How Did Dr. Bates Manage to Get Published?

When a doctor comes up with a new treatment,
the usual thing for him to do is to write an
article about his treatment and then submit the
article along with patient records and supporting
data to a medical journal. The medical journal
then submits the article to a panel of experts
who then made the determination as to whether
the article is worthy of publication. That, at
any rate, is my understanding of how the system
works, the system being the system of peer-reviewed
medical journals.

The question I have is very simple. If Dr. Bates
was as bad as some of you seem to think he was,
as ignorant of basic anatomy and his claims to
cure myopia, astigmatism and presbyopia as
preposterous and totally unsupported by any
evidence as some of you think, how then did
he manage to get those claims published in the
medical journals of his day?

Kory Postma recently posted a list of some 14 articles
written by Dr. Bates that were published in various
medical journals. You can purchase those articles
from "HealthResearchBooks.com" bound in one volume
entitled just "Reprints."

This volume by no means represents the totality of
the articles Dr. Bates got published in medical
journals. The fact of the matter is that he was
widely published from the 1890s to the 1920s.
David Kiesling posted a listing recently that
was more inclusive. I believe Alex Eulenberg of
the "I-see" site has done some real research
and has most of them.

The articles in the "Reprints" volume include
articles with such preposterous titles as "Blindness
Relieved by a New Method" (Bates claimed to cure blindness!)
"Memory as an Aid to Vision" (How can memory be an aid to
vision?) and "Imagination and Vision." (What does
imagination have to do with vision?)

The whole of his method is in those articles,
including all the stuff you professionals think
so totally insane. And then there are the case
histories embedded in those articles which show
him getting results now considered impossible.

OK, how did he manage to get those articles published?
Myopia, astigmatism and presbyopia were considered
incurable in those days. Do you believe that when
Dr. Bates submitted his articles claiming to cure
those conditions, none of his peers asked him to
substantiate his claims? He wasn't asked to prove
his claims? I find that very hard to believe.

Do you believe there were no standards at all back
in those days? It was a long time ago, granted, but
we are not talking about prehistory. People
in NYC were not dressing in animals skins. My
family business, a firm that does a specialized
type of legal printing, was founded in 1890.
Civilization was pretty far advanced even then.

It seems to me that the worse you make out Dr. Bates
to be, the more difficulty you are going to have
in explaining how he got published in orthodox
medical journals.

Please answer this specific question.
Tom

 

And of course, both those notions are equally incredible. Yet surgeons
today are using leeches post-surgery. It works.

sue

 

Are you backing this claim up with something? If not, then the
general public should ignore this post.

Kory

 

The standards were different in those days. Controlled clinical trials were
not done, placebo effect was not known and journals would print case
reports and doctor's descriptions of their treatments without the peer
review used today. That doesn't mean his peers believed him. We would have
to go back and read the journals in the months following a Bates publication
to see what letters to the Editor or dissenting articles were published.

Dr Judy

 

OK, so there were no standards at all,
no proof was ever required to get an
article published in the medical journals
Dr. Bates published in back in his day.

If you want to say there is no proof at all
that Dr. Bates ever did any of the things he
claimed to do, that's the position you have to
take. That's the logic of your position, and I
give you credit for seeing it and biting the bullet.
I just find it impossible to believe.

So we throw out everything published
before and during 1923 which is the date
on the last medical journal article I
have that he published. Do we also throw
out all the work done by Donders and Helmholtz
and the other giants of the past? Did German
medical journals ever publish any articles
about female hysteria and leeches?

By the way, you don't believe in female
hysteria? Tell your wife you are leaving her
and running off with her best friend. As
for leeches, let me introduce you to my
brother-in-law.

Do you have any idea when standards started
to be imposed? I am curious because I would
like to know if I can disregard those three
studies of the Bates method I came upon back
in 1950. I don't recall offhand when they were
done. Probably in the late 1930s. That's pretty
close to the days when any nutcase could get
anything printed in a medical journal. I think
I am right to be suspicious, don't you think?

There are some other points concerning Dr. Bates
I am curious about. How did this doctor with his
total ignorance of ocular anatomy ever gain operating
privileges at Bellevue, Manhattan Eye and Ear, Harlem
Hospital, etc., etc.? How did he keep his medical license
all his life? Why wasn't it taken away from him?

