Talk:Bates method/Archive 24

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Here is a photograph from Bates's own book. You can find it reproduced, without any disclaimer, on modern websites promoting the Bates Method. ApLundell (talk)

Absolutely nothing in the Bates methods are dangerous. This claim at the very forefront if this page is indicative of deceitful attempts to invoke fear in favor of Hemholtz doctrine in allopathic medicine. Dr. Bates’ methods are natural, yet time consuming, but not even remotely as dangerous as the allopathic modalities that cause permanent vision loss. Bates methods are the polar opposite, healing and well documented. To give a specific example, palming involves cupped hands so that the eyes are free to move about under the cover of the hands. There is NO pressure involved, this no risk for glaucoma. Any suggestions that Bates method techniques are dangerous are of a shallow and oppositional nature, focusing on the writer’s own confirmation bias; perhaps an allopathic eye surgeon who stands to gain job security by instilling fear in what is a most natural and effective approach to eye health. 173.174.196.79 (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

To give a specific example, palming involves cupped hands so that the eyes are free to move about under the cover of the hands. There's no need to speculate like that on which techniques are dangerous. The lead says so: they might damage their eyes through overexposure to sunlight, not wear their corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop. There is also a picture of sunning in the article. Any suggestions that Bates method techniques are dangerous are of a shallow and oppositional nature. Well, what about Even on closed eyes, direct sunlight exposure poses a risk of damage to the eyelids, including skin cancer.[16]? Leijurv (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No, possible sockpuppet of topic-banned user. We are not going to promote pseudoscience in this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Substantial changes

For the record, I have reverted substantial changes made by User:AlisonCary and left a note on their talk page that such changes must first be discussed here. -- Jmc (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I propose that the current articles "Good article" stats be removed because it is not neutral: "it does not represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each."

and it is not stable: because of an ongoing edit war and content dispute, which has been going on for over 10 years and is flagged with an edit warring.

Regards AlisonCary (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't represent the viewpoints of quacks or, if we do, we do for bashing them. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I repeat my request to an administrator to remove the Bates method article "Good article" status. (I am human, and tgeorgescu not being kind, in my opinion. My understanding is that being polite and kind is one of the rule of engagement here.

AlisonCary (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Heavily biased article - should be neutral or balanced

The current article is not neutral or balanced. The article uses biased words, such as ‘ineffective alternative therapy’ when it should simply state ‘alternative therapy’. Ineffective expresses opinion. The article has one-sided data, and does provide balancing sentences. The article is missing information to reflect the last 10 years of Bates Method teaching. I have additional sentences and evidence to add to this article to provide a factual and balanced article. In my opinion, the current article attempted to be sensational with its reference points, pictures and has been selective with its wording to provide a one-sided reflection of the Bates Method. The current article does not meet the Wikipedia quality of being both neutral and informative.

I have additional facts to add about the Associations of Bates Method teachers for the benefit of this article to add depth to the wider influence that Bates Method continues to have in the 21st century.

I would like to submit my new article to be published. AlisonCary (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB. There is nothing wrong with the word "ineffective" if we have sources for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Hob, thank you for your prompt response. Whilst you cite sources for your use of the word ineffective, in my opinion the word ineffective should not be used in the title description as it shows immediate bias. There will also be attempts in the proposed article to references when the Bates Method principles have been relevant. In my opinion, the article should be balanced and no balance is shown in this article at present. I request that this article be expanded to demonstrate a wider range of views and information. Regards, AlisonCary (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rules, such as WP:FRINGE, are stronger than your opinion, so the article stays aas it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

the word ineffective should not be used in the title description as it shows immediate bias Incorrect. "Telling it like it is" is not bias, it is WP:NPOV. It's the second fundamental pillar of Wikipedia: WP:5P2. The Bates method has been demonstrated to be ineffective, so we call it ineffective. You'll need a better argument than just personally not liking that it's ineffective. Also see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Leijurv (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Everyone,

I offer the following view point in good faith with reference to the heavily biased nature of the current article.

I have read the information about fringe and neutral view points - thank you for the links.

In reference to "Fringe theories in a nutshell" - To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.

OK, this Bates Method article is not in an article about a mainstream idea. TICK.

More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.

