608:"A series of 103 myopic individuals were selected from a total of 130 applicants. The uncorrected visual acuity of these patients was recorded, a cycloplegic instilled, and the retinoscopic and static refractions determined. These 103 myopic patients were then returned to a group of optometrists and psychologists for a course of visual training designed to improve their uncorrected vision. At the end of this visual training the patients were again examined to determine what change had ocurred in their uncorrected vision. It was found that 30 of these patients, or 29 percent, showed a low-grade improvement on all charts. This improvement averaged an increase of 27 points in the percentage visual acuity. A second group of 31 patients, or 30 percent, did not show a consistent improvement on all four charts but did show an overall improvement in both eyes which averaged 14.7 points in the percentage visual acuity. As far as could be determined the improvement in these two groups was not consistently maintained. A third group of 32 patients, or 31 percent, showed practically no change in the percentage visual acuity. A fourth group of 10 patients, or 9 percent, showed a decrease in the percentage visual acuity of 10.8 points.
347:"subjective" or the placebo effect. Of course you have got the subjective and placebo effect, but you have also got the measurable objective effects. In measurable meaning real objective changes in the shape of the eyeball, brain, condition of muscles, habitual breathing etc. Or improvement in distance vision. Very easily to measure with an eyechart by yourself. ( When people measure an improvement in their distance vision. Do they believe they have improved their vision or do they experience they have improved itĀ ?! ) When people really change a habit which influences vision/visionhabit. ( e.g. only a nutritional habit can have this effect ) So not as an exercise but as an habit. Or as an exercise done on a very regular basisĀ ! NVI or BM happens by one very simple law. It is called the law of adaptationĀ ! Described very clearly be the author
243:
modern BM teachers don't talk about things like axial elongation at all. They talk about natural healing and the more cultured ones about "vis medicatrix naturae". BM is a method which stands or falls solely on whether it works. In general its advocates believe that it will in time prove to have a scientific basis, but in the mean time they want to get on with helping people to see better, and are succeeding to at least some extent, even if the result is only "subjective" or the placebo effect. Nobody has a satisfactory theory of refractive error, and the BM people no longer claim to offer one except in the broadest terms, namely "strain", which you rightly have said is so vague as to be fairly meaningless.
324:
categorize it has been the puzzler for the last 90 years, compounded by the generally non-scientific basis of current teachers of the method. Bates' own suggested theories he put forward with 'considerable trepidation', according to the forward of PSWG. His subsequent dogmatic and at times antagonistic approach through the rest of the book caused more problems than help, and most certainly from the point of view of those who have studied vision from the orthodox viewpoint, it has provided a long standing red-herring that diverts away from looking into a different approach to understanding eyesight.--
614:"The maximum average increase noted in group I was between one and three lines improvement in the Snellen scale. it was believed by the examiners that education in the correct interpretation of a blurred visual image was the chief factor in the improvement noted in this group. It was further believed that the exercises produced a beneficial psychological reaction in certain patients towards their visual handicap, regardless of whether an actual improvement in visual acuity had occurred.
553:
is a totally different judgement from "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". In particular the use of the words "as yet" and "remains" imply that clear scientific evidence might reasonably become available at some time in the future, which is not what scientists expect of astrology, for instance. PubMed clearly states that it regards the use of eye exercises as so far unproven, and controversial. It neither says not implies that it sees it as pseudoscience.
31:
420:...The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000), noting that Dr. Bates was the first exponent of the theory that visual defects could be cured by throwing away one's glasses and following a prescribed regimen of eye exercises, states that this idea was 'one of the most persuasive pieces of pseudoscience in the early part of the 20th century ...'
617:"With the possible exception of educating some patients to interpret blurred retinal images more carefully and of convincing some others that they could see better even though there was no visual improvement, this study indicates that the visual training used on these patients was of no value for the treatment of myopia."
