Author Topic: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method  (Read 14030 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2014, 09:38:35 AM »
Hi Nick,

Dr. Bates did make one insightful statement:

"You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired.  We can also say that neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts, can you convince some people that an opinion which they have accepted on authority is wrong." -- William Bates

http://www.iblindness.org/

This continues to be a problem with so-called, "medical research".  The minus lens process was NOT ESTABLISHED by "reasoning, or by actual demonstration of the fact", it was established by the concept of "crude quick-fixing", with little that is science to support it.

I would add this statement about why you can not "reason" with a "medical authority".

"I know that most men …  can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very fabric of their lives." -- Leo Tolstoy

The  minus is a "bad solution", but it is the only solution for 99.99 percent of the population at this time.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 09:46:22 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2014, 10:19:32 AM »
When i palm for as short as a minutes, I can sometimes see 20/20-20./15 for a few minutes, then it slowly goes back.

bates also mentioned stuff like reading the snellen, shifting, central fixation, and these challenge the eyes. active focusing for long periods of time my be very benficial (like in my dad's case). but bates concept of only relaxation my not be effeective. 

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2014, 04:50:37 PM »
however I wish i never read about bates. I was under the impression close work has no effect on the eye, so i continued to put my nose in the book and read hours without looking up.

no amount of "shifting" and "palming" could ever save me. i think he didn't realize that close work = strain, no matter if one "strains" or not.

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2014, 08:51:02 PM »
Totally ridiculous and potential "harmful" suggestions from iblindness.

<arocarty> Good question. Glad that you ask. Why did Bates claim that if you strain at near, you produced a hyperopic shift, and if you strain at far, you produce a myopic shift (in one or all meridians of the eye - as he also observed that it often produced astigmatism as well): simultaneous retinoscopy. One has to understand, first, that Bates was extraordinarily skilled at utilizing a retinoscope. Probably better than any ophthalmologist in the history of the instrument. This gave him the ability to detect errors of refraction, very quickly, in a very objective manner, even when a patient was unaware of one being present. And the ability to do it under all sorts of conditions. He used it to examine hundreds of thousands of eyeballs,on babies, children, teens, adults, people who had their eye lenses removed, animals, anything that moved or breathed.

By means of this instrument, he was able to verify, in a highly objective way, many highly consistent patterns in the nature of refractive errors. When people strained or made an effort to see at the nearpoint, he invariably observed that it produced temporary hyperopia, or a hyperopic shift, and when people made an effort or strained to see at the distance, a myopic shift. Even with people from whom the eye lenses had been removed, the same principles always applied. He observed long-standing high levels of myopia disappear in seconds under certain conditions, and people who normally had remarkable vision create errors of refraction in seconds as well. He could demonstrate this to anyone, on anyone, within a few minutes. Armed with this knowledge and factual data, he separated, as we know, from conventional methods of treating refractive errors.

I can personally testify that reading fine print, is a benefit to vision. I've used my eyes for hours and hours and hours, for years and years and years, at the nearpoint, and my vision did not move in a myopic direction, quite the contrary, when I learned how to relax and release mental stain, shift and swing more freely, and fixate, thanks to fine print. It helped much with releasing astigmatism as well. I don't want to think where I might have ended up if I had continued the same straining ways.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 08:57:04 PM by CapitalPrince »

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2014, 10:21:36 AM »
@CapitalPrince

If a myopic person did brakes from reading and did some palming he/she could benefit.
Also Bates'central fixation is mainly for looking far and when used at near it should be focused at small details.
Reading fine print at close distance without glasses can also help people developing presbyopia but Bates was overconfident of fully correcting any visual refractive (and others) problem and sometimes in just months so he didn't discriminate the myopes from this habit.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 01:57:07 PM by Alex_Myopic »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2014, 05:24:13 AM »
Hi Alex,

Question:  Is the minus "poison".  How do you avoid used it.

