Stay away from "vision educators"

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Rishigg, Mar 30, 2008.

  1. Rishigg

    Rishigg Guest

    Today an Italian man who presented himself as a "vision educator"
    phoned me about the Italian version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses
    he wanted to buy.

    I had to tell him that the book is sold out and is now in reprint and
    will be ready for deliver in a couple of weeks.

    Then I shared with him a good conversation.

    Even if he is a "vision educator" he is not accustomed to the Original
    Bates System. In fact, he not only does not understand how to benefit
    from the sun-gazing, neither from the sun-glass, but he never tried
    the experimenr of low light and microprint, I have learnt.

    He promised me that he would have tried this soon.

    He is a researcher and told me than most advanced theories about
    vision are discovering the hidden powers of the external muscles of
    the eye, and this is slowly being acknowledge in academic sites,
    exactly in the same direction as Bates did. It seems that only the
    idiots doctors here on seem to not cope with this fact.

    Nevertheless, he is not so much sure about his own understanding of
    Bates work that felt the urge to try my edition of PSWG. Also to
    subscribe to my magazine "il falco". He lives in the States, and has a
    story of hypermetropia, which he thinks he can definitely cure after
    he has spoken to me.

    To one question, he answered that when he was at Columbia University
    in New York he tried to reach some documents about Bates but became
    aware that all was effaced out, he could not find anything about him.

    I hope to work with him soon because he showed a kind of open mind
    which is not there when I have something to do with idiots like
    Cagnoli and Co., the mainstream "vision educators" in Italy. These
    people have spoiled the name of Bates for their own purpose, that is
    selling their courses and programs which have nothing to do with the
    Original Bates System.

    "Friends" of Bates are largely great frauds, great false men. They
    understand nothing of Him. In fact, nobody gets a cure, and Bates
    himself gets mocked at by other idiots like the ignorant men we find

    "As surely as any soldier ever died on the field, Dr. Bates gave his
    life for a cause, battling against fate, during many years of
    magnificent struggle, when the unending disappointment finally broke
    in hopeless despair. His torch is still burning. There will come some
    other battler, who is fit, and will hold it high until the people who
    are sitting in darkness have seen its great light."
    William B. MacCracken, M.D.
    (1937, Berkeley CA)
    Rishigg, Mar 30, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rishigg

    Kory Postma Guest

    Thank you Rishi. Like I have even said before, many people do not
    truly understand what the Bates Method is. That is why I think it
    would be best to get together and conduct some studies, then contact
    researchers in various parts of the world, maybe in Europe, since they
    seem more open-minded and more socialistic than the capitalists here
    in the US.

    Kory Postma, Mar 30, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rishigg

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Now there's a thought. Make sure that you publish the results even if

    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 30, 2008
  4. Rishigg

    Kory Postma Guest

    Of course one should, but the thing is, would it get published either
    way? That is the most daunting task.

    Kory Postma, Mar 30, 2008
  5. Rishigg

    nipidoc Guest

    Can you provide us with a statement as to what YOU think the Bates
    Method is??

    And please don't say "a program to eliminate glasses". If that's your
    claim, then say "a program to eliminate glasses BY..........."

    Maybe you can help all us uneducated docs "truly understand what the
    Bates Method is"

    nipidoc, Mar 30, 2008
  6. Rishigg

    Jason Harper Guest

    I'm not Kory, but I will try to tell you how Bates explained it. He
    never called it the Bates Method. He said that if he had to put a
    name on it, it would have to be called Nature's Technique, because
    that is all that it is. Use your eyes the way nature intended them to
    be used, and you will obtain perfect sight.
    Jason Harper, Mar 30, 2008
  7. Rishigg

    Kory Postma Guest

    The Bates Method is a term that was later coined for what Bates called
    Nature's way of perfect vision. His main points were, the eye can
    only see one part of an object best and in order to see the rest of it
    your eyes must scan all around the object and you must be able to
    remember what is being seen clearly and to retain this mental image.
    He also said ne should blink as the normal eyes does because blinking
    refreshes the eyes and it will also prevent staring, because the eyes
    moves a little when you blink. He also taught people how to relax and
    to calm their mind (this is the part that most people do not
    understand), so that they may be able to remember things clearly and
    will be able to see more clearly. Basically, it is his method of un-
    teaching bad vision habits and replacing them with good vision
    habits. Once someone has learned to relax, will not strain, can
    centralize (see one part best), keep the eyes moving (learning
    oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things
    exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve. I
    may be forgetting something, but I hope I am not. All of this
    information is in the 1920 book and in the medical journals and also
    in the magazines that were published around that time.