270:. While I don't really think the Bates method is pseudoscience, it's apparent to me that that's what it is generally considered, and the arbcom case is clear that it should be categorized that way. By extension the pseudoscience infobox is also appropriate, though it could be replaced if a better infobox were found.
314:
scale that kind of interest and money is hard to raise. However he really did feel that the goal for small-scale initial studies was well worth pursuing because he personally had a small number of clients whom he had seen needed their prescriptions reduced, having undergone a series of lessons in the method.
868:
library has physical (paper!) issues going back to 1955 (9 years shy, dammit!). I'd need to do an inter-library loan to get a copy. All of which begs the question: Why the hell are we making such a big deal out of something published over 60 years ago that shows that eye exercises are virtually useless?
902:
My only motive here is to oblige a wiki-colleague. I think it valuable if we have an atmosphere in which we share our information, irrespective of whether we think it supports our own prejudices. In this case it seems that copyright prevents me from re-publishing the document, but if any of you wants
552:
I'm grateful to
Ruhrfisch for posing the question in this way. The PubMed ref concludes "As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises in the remainder of the areas reviewed, and their use therefore remains controversial." This
182:
I'm not sure whether your reference proves anything. In any case BM isn't "science" at all, it's a method, irrespective of its "scientific" basis, which we all admit is currently weak. Why not create an infobox for "Alternative medicine" and use that? As for the subsequent proponents, you seem to be
389:
perhaps in the spirit of compromise we should try to find someone (a scientist) who claims the Bates method is pseudoscience, since ascribing our own labels to it is apparently contentious. Plenty of people have stated that other well-known concepts are pseudoscience and so it is neutral for us to
197:
Sam, while I agree that the use of a "pseudoscience" infobox might be POV, I think your issue regarding the use of current/subsequent is both making a mountain out of a molehill and a bit of a straw man. The term subsequent by definition includes current. What's the problem? If its such a big deal,
867:
publicly available. Its not being hidden away in a locked vault by evil scientists who don't want the world to know The Truth. It is, however, copyrighted material. The
American Journal of Ophthalmology only has online editions going back to 1998 and you need to have a subscription. My university
792:
PSWG1920, Don't you understand it is about politics. Uninteresting reports are fully availba, the moment it becomes interesting copyrights block the information to reach the public. PSWG1920 it is not about science or copyrights it is about politics. Are not you interested in the Woods report. It
313:
Recently I had a 2 hour meeting with an optometrist to discuss these problems and to be able to get advice on just how a study might be begun. a full blown study with a large enough population base would take some years to complete and be costly - until there is enough basic evidence on a smaller
130:
recommended an infobox. The pseudoscience infobox template itself did not seem very well developed, so I took the liberty of changing "current" to "subsequent". "Current" is less than ideal anyway because it can at any time become outdated in regards to a specific individual. I think
Zappernapper
299:
Primarily the method is an educational process so there have been problems in co-ordinating and organizing comprehensive studies of the method. This is partly due to the nature of the method's approach to vision, but perhaps predominantly due to the backgrounds of those who practice and teach it
242:
I have a mental image problem with simultaneously making a mountain out of a molehill and being a straw man. Could you draw a picture to help me? I totally support your suggestion about the infobox. As for what "lots of proponents" say, could you give references? As I've often said on this page,
110:
Infobox
Pseudoscience suddenly appeared on 8 February without any announcement or discussion here. I think we need to talk about whether it should be there at all, and if so, what its content should be, particularly as regards the entry "Subsequent proponents", or "Current proponents" as it was
366:
Accommodation is a law as certain as the law of gravity. Yet most of us donāt trust the law because of self-doubt or confusion. You may wonder, Can I really become good at this. Will I be able to accomplish my goal Will I find succes. A more useful question is not Can I, but rather how can I.
323:
Clearly things do happen, and equally clearly the results are variable as the method is educational, with all the vagaries that come with working with people who think, learn and respond with different personalities and the concomitant variable capacities for change. How to co-ordinate it and
600:"... Determination of the visual acuity without correction of each eye at 20 feet or a shorter distance when necessary. Four charts were used for this purpose: (a) Snellen chart with letters, (b) Snellen chart with numbers, (c) Landolt broken-ring chart, and (d) Snellen letter-E chart. ..."