Medical licenses were lifted back in those days. Dr. Brinkley,
the goat-gland doctor, had his license lifted. Since
Dr. Bates seems to be, in your opinion, the same sort
of quack, I wonder how Dr. Bates kept his license and
occupied responsible positions all his life. How did he
ever get to be the head of the county medical association
when he lived in Grand Forks, North Dakota? (OK, I take
that one back. Grand Forks? He was probably the only
the guy around who could read. Or had shoes.)

How come the presumably competent administration at
Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons allowed him
twice to spend extended periods in their laboratories
doing basic research?

Another question: one of those articles in the book of
reprinted is actually an address Dr. Bates delivered
at the 10th Annual Meeting, Allied Medical Associations
of America, held in Atlantic City, June, 1921. Dr. Bates
addressed a number of medical meetings and conventions.
Can anybody address a medical convention? Isn't addressing
a medical convention sort of an honor? Or am I just being
naive again?

Another question: in the last years of his career, Dr.
Bates was at Harlem Hospital. Harlem Hospital operated
a free clinic for the people of the district. School
children who failed eye tests in school were sent to
the clinic to get glasses. These were depression days,
remember. Dr. Bates did not give the children glasses.
He and Emily cured their refractive problems and sent
them back to school without glasses. He and Emily got
away with this for years. How did they manage that?
Harlem Hospital was a municipal hospital. Didn't anybody
complain when the kids returned to school without glasses?
Why didn't Dr. Bates and Emily lose their jobs?

In 1886, Dr. Bates published an article on his discovery
of "the astringent and haemostatic properties of the
aqueous extract of the suprarenal gland," later commer-
cialized as adrenaline, in the New York Medical Journal.

The New York Times in its obituary of Dr. Bates credited
him with its discovery and said that adrenaline had proved
to be second only to cocaine in utility in ocular operations,
or something to that effect. How did this incompetent manage
to discover something as important as adrenaline? Do you
think he just read about it in the National Enquirer?

Some of the criticism of Dr. Bates on this site is just
ignorant. Dr. Bates was supposedly so dumb that he thought
people who had their lenses removed could all still accommodate.
He thought nothing of the sort and never said so.

If you read that part of his book, he was perfectly well aware
of the fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases they
could not, but he was also aware of the fact that in certain
very rare cases they could. He cites the literature (he didn't
know it was all nonsense)which included 22 such cases noted
by a Prof. Forster of Breslau; eleven such cases noted by
a Russian doctor, and then he goes on to discuss, at great
length, an American doctor, A.E. Davis, who brought such a case
before the New York Ophthalmological Society where he was examined
by a lot of ophthalmologists who agreed that this lenseless patient
could accommodate but no doctor could come up with an explanation
how he managed it. And then he discusses another case found
by Dr. Davis. None of these patients were patients of Dr. Bates.
In this section of his book, he is discussing the work of other
doctors. In the recent discussions here, it is crazy Dr. Bates
alone amongst the opthalmologists in the world who thinks that
lenseless patients can accommodate.


Do you know who the father of refractive surgery is?
Believe it or not, Dr. Bates is considered the father
of refractive surgery because back in the 1890s he
did a series of operations on corneas that had been
injured by foreign objects, had healed in a manner
that left the patients astigmatic. Dr. Bates made cuts
in the cornea so that when they healed the patient would
no longer be astigmatic. He did this successfully a few
times, published an article about it in one of those
medical journals which would print anything if you slipped
them a few bucks but then, to his credit, abandoned the
operation when he found he could not precisely predict
how the cornea would heal and never did it again. Anyhow,
that is what some British medical association devoted to
refractive surgery credits him with, but what do the
British know?

What I have been trying to point out is that Dr. Bates
was a distinguished ophthalmologist and surgeon with
genuine accomplishments to his credit. How this man
could be both that and an outrageous quack at the
same time escapes me. The idea that no medical journal,
no other ophthalmologist ever asked him to prove his
theories I also find unbelievable. I do not for one
minute believe that Dr. Bates could have gotten all
the articles he got published if he had not been able
to back them up.

Dr. Bates get pilloried on this site for how he handled
his career. I do not see how he could have done anything
other than what he did.

When he came up with a new way of handling refractive
errors, he went to the medical journals and got published
and he was published over and over again. That is what
a doctor is supposed to do.

