the "ophthalmology" category, even though most ophthalmologists would probably disagree."

Many people feel that the Bates system is quackery. If so, it is notable and important quackery. Therefore it is also completely appropriate to have it in the "quackery" category.

People who are trying to find articles about quackery will want to find this article, so it should be in this category. It's not a definitive pronouncement of truth, it's a search aid. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with that synopsis. AED 06:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article quackery says: "While quacks may not be knowingly deceptive, it is implicit that they have not applied acceptable testing procedures, if any, to their treatments." I think Bates did apply acceptable testing procedures, at least for his day, though I was wondering, as I see is now discussed above, what peer reviewed publication etc took place. I agree that categories are mostly to help find things, and will not fight the category decision above therefore.

• Bates was not necessarily a quack in his time, but the contemporary advocating of his techniques in the absence of any evidence that they work is quackery. AED 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, modern use of this method is simple quackery. So I'm re-adding the category label. Famousdog 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Published papers by Bates?

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)

• At the bottom of this page, there are links to his works published in the "medical literature". Don't know if any of it were peer-reviewed, but there is no way they would make it to print by today's standards. AED 07:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of 'see also'

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)

• Here is a Wiki reference:[5]. It's unnecessary to list articles that are linked in the article. AED 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

remarks and changes

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)

• • It is important to also mention second generation Bates. Second generation Bates are the authors who never knew Bates personal, but knew his students. They are most often experienced succesful teachers with a simpeler explanation or approach to understand what Bates tried to explain.

See the site : http://www.i-see.org/vision_books.html

Deleted the yoga link. People who are succesful with the second generation Bates Method often use al kind of different meditationforms to improve relaxatio posture breathing etc. Not only Yoga. When you mention yoga you should also mention Tai Chi, Chi Kung, a martial arts, Trancedental meditation etc.

Pathogenesis and control of myopia: the modern "debate"

This information is not directly related to the Bates method, so I am saving it here in the event someone wants to move it to Myopia. -AED 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

More and more research is supporting the idea that prolongued retinal defocus probably plays a part, along with herditary predisposition, in the development of myopia, and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development.

An area of great relevance concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses our eyes and converges our binocular vision for near-sight. Basic optical principles suggest that there is no way in which the eye can tell whether a blurred image is being brought to focus in front of or behind the retina, and hence which way to change focus. This is supported by the fact that modern digital cameras with passive autofocus use a trial and error approach, shifting focus first one way and then the other while attempting to maximise contrast in areas of fine detail. If the brain uses this trial and error method, then it must remember what stage it is at and decide when to stop, a difficult task for a neural network, and one that does not always work reliably or quickly in cameras.

This suggests that the brain might use other cues like binocular convergence, or perceived object size and distance to direct focussing, perhaps with trial and error for fine trimming. In principle, convergence on near objects to avoid double vision need not be trial and error, but can use negative feedback from the two apparent image positions to adjust the extraocular muscles rapidly for coincident images. Convergence could therefore be the driver for accommodation. The whole issue of convergence and accommodation is discussed in detail in the 'Myopia Manual' by Klaus Schmid [6], which attempts to review the entire published literature. In section 3.4 of the Myopia Manual, Phoria is described as a defect in which convergence and accommodation do not track together properly. The manual refers to evidence that the progression of myopia is in fact linked with the degree of esphoria, and that the development of myopia is linked with pre-existing esophoria. The manual goes into more technical details involving the AC/A and CA/C ratios which describe how accommodation and convergence track each other. A recent study in Malaysia also concluded that phoria might be an important factor in myopia development [7].

If such cues are indeed used, then it follows that the wearing of glasses is likely to confuse the brain, and weaken its acquired algorithms, by changing the relationship between convergence and apparent focus distance, requiring the wearer to develop two or more separate programs in the brain for acquiring focus with and without glasses. The Myopia manual goes on to describe the use of prisms for correcting phoria, indicating that prisms added to prescription lenses might slow the progression of myopia.

Phoria could be part of the reason myopia progresses in young people wearing corrective glasses. It could also be relevant when presbyopia sets in and we start to focus through multiple lenses or varifocals.

---

Explanation of reversions of three recent edits

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)

General

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).

