Re: Stay away from "vision educators"

In article <larrydoc-5F1000.00065511082...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
larry...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In article <MPG.19a0267a83607f95989...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kevin <sevenths...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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
glasses.

------------------

Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
astonishing raeaction!

I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.

Hogwash! I'd suggest you read your own words again. I quoted it here,
above directly from your post.

Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
your words won't sound so hollow.

Not hollow.

Your statement is simply false. It is not "well known that all
myopes............" That is wrong. Just say: "I should have been more
careful how I chose my words. Or admit you are wrong. It has to be one
or the other.

Yes, I agree with that. It would be truer to me to say 'I am under the
impression that it is more likely for myopes, and particularly high
myopes to have some degeneration at the peripheral edges of their
vision.'

I don't mind being wrong about that, but it is a strong impression
I've gathered from hearing talks and advice from some of the
ophthalmologists I'm in contact with over here in the UK. I usually
attempt to avoid making generalizations perhaps in this case I
misunderstood what was being said, and I don't have the statistical
data to follow it up.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I'm sorry if clincal observation and the reporting of data based on the
scientific method gets in the way of Bates rhetoric. It's simple to
find lack of credibilty in The Method when parts of it are known to be
false, invalid, or detrimental.

On the other hand, it seems that the Bates Cultists have not been able
to come up with any credible evidence that there is validity to The
Method. Nothing. If you want to discuss Bates in a sci.med heirarchy of
UseNet newsgroups, then you've got to come up with some science.
Otherwise, the proper place to promote Bates is in an alt. newsgroup or
perhaps misc.health.alternative. Not here.

I've been around here long enough to know that every couple of years a
new crop of Bates zealots shows up here for a while, usually just after
the pin-hole glasses people leave. This current crop is taking longer
than usual to go away.

TYhere's a significant problem here - the current crop are mostly
neither zealots nor charlatans, but the mix of different worlds
creates that impression. Actually for both sides it appears that the
other side is somewhat insane.

To be fair, Bates does attract a fair number of people looking for the
magic answer to life and you will get a degree of unperceptive
delivery which is in no way helpful. This sort of thing is what makes
the method produce a kind of cultic impression and people who are
deeply like that tend to be more vocal. But they can't discuss very
well.

Personally, I love to see you cultists get it together and fund a study
to try to prove your point. It doesn't matter whether YOU think it
works or even if a whole cult of users thinks it works. You've got to
able to show cause and effect relationship.

Yes, and I totally agree. There's a reason that this has never been
done before. Back in the 1940s when Corbett was taken to court (twice)
for practicing medicine without a license one of the long term results
was a very effective damping down on all Bates teachers. Although she
was acquitted, Corbett herself was seriously alarmed and began to
suppress publicity around the method. As she was one of the most
influential teachers her subsequent advice to all Bates teachers to
keep their heads down was taken seriously.

By the time I trained in the 90s, this overall 'survival' approach had
created what I'd call a serious 'community rot' amongst Bates teachers
and vision educators in general.

Over the last couple of years I have become increasingly acutely aware
of just what happened and why it happened. Colleagues of mine would be
only too happy to discredit 'scientific method' and its
representatives, because it was considered a good way of justifying
the contiunued lack of well designed studies - not in a conscious way
nor with malevolent intent, but with an accepted 'this is how things
are' approach.

Unfortunately, it is also bull**** and time it was rooted out and
exposed for what it is. Any optician who wants to try and expose this
lack will be shouting themselves hoarse for a long time. From a Bates
community point of view the orthodoxy is unable to speak much sense by
default, so this is part of the reason that it appears that there is
this constant butting of heads with no-one really grasping the
essential points which help things to move forward.

But I agree with you completely, there needs to be some really well
designed studies, and done with the co-operation of opticians,
optometrists and ophthalmologists. Results do not have to be as
spectacular as what Bates claimed - just an indication that
progressive myopia is slowed, or overall reduced in impact would be
significant enough don't you agree?

Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that
will, if promising, lead to a long term study about the effectiveness
(or not) of the method.

Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
behind something which is on inadequate foundations.

Kevin
.

Quantcast