Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
sci.med.vision
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Stay away from "vision educators"
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Mike Tyner  
View profile  
 More options Mar 30 2008, 10:09 pm
Newsgroups: sci.med.vision
From: Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Mar 30 2008 10:09 pm
Subject: Re: Stay away from "vision educators"
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Kory wrote:
> 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?

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
physiology.

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
treatment.

-MT

On 30 Mar, 13:07, Kory Postma <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On 30 Mar, 13:06, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > On 30 Mar, 13:05, Kory Postma <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > On 30 Mar, 13:04, Mike Tyner <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > "Kory Postma" <kor...@NOhotSPAMmail.com> wrote

> > > > > oppositional movement), blink often and be able to remember things
> > > > > exactly as they are meant to be seen, then the vision will improve.

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

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

> > > > -MT

> > > 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

> > Clearing the mind, improving the memory, and relaxing are all noble
> > goals.

> > 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.

> > -MT

> 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


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google