Comment

I put the following info back

Still there have also been studies which contradict much of the suggestions mainstream medicine has given us. Take for example the study Dr Steven M. Beresford and others did, they discovered eyesight can improve naturally

Because in my opinion it is very important information. What aruguments are there to remove this information. When you check this information with google and Dr steven Beresford you will discover it is true. Again what are the arguments to remove this information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeyou (talk • contribs) 05:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

The arguments to remove the statements are this: 1) When you contribute to Wikipedia, the burden is on you to cite verifiable sources for your assertions. There is no reference for that assertion. 2) It is not clear what particular study to which you are referring for anyone to fact check your assertion. -AED 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The source of this information is the book

Improve Your Vision Without Glas... written by Dr Steven M. Beresford and DR. W. Murris, DR .Merill J. Allen and DR. Francis A. Young

You can partly look inside this book for free at certain big bookstores. I dit not mention the complete title to prevent advertising. It is a reliable source !!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.58.40.166 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

You said: "there have also been studies which contradict much of the suggestions mainstream medicine has given us". What are "the suggestions mainstream medicine has given us" as described by the above authors? What studies were they referring to? What did those studies test? What did those studies find? -AED 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

> What are "the suggestions mainstream medicine has given us". The first and most important suggestion of mainstream medicine is : vision can not improve naturally. They also suggest myopia is hereditary. Research amd studies on pre-industrialized people showed myopia is not hereditary at all. > What did those studies test? Can you improve your vision naturally. > What did those studies find? You can improve your vision naturally. To AED, Maybe you can adjust the information instead of completely removing it. Do you represent An Eye Doctor (AED ) or are you respresenting mainstream ophthalmology. I think the general public has the right to know about this information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeyou (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

You can put this information into Wikipedia if you follow the policy of verifiability. This means that what you put in must be from a published source that meets the reliable source guidelines, and that source must be cited. The essential point is that the reader must know where the material comes from, and must be able to judge the reliability of the source for himself. So, if Steven M. Beresford has written a book or authored some journal articles you can quote what he says and cite that book or that journal.

The existence of this article, and its contents, show that nobody is trying to suppress information about natural vision improvement or nontraditional medicine.

WIkipedia also has the policy of a neutral point of view. That means when there are substantial bodies of opposing opinions, they all need to be presented. The formula is "A says B about C." You can't say in the article "mainstream medicine is bunk." You can't say in a vague sort of way "Bates supporters think mainstream medicine is bunk." You can say "so-and-so, in his book Thus-and-such, says on page 234, 'mainstream medicine is bunk.'". Clear? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved the information of the natural vision improvement article to the Bates method article where I agree with dpbsmith it belongs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeyou (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Natural vision improvement

AED the reference websites you added http://www.allaboutvision.com/ does not really give information about natural vision improvement or the see cleary method. It assumes it but it a very comercial website for the opposite unnatural choice. ( assuming it is impossible to improve eyesight naturally ) When you look at the http://www.allaboutvision.com/sitemap.htm it makes one very clear is a mainstream ophthalmology site. This references create in my opinion diffusion !!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeyou (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

The statement in the article we are referring to is this:

"The See Clearly Method is one well-known program developed by four doctors calling themselves the American Vision Institute and based on their book Improve Your Vision Without Glasses Or Contact Lenses : A New Program Of Therapeutic Eye Exercises."

The first link I provided references the assertion in the statement that The See Clearly Method was based on the book Improve Your Vision Without Glasses Or Contact Lenses : A New Program Of Therapeutic Eye Exercises by four doctors. That link states: "VIT stated that The See Clearly Method is an educational program based on the book, Improve Your Vision Without Glasses or Contact Lenses, by Dr. Steven M. Beresford, Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Dr. Francis A. Young, and Dr. David W. Muris, originally published in 1996 by Simon & Schuster." The second link I provided references the assertion in the statement that those four doctors called themselves the American Vision Institute. That link states: "No word promoting the product — a regimen developed by four doctors calling themselves the American Vision Institute and marketed by a Fairfield, Iowa, agency called Sentient Global Marketing — promises anything." Both references are required to support the statement. (By the way, please type ~~~~ to sign your posts.) -AED 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Material removed

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)

I have removed the following:

"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)

See clearly method or reference 23 versus 25

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)

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)

disadvantages to eyeglasses

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)

Citations

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