145:
The automated peer review said "You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox". If there were an infobox "alternative medicine" it would undoubtedly have been
611:"The changes in the percentage visual acuity noted was found to lie within the limits of error of subjective testing of the visual acuity. Also the estimating of change on the basis of percentage visual acuity weights the scales in favor of improvement in those who have high myopia.
482:
Zappernapper saidĀ : While we could play the semantics game. It is not about playing semantics games. When you can interpret whatever you read as how you read it. You don't have to discuss anything. The result will be opinion based ,low quality ,unbalanced or polarized articles.
146:
appropriate. To use "pseudoscience" is to change the balance of the POV argument. As for the subsequent/current proponents, by changing it you have allowed the implication that there are no current proponents. Huxley and
Corbett are as dead as Bates himself. What about the many
216:
science, or at least backed up by science, and a lots of proponents couch their theories in scientific language. Just look at the discussion of axial elongation versus lens deformation above. That's the hallmark of a pseudoscience, so the term is highly appropriate.
302:
In general its advocates believe that it will in time prove to have a scientific basis, but in the mean time they want to get on with helping people to see better, and are succeeding to at least some extent, even if the result is only "subjective" or the placebo
183:
working on the assumption that it only those already featured can be included. There are a lot of BM authors and teachers. Even though probably none of them is individually notable enough for an article, that doesn't stop us from listing a few names.
841:
it is that eye exercises will improve your vision. Go ahead, cite the Woods study. It's a damning indictment of the ineffectiveness of eye exercises and I'm not sure why Seeyou (a NVI enthusiast) wants to publicise
948:. I am sure wikipedia will help. There must also be other options. Just give me a sign when you are ready. I will create a temporary email adres then for you to sent it to. I am now really becoming enthousiastic.
591:
I'm here retyping some excerpts for the Woods report, which I hope will calm the arguments above. I feel compelled to add that IMHO the final conclusion here does not follow from the rest. Quotation begins:
504:
Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
811:
article. I also think it's clear what Woods' conclusions were from the information we already have, and that what was tested was not anything resembling Bates' method, from what is reported in
629:
so it can be verified. We need the Woods report on the www. Elwin Marg report is made fully available. Why can't the woods report made public. Just an idea. Scan the document sent it to (
534:. ( controversial but is it correctĀ ? )I don't think it is wise to compare the BM article with any other article. We strive for quality and no ORIGINAL RESEARCH for obvious reasonsĀ !
262:
Regarding SamuelTheGhost's edit summary that "those who think BM is pseudoscience also think all alternative medicine is pseudoscience", I don't think that's necessarily true.
390:
label those articles as such. But for us to label something as strict pseudoscience is technically original research and while i might agree with that determination, as per
267:
165:
127:
446:. This link used be in the references. I don't know if it still present. Quackery equals pseudo-science. When something is controversial it is not quackery. Is itĀ ?
833:
There is an expression: "Two swallows don't make a summer." Science is much the same. It is by design conservative. Two persons out of 103 improving their eyesight
300:
today - only very rarely do any teachers of the method have a training in scientific method. SamuelTheGhost summed it up extremely well when s/he said above:
413:
while it proved harder than i thought, because i wanted to avoid
Gardner's claims. According to the suit brought against the See Clearly Method posted on
793:
would really improve the quality of this article. Note also the public has indirectly paid for these kind of research they have got the right to read it.
730:
Copyrights is not a problem for Elwin Margs report until now. So if the Woods report has a copyrightproblem. Elwin Marg report also has one.
464:
of pseudoscience. While we could play the semantics game, I just figured it would be best to cite a source which called it pseudoscience
473:
433:
403:
168:. "Subsequent" can include current. I will add Meir Schneider to the list, since we have the Israeli news broadcast featuring him.