TICK, The Bates Method article is in a separate article with side panel boxes identifying it as Alternative Medicine and, at the bottom, Pseudoscience, so the reader has disclaimer to keep in mind when reading an article.

Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear.

OK, I feel that the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints is not represented in this article.

Minority viewpoints, such as a neutral and open-minded view to this alternative medicine concept is NOT represented in this article. The "majority" view has been represented using the scientific documents that say there are no statistically findings that support the Bates Method, but the minority view of personal testimony to the efficacy of Bates Method principles have not be allowed to be added to this article, even when these testimonies are published works in the public domain, with published reviews of these testimonies.

In reference to reliable sources, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."

It is identifiable in the current article that "significant minority views" (Bates method can be effective), has no representation in this article which is dominated by the majority view (Bates Method is ineffective.)

Numerous books, written over the decades, could meet the criteria of reliable sources and yet have not been included in this article (at the current time.)

An example of published, reliable source could be a reviewed book. Amazon has the most readily available option for the public to write their reviews, with both pro and con represented, allowing the reader to make their own decisions.

Here is one of 10 or more books that I would propose to use to represent the "significant minority view"

The Secret of Perfect Vision:: How You Can Prevent or Reverse Nearsightedness by David D Angelis (2011) Publisher:North Atlantic Books; 1st edition

Amazon source shows 75 ratings to deliver 4/5 review and numerous written, personal reviews of the books value.

I realize Amazon is a commercial ecommerce site, which is frowned upon compared to a Scholarly site, but it is a readily available forum for comment.

External reference: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Perfect-Vision-Prevent-Nearsightedness-ebook/dp/B005LAI8M6

Overall, I think contributing to Wikipedia articles is an act of service to the world, offering a summary of the 'best of' information that is available in the public domain. In this case the wide ranging information in the public domain, on this topic is not represented at this time, and my edits would neutralize the article with the significant minority views.

AlisonCary (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I challenge AlisonCary to adduce any evidence that the Bates method's fundamental physiological mechanism, the use of strengthened extraocular muscles to alter the shape of the eyeball, is effective. -- Jmc (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello JMC, Thanks for your comment. This is something I can work with!

You make 3 points in 1 sentence which I will address separately, so as to establish the criteria for success, because you are an administrator

1. Challenge to cite evidence.

This need not be scientific but must be well-sourced. Perhaps following the journalistic guideline of 3 named sources before publishing.

2. Use of strengthened extraocular muscles to alter the shape of the eyeball

You want evidence that extraocular muscles of eye alter the shape of the eyeball.

3. Effectiveness of an altered shape of an eyeball to alter eyesight (visual acuity)

You want evidence that extraocular muscles of eye alter the shape of the eyeball.

Please can you clarify that if these 3 points are addressed, then you will permit the current article to be neutral in tone.

As a fellow kiwi, I will do my best to address these 3 points.

In the meantime, please can you refer to my new topic that requests a change to the first sentence of the current article.

Kind Regards,

AlisonCary (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your evidence has to abide by WP:MEDRS. If it doesn't it will get knee-jerk reverted. That's a promise from all of us. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks tgerogescu for a measured response and a link to the "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)" section.

Thanks also for the reminder that I am horribly out-numbered. I will have to think about if that spurs me on, or shuts me down....interesting!

AlisonCary (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem isn't the quantity of editors, but the quality of sources. One WP:MEDRS-compliant source would be enough to win this dispute, but AFAIK no such source is even remotely likely to exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@AlisonCary You are being silly. David D. Angelis is not trained in ophthalmology he is a spiritual writer and that is why North Atlantic Books published his book. It is not an academic or scientific book and contains no scientific references. What you are proposing is not realistic and is against various policies here. You are using this talk-page to promote fringe material that is not well sourced. If you want to present "significant minority views" then this has to be well-sourced. Citing a random book on Amazon is not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Guy, You are not allowed to say that I am being silly, because that is a personal attack, and that is not allowed. I am allowed my suggestion and you are allowed your view. Other debaters repeated refer to their entitlement to be quack-bashers in this forum. It is astonishing to me that this kind of language is permitted.