When he found his published articles did not make
a dent in orthodox opinion, he issued open challenges.
He went before medical meetings, having written before-
hand to the doctors who were going to attend telling
them of the challenge he was going to issue, and he
said, in one instance, "Come with me to any classroom
in the City of New York, and if there is one child whose
eyesight I cannot improve by rest, I will admit I am
wrong about the whole thing." He was ignored. He
desperately wanted his methods tested, but orthodox
medicine preferred to wait until he was dead to do
any testing.

When he realized he was up against a stone wall, he
took his case to the public and published a magazine
called "Better Eyesight" for eleven years. You can get
a compilation of those magazine from Amazon. Read the
702-pages of it, and see if you can believe that every
word in it is a lie. If it is fiction, then Dr. Bates
and Emily ought to go down in history as two of the most
imaginative fiction writers in history. Compared to
them, Charles Dickens was an amateur. Same for the
other people who wrote in the magazine.

Is what happened to Dr. Bates unusual? No, I am sorry
to say it is not. Any doctor who tries to operate
outside of the accepted paradigms of medical care
is going to get his head handed to him.

Back in the late 1940s, some doctor successfully
treated 60 consecutive cases of active polio
and not one of the children wound up paralyzed.
All recovered completely. He got published and
his treatment was ignored. There's a brilliant
Polish immigrant doctor who practices in Houston
who has endured 20 years of relentless harassment
by the FDA because he treats malignant brain tumors
in children in a manner not acceptable to orthodoxy.
Three times the FDA tried to indict him but grand
juries, after they heard the testimony of the parents
of the children he had cured, refused to bring an
indictment. This is unheard of. Finally the FDA
managed to get him indicted, but he was found
not guilty. He was not accused to harming any of
his patients, just of breaking technical rules of
the FDA. Finally, the harassment has stopped and
government tests are being run. If they turn out to be
successful, the FDA is going to have a lot to answer
for.

Orthodox medicine is very good in certain areas and
hopeless in others. You had better know which is which.

It must be obvious that I am not neutral about Dr.
Bates. I think he was a great man. In his understanding
of the linkage between memory, imagination and vision,
I think he was absolutely brilliant, a hundred years
ahead of his time.

Dr. Bernie Siegel of the Yale Medical School has made
this provocative statement: "The body cannot tell the
difference between a vividly imagined event and a
real one."

Dr. Oliver Sacks, the famous neurologist wrote in a
recent article published in the New Yorker which takes
up the subject of visual imagery or visualization--
the ability to see images in your mind's eye--what
Dr. Bates called imagination:

"There has been much recent work on the neural basis
of visual imagery--this can be investigated by brain
imaging of various types....and it now generally
accepted that visual imagery activates the cortex
in a similar way and with almost the same intensity,
as visual perception itself." This is physical,
scientific evidence tending to confirm of one of Dr.
Bates's main contentions: "perfect vision and perfect
imagination are identical." Ask Rishi to explain it to you.

Sure he was wrong about how the eye focuses, but just
remember, if Dr. Sachar is right, then all of you are
wrong also, not only about the cause of presbyopia, but
also in the basic mechanism of how the lens focuses.
And 70 years after you are all dead, it may be found
that you were wrong about a lot more.

Sorry to run on like this, but I am warming up to write
to Dr. Sacks. Maybe he will be a little more appreciative
of Dr. Bates.
Tom

 

Dear Dr. Tyner:

I want to thank you, Dr. G. and Dr. Judy
for the civility and courtesy you have shown
in answering the Bates-oriented posts here.
And especially, Dr. Tyner, I appreciate the
patience you have shown.

I am more sympathetic to your viewpoint than
you may appreciate. I have been involved in maybe
50,000 legal appeals over the years, and many thousands
of them involved medical malpractice. I am very well
aware of the fact that any professional who deviates
from "accepted medical practice" can get into very
big trouble. Not only does he become a ready meal
for the schools of legal sharks which circle around
every human activity today, but he can also wind up
losing his license to practice. A doctor in California
lost his medical license because he refused to give
Ritalin to some kid diagnosed with ADD (attention deficit
disorder, also known as GOBAB, guilty of being a boy)

I also appreciate your attitude toward scientific proof.
About the only thing I believed in when I got out of
college was the scientific method.

Back in the year 2000, when the Nasdaq was over 5000,
and I was rolling in dough (all since lost) thanks to
my pure dumb luck in owning a lot of high-flying tech
stocks, I thought seriously about sponsoring a real
scientific test of the Bates method. Practical considera-
tions soon cooled my enthusiasm.