    Some things can be found at and others at various
    parts of the net. It is all available for free because of the
    copyright laws expiring and what not.

    Kory Postma, Mar 30, 2008
  8. Rishigg

    Mike Tyner Guest

    I missed something. What happens to make the vision improve?

    Does this work for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia?

    Mike Tyner, Mar 30, 2008
  9. Rishigg

    Kory Postma Guest

    The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more
    relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the
    sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after
    reading Bates.

    Kory Postma, Mar 30, 2008
  10. Rishigg

    Mike Tyner Guest

    Clearing the mind, improving the memory, and relaxing are all noble

    But when it comes to describing specifically how (or even whether) it
    reduces myopia, presbyopia, or astigmatism, we can't find good
    evidence other than enthusiastic anecdotes.

    Bates said it "improves sight". Maybe in a new-age sort of fashion, it
    does. But it doesn't reduce structural anomalies and it can't be
    relied on as a cure for macular degeneration or glaucoma or cataract.
    There MIGHT even be some measurable effects. But doctors have to
    recommend what DOES work first, before they recommend what MIGHT work
    A LITTLE for SOME.

    Mike Tyner, Mar 30, 2008
  11. Rishigg

    Kory Postma Guest

    Actually Bates said it would work for everyone who did not have
    organic problems (from accidents, etc.). But Bates only showed people
    what to do, they would have to continue it at home and all day long.
    They would then be seen 2-3 times a week.

    Mike, I think it would be best to become a little more familiar with
    Bates. Would you like me to scan in a short piece that he had from
    the magazines that would explain what an average first visit was like?
    Or if you would like any other info, and if I have time, I would be
    willing to try to dig up whatever you like and post it here.

    Kory Postma, Mar 30, 2008
  12. Rishigg

    Mike Tyner Guest

    Kory, I read the Book. I read PSWG once years ago, again about 2
    months ago, and I recently scanned through it again (online copy) to
    make a list of several things he says that can't be true.

    There are so many misconceptions and falsehoods and unsupported claims
    in PSWG that it trashes his credibility and I really don't care to
    study Bates any more. None of his methods revolutionize the vision
    therapy I've already learned, and one or two of them are flat-out
    harmful. None of them hold up to controlled trials, none of them are
    approved by the FDA, and most of them are contrary to the physiology I
    was taught by people who are generally accepted as experts in

    The number of web sites that promulgate Bates is enormous. The number
    of licensed doctors who recommend his methods is vanishingly small.
    Reading articles published in magazines in the 20s and 30s isn't
    likely to change my opinion, and life's too short to waste time on
    stuff that doesn't work.

    Promote the Natural Method if you want to, but don't expect relaxation
    to improve hyperopia or presbyopia, and don't tell anybody to gaze at
    the sun.

    I don't expect mind-over-matter or feel-good techniques to fix
    anatomical anomalies. You can, if you like, because your patients
    can't take away your license for withholding or delaying appropriate

    Mike Tyner, Mar 30, 2008
  13. Rishigg

    David K Guest

    Could you share this list with us, and why they can't be true?

    David K, Mar 30, 2008
  14. Rishigg

    Mike Tyner Guest

    OK. The context was: Someone was berating for saying that nobody has
    usable accommodation after age 60. The argument was if I could make
    such a wide generalization, then all of Bates' generalizations must
    therefore be true. My response below, newly edited:


    Bates' assumptions and his leaps of logic are HUGE compared to "nobody
    has significant accommodation after 60."

    Bates: "That glasses cannot improve the sight to normal can be very
    simply demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or
    concave glass. It will be noted that the color is ALWAYS less intense
    than when seen with the naked eye; and since the perception of form
    depends upon the perception of color, it follows that both color and
    form JUST be less distinctly seen with glasses than without
    them." [emphasis mine]

    I don't get the same results. Most of my patients see better color and
    form _with_ their glasses than without them. Minus lenses minify and
    have barrel distortion, but that doesn't outweigh seeing forms you
    can't see without them, seeing sharp borders between colors where they
    aren't blurred together.