In regard to the points you raise about "fringe material that is not well sourced."... The book I referenced (who was a lawyer by training) was to seek clarification on the validity of published works as a source. I read the rules/policies carefully and made a proposal based on them, in my evaluation of those rules. The article already references writings by MacRobert and Huxley, who were not ophthalmologists, and these references have been used as evidence for the view that Bates Method is ineffective. In which case, why do not the same rules apply for introducing some information to the article that there are published examples where natural vision improvement has been effective? My example of this book, is not "random" and as per my proposal, it would form part of a list of books, that could be a 'body of evidence' for use in the article to partially substantiate a minority view. Would a referenced list of 50 published books on the topic of natural vision improvement (with basis in Bates Method) be considered "well-sourced"? Kind Regards AlisonCary (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand: the standard for calling fringe fringe is WP:PARITY. The standard for calling fringe established medical science is extremely high, namely WP:MEDRS (yup, read it all, and you might get an inkling why 50 pro-Bates books amount to no WP:RS).

As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by.
— User:Kww

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@AlisonCary Since you have chosen to initiate a separate topic for discussion, I'll address your response to my challenge there. -- Jmc (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

New sections for article

I propose to add new sections to this article to identify the Bates Method teacher Association in London and globally. In addition, to add depth to the article about Bates Method teacher training which takes place in various places in the world. Both these sections demonstrate the Bates Method continues in the 21st century, despite the controversial opinions about its effectiveness. This is relevant, factual and current information with website sources. Regards, AlisonCary (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

We're not a PR outlet. I advise you to read WP:QUACKS. You won't succeed here. This is Sparta! tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I can see from the Archive Talk debates that many have tried to present alterative views and depth with regards the Bates method, and have failed. I can't imagine that my debate and proposal skills would be any better than theirs. For those members of the public on a research journey about alternative eye health medicine are not going to find much help on Wikipedia. OK, I get it now.

Over and out.

AlisonCary (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You got that right: another name for Wikipedia is the quacks bashing machine. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You make that sound like that's a good thing!

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral, well-worded, good-faith knowledge entity.

AlisonCary (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The wording minority views refers to bona fide scientists, not to quacks. We consider quacks not as bona fide, but as noxious parasites and pseudologists. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Our commitment to assume good faith on the part of our fellow editors does not mean that we have to treat fringe beliefs and sources as if they were identical in quality to reliable sources in medical fields. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You make that sound like that's a good thing! Haha! 😂😂 It absolutely is a good thing. Wikipedia has this pesky policy called WP:V which means that only what's printed in reliable sources can be used. Any idea that is laughably incorrect (such as: "the Bates method is effective") will not be available in any reliable sources, therefore it cannot be said on the site. Thank god! This is even stronger on medical pages, there's a higher standard called WP:MEDRS. Leijurv (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see the so-called quack-bashers have the loudest voice here and this is not a genuine debate forum.

You have succeed in 'seeing off' another voice of genuine enquiry. Well done.

Goodbye.

AlisonCary (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

We are WP:NOTAFORUM. We aren't Debatepedia, nor Quackopedia, nor an institute for publishing original scientific research, nor an institute for genuine scientific enquiry. We kowtow to the medical orthodoxy and we would rather be wrong together with it, rather than right together with the fringe medical theories. (Of course, the chance for a fringe medical theory of being right is infinitesimally small.) tgeorgescu (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Alteration of the first line of the article

Hello, I would like to propose to replace the first sentence of the article please, from The Bates method is an ineffective and potentially dangerous alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight.[1][2] to The Bates method is a pseudoscientific alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight.

Kind Regards, AlisonCary (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

'ineffective' must remain until evidence is adduced that the Bates method's fundamental physiological mechanism, the use of strengthened extraocular muscles to alter the shape of the eyeball, is effective. (And as tgeorgescu has said, any adduced evidence has to abide by WP:MEDRS.) As for 'potentially dangerous', that must remain in the lede as justified by statements within the body of the article. -- Jmc (talk)

Yep, I'm done here. Over and out.AlisonCary (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup, one WP:MEDRS-compliant source would be your silver bullet, but it is painfully obvious to all that such a source does not exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The following studies about axial length change in humans identify how natural and tiny changes in the shape of the eyeball allow visual clarity to occur temporarily.