Where would you get a group of strongly myopic people
willing to take and keep their glasses off? How would
you check to see that they did so? How would you make
sure they put in the effort required? Who would teach the
course? Where could I find a really good teacher? Would
I have to import somebody from England? How long would
this test have to go on?

You are quite right that no one nowadays gets the quick
results that Dr. Bates (and Emily) got. All the teachers
that Dr. Bates certified are now dead and gone. Dr. Bates
certified no one who had not achieved perfect vision by
his methods. If you started out with 20/20, he then demanded
20/10. I am afraid I know no one who meets that standard
today. I agree with Rishi on this point.

I am not saying that competent teachers cannot be found.
Taking a nervous little girl with a galloping case of progressive
myopia whose vision was a dismal 5/200 and turning her into a
happy child with 20/10 vision is a case with which I am familiar.
It wasn't done quickly, however.

What really turned me off was the realization that even
if such a test proved successful, it would change nothing.
It would be ignored by orthodox medicine. Any associa-
tion with the name Bates would ensure that. Even if you
called it something else, it would be ignored.

If Dr. Bates, with all the prestige he enjoyed as the doctor
who developed adrenaline, could not make a dent in orthodoxy,
the issue is closed.

From my readings in alternative medicine, I can think
of a half-dozen very powerful treatments that are used
successfully by orthomolecular physicians in this country
and by physicians in other countries that are still considered
outside the pale and always will be. It doesn't matter if
they work or not. The only way that will change is if the
alternate medicine crowd get control of the big govern-
mental and quasi-governmental agencies and then get the
big expensive studies done that orthodox medicine demands
(and ignores when they don'tlike the results). It may
happen, but I am not holding my breath.

I got interested in alternate medicine about 35 years ago.
I heard a radio broadcast, then bought and read a couple of
books. It seems sensible and scientific to me, so I started
in taking vitamins, eating wheat germ and other good stuff,
and following some simple rules and have continued to do so
until this day.

All the while orthodox medicine kept up a steady drumfire of
"nobody needs to take vitamins" "the American diet is perfectly
fine." The idea was that vitamins were only good for preventing
deficiency diseases like beri-beri and pellagra. Just a few years
ago, there was an article in Time Magazine which was full of
ridicule by orthodox physicians: "Vitamin E is a cure in search
of a disease." "If you take vitamins you just have expensive urine."

Well, today the line is that the American diet sucks, that we are
now supposed to eat five servings of fruits and vegetables each
day and just recently there was an article in the JAMA saying
that maybe you ought to take a vitamin pill everyday, or something
to that effect. I felt like writing them a nasty letter.

Since I was 17 years old, I have known this about the Bates
method: doing two simple exercises morning and night brought
my vision, in one eye anyway, from 20/200 to 20/25. I under-
stood nothing about the method other than the fact that those
exercises seemed to work. I taught them to a friend who had
just started wearing glasses. He was 20/40. He did them over
a summer and was 20/20 when he came back to school.

When I started studying it seriously, I had great difficulty
in understanding it. I actually used to ridicule Dr. Bates
especially when he started sounding like a Zen master. It
is very hard to understand what he was saying or to take
any of it seriously. It has taken me three and a half years
to get a clue. I will continue on until I understand it all.
It has become for me a fascinating intellectual puzzle.
I could not stop if I tried. I have wondered about Dr. Bates
and his miracle cures all my adult life and I am going to
understand how he did them if it kills me. I will soon be
retired and have the time to work more seriously.

In the meantime, you and I can agree to disagree. If I fail,
I will let you know. I am not proud. I have been wrong about
a lot of things. I could be wrong about Bates; it wouldn't
bother me. I don't think I am wrong, though. We shall see.
Tom

 

"Jelly lenses could fix ageing eyes".

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994025

Replacing hardened content of lens with a gel - accommodate to 10 cm...

It's on the web this week. Will be in archives next week (subscribers only).

Tom.

 

Dear Francine:

Thank you for your kind words. I am
not going anywhere, but it is time for me
to get back to work on my eyes. No more of
these interminable postings from me. Not
here, anyway. (Interminable post follows)

The two exercises I did when I was young--
this was during Mr. Lincoln's administration--
were the long swing (sometimes called the
"elephant swing") and the sway.

The long swing is simple. You stand with your
feet comfortably apart--think of a golfer's
stance--and you turn all the way to the right,
shifting your weight to your right foot, and
then you turn all the way to the left, shifting
your weight to your left foot, and then you pivot
back again.