    Bates: "Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as
    EVERYONE knows who has ever looked out of a window."

    I don't get that either. There's a difference, but I don't think
    "everyone" notices it. Maybe glass is better these days? Spectacle
    lenses are clear on the edges, not green like windowpanes. Color
    distortion is measured by spectroscopy and the spectrograph of CR-39
    is remarkably flat.

    Bates: "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or
    less degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not
    always be noted. "

    I don't get the same result. If you can't "note" improvement, where is
    it? Refractive error simply does not go away when they take off their
    glasses. Ask patients who lose their glasses and make do without them
    for three months. Their refractions are not generally better. Every
    eye doctor can document anecdotes that disprove this gross
    generalization, and very few to support it.

    Bates: "That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which NO ONE
    would attempt to deny."

    I would. Ask a hyperope or presbyope if his eyes feel better with or
    without glasses.

    Bates: "The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree
    make all objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex
    glasses enlarge them. - These are unpleasantnesses that CANNOT be

    But people overcome them all the time.

    Bates: "ALL glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less

    Patently false. Minus spectacle lenses can increase the field of
    vision. They don't always, but they certainly can be made to. Minus
    lenses minify, and more objects are "drawn into" the field.

    Bates: "It has been demonstrated, however, that the lens is NOT A
    FACTOR, either in the production of accommodation, or in the
    correction of errors of refraction. Therefore under NO circumstances
    can there be a strain of the ciliary muscle to be relieved."

    Patently false. No contribution at all? Ask any aphake. Ask yourself
    after cycloplegia. Ask any eye surgeon - they pluck 'em out all the
    time and usually the other parts still work.

    Bates: "It is fortunate that many people for whom glasses have been
    prescribed refuse to wear them, thus escaping not only much discomfort
    but much INJURY to their eyes."

    This is particularly treacherous if they drive. Bates didn't have to
    meet his patients on a dark rainy highway with 120 mph between them. I
    can't find this INJURY he's talking about.

    Bates: "As refractive abnormalities are continually changing, not only
    from day to day and from hour to hour, but from minute to minute, even
    under the influence of atropine, the accurate fitting of glasses is,
    of course; IMPOSSIBLE."

    I don't share his experience. I have refracted people who remained
    consistent over decades. I have frequently refracted without any
    knowledge of their previous prescription, and later found it within a
    quarter-diopter of values from previous years. I often repeat
    refractions when people have problems with their new glasses, and to
    say they NEVER refract the same a few days later is ludicrous.

    A bunch of anecdotes can't prove a rule, but they easily DISPROVE this
    one, plus millions of people who find their glasses work the same day
    after day.

    Bates: "It has been demonstrated in thousands of cases that all
    abnormal action of the external muscles of the eyeball is accompanied
    by a strain or effort to see, and that with the relief of this strain
    the action of the muscles becomes normal and ALL ERRORS OF REFRACTION

    I don't know of anything that provides relief such that "ALL errors of
    refraction disappear". Nor did Bates, nor do you. muscle imbalance
    causes strain. Not the other way around.

    Bates: "The eye may be blind, it may be suffering from atrophy of the
    optic nerve, from cataract, or disease of the retina; but so long as
    it does not try to see, the external muscles act normally and there is
    no error of refraction. This fact furnishes us with the means by which
    ALL these conditions, so long held to be incurable, may be cured."

    Whaaaat? ALL these conditions? Relaxation cures ALL cataract, optic
    atrophy, and histoplasmosis? That's faith-healing, and its frankly
    cruel and anxiogenic to tell people these problems are their fault
    because they can't relax.

    Bates: "Myopes, although they see better at the near-point than they
    do at the distance, NEVER see as well as does the eye with normal

    Myopes do not see WORSE up close than emmetropes. At age 50, they
    definitely see BETTER up close than everybody else. And a macro lens
    doesn't have lower inherent resolution than a telephoto.

    Bates: "The remedy is not to avoid either near work or distant vision,
    but to get rid of the mental strain which underlies the imperfect
    functioning of the eye at both points; and it has: been demonstrated
    in thousands of cases that this can ALWAYS be done. "

    So how come nobody but Jesus matches his success rate? No I DON'T want
    to read all thousand stories. I want to hear averages, before and
    after, with a treated group compared to an untreated group with the
    same demographis. Why hasn't it been done? Because every believable
    attempt to modify refractive error with lenses, training, and mental
    effort has shown such limited success that the noone will invest the
    effort and expense to prove that if we re-hash it just right, it WILL
    work. That's what the COMET study attempted to do.