"The human eye is capable of responding to the presence of blur by changing its axial length, so that the retina moves towards the defocused image plane (using reduced lenses)...These findings provide evidence that the human eye is able to detect and respond to the presence (using reduced lenses)... of blur within minutes." Scientific Reports, 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-65151-5

"Significant changes in optical axial length occurred in human subjects after 60 minutes of monocular defocus." IOVS, 2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20592235/

"During relatively short periods of accommodative stimulation, axial length increases in ... young adults", IOVS, 2006 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16505066/

"...This study found that small but significant bi-directional changes in SFCT (Sub-Foveal Choroidal Thickening) were caused by retinal defocus in healthy presbyopic subjects aged 50 to 67 years of age....", IOVS, 2018 https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2711345

"Small but significant changes in SFCT (Sub-Foveal Choroidal Thickening) (5-8%) were caused by retinal defocus. .", OPO, 2015 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26010292/

"The eye undergoes a significant axial elongation associated with a brief period of accommodation...", OVS, 2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562668/

These findings have been extrapolated anecdotally. Individual testimonies proport natural eyesight restoration over the long-term application of Bates Method principles and reduced lens method where vision, with small amounts of blur encourages the visual system to activate and use minute changes in axial length to allow make long-term and permanent adjustments so that visual clarity can be maintained. It is not scientifically proven in longitudinal studies in humans that strengthened extraocular muscles to alter the shape of the eyeball, but the findings are correlated and individual success have occurred as evidenced in personal testimonies published in the public domain.

AlisonCary (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

None of the abstracts you linked contain the word "Bates". To use them as sources for this article would be WP:SYNTH. Even if they did, they would need to be secondary sources, evaluation and summarizing primary studies, in order to satisfy WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@AlisonCary As you correctly say, "It is not scientifically proven in longitudinal studies in humans that strengthened extraocular muscles [are able] to alter the shape of the eyeball", which is the fundamental tenet of the Bates method. So the jury is still out on its effectiveness, and has been for 120 years. -- Jmc (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

In science, juries are not out on effectiveness when several studies have failed to find any. They pronounce that the two things accused of a correlation are acquitted for lack of evidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling Correction accepted without question! I used an ill-chosen metaphor to express the assertion that, after more than a century, we're still waiting for evidence that the Bates method can effect accommodation by strengthening the extraocular muscles. -- Jmc (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I propose adding the following to the initial statement, with the aim of reinforcing defences against attempts to remove 'ineffective': "with its basis in a disproven concept of the physiology of the eye." -- Jmc (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That is explained in the third sentence. I'm not sure how cramming it into the first sentence would reinforce anything, unless you replace "aimed at improving eyesight" with more technical wording. Sslad (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sslad Fair point. In that case, the issue lies rather with the wording of the second sentence, which jumps straight into Bates' theory of "strain" without explaining that it's entirely dependent om his mistaken belief that "strain" affects the extraocular muscles and thus causes vision defects. -- Jmc (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You could probably swap the second and third sentences, with a few tweaks. However, I'm still not convinced that would reinforce anything. One could always say that some Bates exercises might sometimes improve eyesight, even if the original rationale behind them was wrong. That seems to be what Aldous Huxley said. Sslad (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I initially considered swapping the second and third sentences, but it'd still not establish the sequential dependencies in Bates' mistaken beliefs with sufficient clarity. So I now propose rewording the second sentence thus: "Eye-care physician William Horatio Bates (1860–1931) held the erroneous belief that the extraocular muscles effected changes in focus and that "mental strain" caused abnormal action of these muscles; thus he believed that relieving such "strain" would cure defective vision." -- Jmc (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good, if indeed it accurately reflects Bates' view, and if that view was definitely wrong. I'm not sure what to make of what is linked above regarding axial length changes. Sslad (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Nemine contradicente I'll make the change. -- Jmc (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The third sentence is now pretty much redundant. Should it be removed? Sslad (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair question. Let's see what others think.

As for "what to make of what is linked above regarding axial length changes", there's no explicit reference that I can see in the cited papers to the Bates method, so probably not really relevant to this article. -- Jmc (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Nemine contradicente I'll remove the third sentence as now redundant. -- Jmc (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)