A lot of my research centered on Dr. Bates and his study in 1913.  Was Bates a "fraud", or was he an honest man with a better idea?  That remains an "open question" - even today.  I has suspected that the minus was a truly "bad idea".  It is clear that Bates also thought that the "minus" should not be used, or its use should be seriously "restricted".  Bates protested the "minus" by grinding a  minus under his heel.

I can understand the OD in his shop.  He wants to make your vision incredibly SHARP.  That is fine - until you realize that some ODs state that the minus is "poison".  When you find an OD who says that -  you should listen to him.

Remember, I never "hate all doctors" who some people accuse me of doing.  What I "hate" is the ignorance that perpetuates this tragic situation.

So, assuming you wish to avoid the minus, how do  you do it.  For yourself (now close to 20/20) I think, a combination of BOTH METHODS are of greatest value to you.  I think your objective reading of your own Snellen is the key to your own success.  But I do not advocate that a person start plus-prevention, unless the person  can still read the 20/60 line (or so).  This concept is about prevention only, or "doing it yourself".  I simply refuse to make "claims" beyond the above statements.




@CapitalPrince

If a myopic person did brakes from reading and did some palming he/she could benefit.
Also Bates'central fixation is mainly for looking far and when used at near it should be focused at small details.
Reading fine print at close distance without glasses can also help people developing presbyopia but Bates was overconfident of fully correcting any visual refractive (and others) problem and sometimes in just months so he didn't discriminate the myopes from this habit.

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2014, 04:24:36 AM »
Worser than 20/60 or 20/70 I believe it's impractical to start with plus lenses. Is there a limit to the degree of improvement (in diopters) with plus lenses for example due to axial myopia or from a point and then we can have plateaus or 1/2 diopter per year after some time of improvement?

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2014, 06:15:47 AM »
Hi Alex,

There are people who attempt to make me "pro-Bates", or "anti-Bates"  (Or pro or anti - exercise).  I am neither.

I know we do need a person to stand up and OBJECT to the minus lens (when at 20/40 to 20/50, or -1 diopter) and promote the person's intelligence and motivation.  People have used "exercise" to get back to 20/20, (refractive state  = 0.0 diopters) but that is rare.

In fact some ODs "figured out" that the eye was dynamic in its basic behavior (proven), and realized that helping the "general public" would be impossible.  So they choose to help their own children, by insisting that their children wear a plus for all  close work.  That is the real success for a parent and his child.  That is the "real truth" of this difficult situation - as we both understand it.

What I praise about Bates was his bold 1912 study - that was partially successful.  But I also support the concept of individual responsiblity of using BOTH "exercise" and the plus-for-near.  That includes the requirement that the person teach himself how to measure his refractive state himself.

By that "interactive" process, of exercise/plus, some motivated people get to legal 20/20, eventually.  But as we know from Shadowfoot, if you are at 20/20, and the minus shows you can "do better", then continued use of the plus will get you to 20/18, self-confirmed.

I think that is what Todd did - but this type of "fortitude", is in the person, and not in the optometrist.

We are posting here, to help each of us come to grips with this problem, and get back to naked-eye 20/20.

How we do it - is our own business.




Worser than 20/60 or 20/70 I believe it's impractical to start with plus lenses. Is there a limit to the degree of improvement (in diopters) with plus lenses for example due to axial myopia or from a point and then we can have plateaus or 1/2 diopter per year after some time of improvement?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 07:07:53 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2014, 12:08:47 PM »
@Mr Brown,

yes, by recovering to -0.5 from -2D it seems that our eyes refractive status is dynamic and not only can recover from pseydomyopia but slowly further.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2014, 08:35:54 AM »
Hi Alex,

Subject:  Bates was not bad - but his "followers" destroy all Bates credibility.

Here is an example of this problem - by Mary Oliver - a true Bates believer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY9LqQMogX4

Mary states (with no proof at all) that, the plus "causes cataracts".  But I suggest that you be "selective" in which Bates-believer you choose to take seriously.

But above all else - listen to Todd, and others who were willing to start plus-prevention before they went below 20/50 on their Snellen.

