How Did Dr. Bates Manage to Get Published?

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Tom1a, Aug 9, 2003.

  1. Tom1a

    Tom1a Guest

    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 "" 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.
    Tom1a, Aug 9, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tom1a

    suzee Guest

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

    suzee, Aug 9, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tom1a

    Kory Postma Guest

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

    Kory Postma, Aug 9, 2003
  4. Tom1a

    Dr Judy Guest

    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
    Dr Judy, Aug 10, 2003
  5. Tom1a

    Tom1a Guest

    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

    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

    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.
    Tom1a, Aug 10, 2003
  6. Tom1a

    Tom1a Guest

    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.
    Tom1a, Aug 11, 2003
  7. Tom1a

    Tom Osborn Guest

    Tom Osborn, Aug 11, 2003
  8. Tom1a

    Tom1a Guest

    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

    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

    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 ""
    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 "". 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
    Tom1a, Aug 11, 2003
  9. 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.

    Repeating Decimal, Aug 11, 2003
  10. Tom1a

    andrew Judd Guest

    (Tom1a) wrote in message
    blah blah blah blah.......

    Wake up Tom!!

    It is not is pathetic.

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

    andrew Judd, Aug 11, 2003
  11. Tom1a

    Tom1a Guest

    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.
    Tom1a, Aug 12, 2003
  12. 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 Seidman, Aug 12, 2003
  13. Tom1a

    Jim Lawton Guest

    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

    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 Lawton, Aug 12, 2003
  14. Tom1a

    suzee Guest

    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?

    suzee, Aug 13, 2003
  15. Tom1a

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    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.


    (Tom1a) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 13, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.