When you pivot to the right, your left heel should
come off the floor a bit; same for when you pivot
to the left.

You go back and forth in an easy, natural movement.
Your eyes scan the room from one end to the other
end. You don't do anything with your eyes. You just
watch the room go back and forth. Think of anything
you want. It is a simple procedure, so keep it simple.

It is not an athletic exercise so don't turn it into
one. Easy and natural is the way to go.

The idea is to keep your eyes from staring and straining
to see. You can't stare when the room is going back and
forth. You can get the same benefit by looking out the
window during a train or car ride (not if you are driving,
please) and watching the scenery go by.

It should take you about one second (counting "one thousand
and one") to go from left to right, but it doesn't make much
difference how quickly you do this swing. I used to do them
sort of briskly when I was a kid. More slowly is what the
experts advise, but I got results doing them wrong so it
can't matter much. If you do them briskly, the room will
glide by smoothly. If you slow down, you will see the room
go by in a series of quick jumps.

One refinement I would today advise is not to come to an
abrupt stop when you reverse direction. Let your point of
focus make a rounded turn, a loop to get moving in the
opposite direction. Again, I used to make an abrupt stop
when I was a kid, so I don't think this refinement is
really important.

If you do a hundred of these swings, counting one complete
swing from right to left and back again as one, you ought to
feel your eyes relax. You may have to do more of them the
first few times to get the effect. I have to do at least one
hundred to get any relaxing effect.

I would do one hundred of these swings, then I was stand in
front of my eye chart and do the sway. That is just shifting
your weight from one leg to the other so that you sway a little
from left to right. Again the idea is to keep moving so that
you can't stare. I would look at the chart; I would try to
remember to blink regularly; I would then experience what
are known as "clear flashes" which means the chart would
clear up to one degree or other. Having gotten my clear flash
fix, I would then run off to school. I hardly ever spent more
than ten or fifteen minutes on this routine.

In the evenings, I did the same thing only this time the
sessions would be much longer. My memory is that I worked
very hard on these exercises. Being a lazy kid like most
teenagers, if you put a stop watch on me, I probably never
put more than an hour in. Probably it was a half hour. Would
you believe 20 minutes? But I never failed to do them. I had
stopped wearing glasses and I really wanted to improve my
eyesight.

My eyesight when I was 15 was a little worse than 20/200. I
remember not being able to see even the top letter on the chart.
By the time I was 17, I had an unrestricted driver's license.

The only other thing I did was a little palming, in which you
rest your eyes by covering them with your cupped hands in the
fashion that people will rest their eyes normally. I didn't do
much of that. Too boring.

The above, a sort of idiot's version of the Bates method,
is what I was taught to do by Dr. Harold M. Peppard, the
doctor who took over Dr. Bates's practice after Dr. Bates
died. I think he also took over Dr. Bates's old office
also, so I may have actually been in Dr. Bates's office.
To think that I sat across a desk from a doctor who probably
knew Dr. Bates well and didn't ask him a single question
about Dr. Bates just kills me, but I was 15 at the time
so give me a break.

These exercises are designed to stop you from staring with a
secondary purpose of physically relaxing you. You can get the
same beneficial results, as I have said, from looking out the
window of a car or train and watching the moving scenery go by.
Tossing a ball from hand to hand does the same thing. Watching
a tennis match, watching the ball go back and forth, is ideal.
Playing tennis or handball or any sport in which you are watching
a moving object are also good. Learning to juggle would be ideal.

Going to the movies is also good for your eyes because movies
move. Watching television is neutral--the screen is too small.
Peering at computer screens is bad. Just my opinions.

Today I would add one more exercise: looking at blank walls.
Even Dr. Tyner seems to agree this is relaxing for the eyes.
It is. It is my favorite, my no-fail method of sharpening up
my vision. I look at some blank surface, any color will do,
it can be any distance from me--two blocks away or whatever--
and my eyes relax and my vision sharpens up. It is something
you can do just about anywhere.

The whole idea of the Bates method is to learn to use your
eyes without straining to see. It is all about relaxation.
That you are straining to see may not be apparent to you.
You are probably not conscious of it, but it can be demon-
strated to you.

Try this little experiment. If you have an eye chart up, look
about four feet to the left or right of the chart. Look at
the wall without trying to see anything. OK, try to see
something. After a while you will realize that there is
really nothing to see, and your eyes will relax. You ought
to be able to feel them relax. This will take a few
minutes.