Learn - and be wise.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2014, 08:37:39 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2014, 03:51:08 AM »
I have read your work (and others) about plus years ago in i-see.org and immediately I got a pair of +1D (I was -2D myopic). My vision stabilized and my night myopia lessened. I was fool not to have had the courage (and also thought of the money needed to spend) not to undercorrect and rehablitate my myopia years ago. A book about Bates gave me the final motive that minus can poison visual acuity. But only with correct and full usage of plus I had results in axial myopia and not pseudomyopia in with Bates can help.

Thomas Quackenbush is a good follower of Bates but even he believes only Bates can solve even high myopia.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2014, 03:55:09 AM by Alex_Myopic »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2014, 05:33:47 AM »
Hi Alex,

It was indeed Bates who convinced me that at least "threshold prevention" would be possible.  (Against, "official Helmholtz THEORY").  I believe (100 years later) that a preventive study with each person at 20/50, and self-measured -1 diopter) could succeed. 

But for now, a person must have the "spunk" to do it himself.  I do respect one visual acuity requirement.  That is that I must EXCEED the 20/40 line, or I will have to get a minus lens (myself), until I do far better than the 20/40 line.  This is what I mean when I say, objective control of your distant vision.

You now confirm 20/25 vision (about -0.25 diopters to -0.5 diopters).  On a bright Snellen you read 20/20.  That to me is wonderful vision, in that you exceed all reasonable requirements, objectively, yourself.  There is no requirement that you wear a minus lens.

I would agree that if you do not STOP, entry into myopia, at 20/50, and wear a strong minus all the time, you will rapidly develop axial myopia.  PERIOD !!

But the idea (of Bates, and Kaisu) is to stop it, at the 20/40 level, and do it yourself.  This is a high degree of responsiblity that we should expect of ourselves.

You are successful - by all reasonable measurements.

I would gladly go though life with 20/25 vision, naked eye, rather than EVER start wearing a minus lens - even if it gave me 20/15 or 20/13 vision.

That is indeed the "trade off" that some people will have in their future.

You avoid the minus - by always passing the 20/40 line - with wisdom and motivation.



I have read your work (and others) about plus years ago in i-see.org and immediately I got a pair of +1D (I was -2D myopic). My vision stabilized and my night myopia lessened. I was fool not to have had the courage (and also thought of the money needed to spend) not to undercorrect and rehablitate my myopia years ago. A book about Bates gave me the final motive that minus can poison visual acuity. But only with correct and full usage of plus I had results in axial myopia and not pseudomyopia in with Bates can help.

Thomas Quackenbush is a good follower of Bates but even he believes only Bates can solve even high myopia.

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2014, 02:38:28 AM »
I would gladly go though life with 20/25 vision, naked eye, rather than EVER start wearing a minus lens - even if it gave me 20/15 or 20/13 vision.

I agree on that. I hope I get to 20/20 and then not wear glasses except at night. My glasses are only -0,25D now and they help me mostly in the at night.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Dr. William Bates and the Bates Method
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2015, 08:43:01 PM »
Hi Alex,

I post this to review Todd's comments and his success with the plus, and "pushing print".  This was published four years ago.

Even Bates "cut off" the discussion at around 20/40 to 20/60.  After 100 years, and a great deal
of pure scientific research, preventing  "negative status" is possible.

Bates>  Myopia with elongation of the eyeball is incurable. It is usually acquired during school life. Acute myopia, spasm of the accommodation, or functional myopia is an early stage of incurable myopia.

This is an accurate statement - which has not changed in 100 years.   it is a warning.  Bates is not fraudlent in this statement, because it is accurate science.

But his followers, in promoting, "cure everything", or "get out of -10 diopters", are making a fraudlent statement of an expected cure.

Bates clearly excluded that from ever being possible.  That is indeed an honest and accurate statement.

+++++
I would gladly go though life with 20/25 vision, naked eye, rather than EVER start wearing a minus lens - even if it gave me 20/15 or 20/13 vision.

I agree on that. I hope I get to 20/20 and then not wear glasses except at night. My glasses are only -0,25D now and they help me mostly in the at night.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 05:35:06 AM by OtisBrown »