    Bates: "Fortunately, ALL persons are able to relax under certain
    conditions at will."

    Well, "at will" means they would have to be conscious, so that rules
    out death, coma, narcosis or sleep. So why isn't the "Natural Method"
    used for other anxieties? Yoga and biofeedback would outsell Valium
    and Xanax combined, if they worked. Which professional would you
    expect to use the Natural Method - a psychologist, or a psychic?

    Bates: "In ALL uncomplicated errors of refraction the strain to see
    can be relieved, temporarily, by having the patient look at a blank
    wall without trying to see."

    Um, OK I'll buy that one. Closing the eyes works, too. Bell's reflex
    'n all that.

    Bates: "The fact is that when the mind is at rest nothing can tire the
    eyes, and when the mind is under a strain NOTHING can rest them.
    ANYTHING that rests the mind will benefit the eyes."

    So will Xanax or meditation or spiritual enlightenment make my
    astigmatism better? Never worked for me. My K readings didn't change

    Bates: "After looking at the sun most people see black or colored
    spots which may last from a few minutes to a year or longer, but are
    NEVER permanent."

    My textbooks beg to differ. But what do they know?

    Mike Tyner, Mar 30, 2008
  15. Rishigg

    Jenny06427 Guest

    Bates: "That glasses cannot improve the sight to normal can be very simply
    It's still not the same as someone with perfect sight seeing, yes more
    Disagree look through any glass less quality of color

    : "As a matter of fact the sight ALWAYS improves, to a greater or less
    MAybe we just become accustomed to blurriness? Sure seems like a
    little rebound effect. Who did without their glasses for 3 months,
    most people run right out?
    Ask them whether they'd rather see without them no problem. Yes most
    everyone would prefer not to need glasses
    People become accustomed and function alright, there is still changes
    in the way things are seen compared to perfect light
    How well can you see out of corner of your eye with glasses. It's all
    blurry and lose attention to this field focusing only on part glasses
    make artificially clear.
    I already posted the studies that it's not all the lens either.
    Minus lenses make the eyes worse some of us think. Otis just posted
    about this better than I can. Got to go don't have time to address any
    more, will do changes in refraction later.
    Jenny06427, Mar 30, 2008
  16. Rishigg

    Mike Tyner Guest

    No but that wasnt' the argument. Bates said they see better color and
    form worse with glasses. Nonsense.
    Never mind the spectrographs, huh.
    Because they get better when they lose their glasses?
    Yes but most people see better with them. Bates said they see better
    without them.
    So the "unpleasantness" cannot be overcome?
    That wasn't the argument. The field of vision is not always smaller
    with lenses, so Bates was wrong.
    Yes but that doesn't change the experience of EVERYONE who has
    cataract surgery or cycloplegic drops. Where is this "other"
    accommodation when the lens is removed?
    Otis didn't post any proof. He posted an 80-year-old opinion that is
    contradicted by several studies. I quoted them here and Otis just
    ignored them.
    Mike Tyner, Mar 30, 2008
  17. Rishigg

    Mike Tyner Guest

    I meant "see color and form worse with glasses."
    Mike Tyner, Mar 30, 2008
  18. Rishigg

    Jenny06427 Guest

    You know I wasted too much time arguing the point even with 20/20
    correction someone with glasses doesn't have the same quality of
    vision as someone with perfect sight, acuity same, function may be
    fine, but there's at least a little difference in ways things are
    seen. Glasses are a pain and most everyone would prefer to have
    perfect sight, thus the popularity of unnecessary surgical risk.
    Jenny06427, Mar 30, 2008
  19. Rishigg

    Kevin Guest

    The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by
    the simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual
    field. To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the

    There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight
    which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames
    themeselves block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the
    frames are no longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes
    accustomed to working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus
    lenses minify is quite correct, - they draw more information into an
    area of sight that has been contracted.

    It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at
    the very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn

    An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
    myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
    using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.

    Kevin, Mar 30, 2008
  20. Rishigg

    Mike Tyner Guest

    So you blame glasses for lattice degeneration? That's new.

    Mike Tyner, Mar 30, 2008
    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.