Then slowly, slowly, start moving your point of focus closer
and closer to the chart. Keep looking at the wall. Don't look
at the chart. No cheating,please.

As you get closer to the chart, if you keep your eyes on the
wall and keep the relaxed feeling you achieved previously,
and make no effort to see the chart or to see anything, you
will see the chart clear up in your peripheral vision. As
long as you keep looking at the wall, the chart will get
clearer and clear. Finally, you ought to be looking at a
point right beside the chart. As long as you keep looking
at the wall, the chart will be clearer.

Then move your point of focus onto the chart and you will
be conscious of engines turning over, machinery starting
up, and you will be back to your habitual straining-to-see
mode and the chart becomes blurry. Experiment a few times
and see how hard it is to look directly at an eye chart and
remain relaxed. I found it maddenly difficult, just about
impossible. It took me many weeks of practice before I could
move my point of focus onto the chart without starting to
strain to see, and I still can't do it consistently.

There is much, much, much more to the Bates method. People
who have an interest in it should go to "yahoogroups.com"
and join the "batesmethod" "I-see" and "2see" groups. Join
all three. Even if you get daily messages, you will not be
overwhelmed with traffic. There is wealth of information
archived on those sites. There is a ton of archived information
at "i-see.org". You can download Dr. Bates's book at another
site. For people who have a need for the type of visual
training behavioral optometrists offer, I recommend Francine's
site which is also a "yahoogroups" site. Sorry, I can't remember
its exact name and for some reason or other, I can't hot link
anything this evening.

Another brief message from me now ends. If I don't stop this,
I'll be the guy with the white cane tapping my way down the
street.
Tom

 

Although the New Scientist has a good reputation, I automatically turn off
when I see a term such as *perfect polymer* used to describe a product. I
suggest everyone turn on their scam detector.

Bill

 

(Tom1a) wrote in message

blah blah blah blah.......

Wake up Tom!!

It is not funny....it is pathetic.

You dishonour Bates by repeatedly exhibiting this erroneous way of being.

Andrew

 

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there
is no such thing as a two-headed cow? And that the "Journal of
Physiology" was an example of how unreliable old medical journals
can be because it printed reports of two-headed cows?

Go do a Google search on "two-headed cows" and what you get are
pictures of two-headed cows. Maybe that journal was more reliable
than you think.

Please, have a heart. You shouldn't hit a guy when he is down.
Now that I know that any nutcase could get anything printed
in a medical journal prior to 1924, I am mourning the loss
of all my medical heroes. Koch, Lister, Pasteur, Semelweis,
Erhlich, Jenner, my whole pantheon of heroes is fallen, including
Dr. Bates. I can no longer trust anything they published. Next
you will have me doubting the Weekly World News.
Tom

 

Didn't even read the New Scientist Article. Sometimes the press will use
funny terms, and the investigators don't get preapproval rights.

FWIW, I think the surgeons will love this, if it ever comes to be, because
they will likely need to use refractive surgury techniques to tune up these
polymer implants.

Scott

 

The term doesn't appear in the printed article, and on the website it only
appears in a heading, not in the body of the article.

In both cases the article says :-

"In the late 1980s, Jean-Marie Parel at the University of Miami showed that
replacing the contents of an ageing rhesus monkey's lens with silicone oil could
restore its ability to focus. But silicone oil gradually leaks from the lens
capsule.

Since then, researchers have been working to develop a polymer that has both the
same refractive index as the human crystalline lens and also the right
biomechanical properties.

After evaluating more than 30 different polymer formulations created at
collaborating Australian research institute, CSIRO Molecular Science in
Melbourne, Ho thinks the group has cracked it. Vision CRC is staying
tight-lipped about the new formulation while it is being patented. All the team
will say is that it is a siloxane-based material, which is cured with UV or
visible light after injection to turn it from a liquid to a gel.
"

Jim

 

I just ran across this in one of my mailing lists today (no, not one on
Bates or vision therapy):

"People are finding some basis in treatments that were previously
ridiculed. For example they find that the saliva of leaches contains a
mild antibiotic."

Maybe there's some basis for those old ridiculous remedies, eh?

sue

 

Interesting. In recent years I have used the computer more than ever.
During that time my prescription has dropped from -4.00 to -3.50. Prior to
that it was stable for more than 20 years. I don't do exercises.

DrG

(Tom1a) wrote in