212:
For the record: "BM isn't "science" at all". You said it. But you touch on an important issue. A lot of BM believers think the BM
285:
Agree. Obvious, blatant pseudoscience. The fact that is pseudoscience is one of the most notable aspects of Bates method. --
266:
alternative medicine would likely fall under "questionable science" rather than "generally considered pseudoscience" per the
567:
We should avoid any
Original research. If we accept Original research we can discuss for ages without making any progress.
837:
does not make eye exercises a very effective treatment. As I have explained before, the Woods study demonstrates just how
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
443:
Zappernapper, I have got a strong reliable source. ( Strong because it involves multiple investigated researches. )
38:
982:{{ | publisher=new world library, Novano California | title=Complementary Body mind mastery | Isbn 1-57731-094-2}}
367:
Progress is mechanicalĀ : If you practice something over time with attention and commitment to improve, you will.
912:
681:
558:
248:
188:
155:
116:
807:
I am not really interested in the Woods report, and I don't think any direct reference to it would improve
760:
The pdf of Elwin Marg's report is hosted on the domain of the university (Berkeley) where it originated.
198:
edit the infobox to have the headings "Tortured Genius", "Dead
Disciples" and "Currently At Large"...
812:
908:
873:
677:
554:
515:
428:
also find somewhere where
Famousdog called it pseudoscience, but i don't think we can use thatĀ :) -
325:
244:
222:
203:
184:
151:
112:
820:
765:
707:
659:
632:) and ask them to attach it to this BM article or may be wikipedia can provide anohter solution.
329:
275:
173:
136:
904:
507:
444:
469:
429:
399:
47:
17:
391:
953:
798:
735:
637:
572:
539:
488:
451:
414:
374:
166:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience
869:
511:
290:
218:
199:
816:
761:
703:
655:
271:
169:
132:
957:
916:
877:
824:
802:
769:
739:
711:
685:
663:
641:
576:
562:
543:
525:
492:
477:
455:
437:
407:
378:
333:
294:
279:
252:
226:
207:
192:
177:
159:
140:
120:
460:
there were actually several sources like that one which called the BM everything
949:
946:
794:
731:
633:
630:
568:
535:
484:
447:
370:
348:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
286:
508:
A systematic review of the applicability and efficacy of eye exercises.
398:
reputable who has classified it that way. It shouldn't be too hard. -
510:
seems to indicate the Bates Method meets the ArbCom definition.
907:
me with a name and postal address, I'll send you a photocopy.
468:, in order to avoid people accusing us of original research. -
25:
394:
if someone is contesting it, we have the obligation to find
676:
Well, at risk of sounding like Ronz, what about copyright?
651:
532:
424:I think we can cite the encyclopedia directly. i
604:(pp. 56-57) "Summary and Conclusions" (complete)
418:
621:Sammy, I appreciate your help. But we need a
8:
650:Another option would be to upload it to
975:
502:I read the ArbCom decision and it says
596:(p. 29) "Technique of Eye Examination"
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
164:In regards to "pseudoscience", see
863:On a related topic, this research
24:
29:
131:made some edits to it as well.
1:
945:Sammy just sent your copy to
379:21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
334:09:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
295:19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
280:19:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
253:14:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
227:14:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
208:14:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
193:10:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
178:10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
160:09:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
141:09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
121:09:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
506:. Looking at the PubMed ref
111:called until very recently.
999:
958:22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
917:14:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
878:14:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
825:21:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
803:20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
770:22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
740:22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
712:00:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
702:I was just thinking that!
686:23:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
664:17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
642:18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
577:22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
563:11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
544:22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
526:03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
493:15:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
478:10:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
456:20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
438:05:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
408:04:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
258:Status as pseudoscience
422:
369:
654:, if he can scan it.
364:
128:automated peer review
106:Infobox Pseudoscience
42:of past discussions.
