Re: A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments
- From: "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:31:01 -0500
<absolutelyinvincible@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
I was notified about this discussion group by a patient whom I have
treated with the relaxation treatment system without the use of
glasses or surgery. I signed on to have a look, and I read many of the
consolidated transcripts dating back to 2003, where many 'pro-bates'
vs. the 'anti-bates'/ODs debating has taken place.
If you're going to present an argument in a science newsgroup, it's best not
to make your false identity so obvious and contrived.
I am a board certified ophthalmologist with specialty training in
diseases and surgery of the retina. I had the opportunity to train
with Dr. Bates in May of 1919
Oops. There was no such thing as "board certification" in that field in
1919.
and I have incorporated the great
doctor's central fixation treatment into my practice since that time.
Impossible to believe.
field loss secondary to stroke. I am excited by the improvement I see
in the majority of patients.
It's possible that you do get excited but I doubt it has much to do with
treating stroke patients.
Most importantly, patients are happy with
the improvement they get.
As Dr. Bates said, some people will be impressed no matter what you do.
As a eye care specialist, I look for any
possible safe means of achieving improvement in vision for all
patients who are interested. Sometimes that is best accomplished with
surgery, sometimes with laser, sometimes with low vision aides,
You have to be at least 100 years old. Somehow I doubt you're doing much
surgery.
When I first starting using the central fixation/relaxation treatment
for degenerative retinal diseases, many of my colleagues thought that
I was nuts. However, after they started to see improvement in their
own patients who had come to me on their own, usually after hearing
about another patient's positive experience, they started to change
their minds. I am now getting referrals from other ophthalmologists,
including retinal specialists, and internists in the area.
Please include your address so I can refer you a couple of tough cases. Not
interested? Big surprise.
The fact that Western Medicine has not been able to determine the
mechanism by which central fixation and release of strain by
relaxation effects change in the body does not invalidate the bates
method.
Nor does it validate the method. What's wrong with demonstrating efficacy?
It has been used for many years with many different ocular-
medical conditions with undeniable success.
"Undeniable" - is that the same as "unproven?"
It is routinely being used
in a number of different locations to control pain without the use of
anesthetic.
Do please tell us where.
The line between allopathic medicine and alternative forms
of therapy is becoming more blurred all the time.
If it's blurry, I can suggest some simple relaxation exercises that will
clear things up.
While I can
understand the skepticism engendered by the use of the bates method
for the treatment of eye disease (I suffered with that stumbling block
myself to begin with), I feel it is important to keep an open mind.
That's what you feel. WE feel it is important to test treated and untreated
groups to look for efficacy. Y'know.. e..f..f..i..c..a..c..y - I'm sure you
know what that is.
Without that, we are of much less benefit to our patients.
Without efficacy comparisons, you're a waste of time.
important to have an integrated approach to medical care, regardless
of the problem.
So you advocate "integrating" phrenology, peach pits, Santaria and magnetic
therapy?
everyone. Each patient has to be approached as an individual. Though
this is certainly more time consuming, the benefit to patients is well
worth it.
Efficacy studies are time consuming, but the benefit to patients is well
worth it.
As stated previously in this discussion group, it is impossible to do
a double blind study for this particular mode of treatment.
So forget about "double blind." Just choose up 50 individuals to treat, and
50 other individuals with the same demographics and diagnosis that you do
NOT treat. When you get the numbers, report back to us.
I am
presently sitting on 21 months of accumulated data on the patients I
have treated by central fixation therapy, and I am interested in
getting this information to the medical community at large, but to
date I have not found a way to achieve this.
Perhaps if you considered a control group?
I have no vested interest
in what is causing the improvement I see in patients treated with the
Bates Method.
Since you are not who you claim to be, what interest DO you have?
If there is some way to prove that the central fixation
is responsible for the improvement, great.
It's called "Student's t-test". Perhaps you've come across it in your long
experience.
If it can be proved that it
is placebo effect, or the result of "healing hands," or mind body
control, that's okay too. As long as a patient ends up seeing better,
I'm all for it.
That's fine, but most of us don't want to promote placebo treatments. Why do
you?
I try to determine a patient's expectation of central
fixation treatment before I decide whether or not to treat them.
That's always important. Placebo can't work if there's no expectation.
While
most patients get a modest improvement in vision in the case of MD,
"Modest" = "none".
and a modest increase in vision/ field of vision for RP, I have had
some patients achieve a four-line improvement in vision, which has
remained for more than a year.
Simply unbelievable.
side effects of these retinal problems, namely depression. This, in
turn, has a beneficial effect on a patient's immune system.
Central fixation must be good for something. Maybe depression is it.
-MT
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments
- From: MsBrainy via MedKB.com
- Re: A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments
- References:
- A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments
- From: Dr. Eulenberg
- A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments
- Prev by Date: A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments
- Next by Date: Removing reflections in an image/video ?
- Previous by thread: A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments
- Next by thread: Re: A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