813:Behavioral optometry
126:I added it after an
627:complete document
522:
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:Talk:Bates method
990:
983:
980:
531:See this linkĀ :
520:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
998:
997:
993:
992:
991:
989:
988:
987:
986:
981:
977:
623:reliable source
589:
519:
476:
436:
406:
260:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
996:
994:
985:
984:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
909:SamuelTheGhost
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
829:
828:
827:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
678:SamuelTheGhost
669:
668:
667:
666:
645:
644:
625:providing the
606:
605:
598:
597:
588:
587:Into the Woods
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
555:SamuelTheGhost
547:
546:
516:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
472:
432:
411:
410:
402:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
339:
338:
337:
336:
318:
317:
316:
315:
308:
307:
306:
305:
259:
256:
245:SamuelTheGhost
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
185:SamuelTheGhost
152:SamuelTheGhost
113:SamuelTheGhost
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
995:
979:
976:
959:
955:
951:
947:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
918:
914:
910:
906:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
879:
875:
871:
866:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
840:
836:
832:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
771:
767:
763:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
741:
737:
733:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
615:
612:
609:
603:
602:
601:
595:
594:
593:
586:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
551:
550:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
523:
513:
509:
505:
494:
490:
486:
481:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
458:
457:
453:
449:
445:
442:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
421:
417:
416:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
380:
376:
372:
368:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
350:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
335:
331:
327:
322:
321:
320:
319:
312:
311:
310:
309:
304:
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
257:
255:
254:
250:
246:
228:
224:
220:
215:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
162:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
129:
125:
124:
123:
122:
118:
114:
105:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
978:
864:
838:
834:
831:
808:
626:
622:
616:
613:
610:
607:
599:
590:
514:
503:
501:
470:ĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻ
465:
461:
430:ĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻ
425:
423:
419:
412:
400:ĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻ
395:
365:
301:
263:
261:
241:
213:
150:proponents?
147:
109:
78:
43:
37:
349:Dan Millman
268:arbcom case
36:This is an
474:Alexandria
434:Alexandria
404:Alexandria
98:ArchiveĀ 15
90:ArchiveĀ 12
85:ArchiveĀ 11
79:ArchiveĀ 10
870:Famousdog
518:<: -->
512:Ruhrfisch
466:explictly
415:casewatch
219:Famousdog
200:Famousdog
73:ArchiveĀ 9
68:ArchiveĀ 8
60:ArchiveĀ 5
905:WP:Email
839:unlikely
817:PSWG1920
762:PSWG1920
704:PSWG1920
656:PSWG1920
326:ReTracer
272:PSWG1920
170:PSWG1920
133:PSWG1920
835:in 1946
396:someone
392:WP:CITE
303:effect.
148:current
39:archive
950:Seeyou
795:Seeyou
732:Seeyou
652:Scribd
634:Seeyou
569:Seeyou
536:Seeyou
485:Seeyou
448:Seeyou
371:Seeyou
517:: -->
462:short
346:: -->
16:<
954:talk
913:talk
874:talk
821:talk
809:this
799:talk
766:talk
736:talk
708:talk
682:talk
660:talk
638:talk
573:talk
559:talk
540:talk
489:talk
452:talk
375:talk
330:talk
291:talk
287:Ronz
276:talk
264:Some
249:talk
223:talk
204:talk
189:talk
174:talk
156:talk
137:talk
117:talk
903:to
842:it.
426:did
956:)
915:)
876:)
865:is
823:)
815:.
801:)
768:)
738:)
710:)
684:)
662:)
640:)
575:)
561:)
542:)
491:)
454:)
377:)
332:)
293:)
278:)
251:)
225:)
214:is
206:)
191:)
176:)
158:)
139:)
119:)
94:ā
64:ā
952:(
911:(
872:(
819:(
797:(
764:(
734:(
706:(
680:(
658:(
636:(
571:(
557:(
538:(
521:Ā°
487:(
450:(
373:(
351:.
328:(
289:(
274:(
247:(
221:(
202:(
187:(
172:(
154:(
135:(
115:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.