Vision without lenses

darni · #1 (**permalink**) 10-23-2009, 03:51 AM

Check it out http://16e461mkx9hqa6aitkqar2fvyi.hop.clickbank.net/

Rosetyler · #2 (**permalink**) 10-23-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darni

Check it out http://16e461mkx9hqa6aitkqar2fvyi.hop.clickbank.net/

I took the time to check out this link, (Just look at that URL. No words, just a jumble of numbers and letters. Watch out for those.) and it's for a program based on the work of Dr. William H. Bates.

Allow me to save you the trouble. Here's an excerpt from wikipedia.org.

"The purported benefits of Bates' techniques are generally anecdotal, and their supposed effectiveness in improving eyesight has not been substantiated by medical research. [That means the only proof that it works is by people saying "I've tried it and it works."] Several of Bates' techniques, including 'sunning', 'swinging', and 'palming', were combined with healthy changes to diet and exercise in a 1983 randomized controlled trial of myopic children in India. After 6 months, the experimental groups 'did not show any statistically significant difference in refractive status', but the children in the treatment group 'subjectively ... felt relieved of eye strain and other symptoms.'

It has been argued, such as by philosopher Frank J. Leavitt, that the method which Bates described would be difficult to test scientifically due to his emphasis on relaxation and visualization. Leavitt asked 'How can we tell whether someone has relaxed or imagined something, or just thinks that he or she has imagined it?' In regards to the possibility of a placebo trial, Leavitt commented 'I cannot conceive of how we could put someone in a situation where he thinks he has imagined something while we know that he has not.'"

Stylinbabe · #3 (**permalink**) 05-24-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosetyler

I took the time to check out this link, (Just look at that URL. No words, just a jumble of numbers and letters. Watch out for those.) and it's for a program based on the work of Dr. William H. Bates.

Allow me to save you the trouble. Here's an excerpt from wikipedia.org.

"The purported benefits of Bates' techniques are generally anecdotal, and their supposed effectiveness in improving eyesight has not been substantiated by medical research. [That means the only proof that it works is by people saying "I've tried it and it works."] Several of Bates' techniques, including 'sunning', 'swinging', and 'palming', were combined with healthy changes to diet and exercise in a 1983 randomized controlled trial of myopic children in India. After 6 months, the experimental groups 'did not show any statistically significant difference in refractive status', but the children in the treatment group 'subjectively ... felt relieved of eye strain and other symptoms.'

It has been argued, such as by philosopher Frank J. Leavitt, that the method which Bates described would be difficult to test scientifically due to his emphasis on relaxation and visualization. Leavitt asked 'How can we tell whether someone has relaxed or imagined something, or just thinks that he or she has imagined it?' In regards to the possibility of a placebo trial, Leavitt commented 'I cannot conceive of how we could put someone in a situation where he thinks he has imagined something while we know that he has not.'"

Thanks for the information, Rosetyler. It seems "darni" has yet to reply.

Ryan Oden · #4 (**permalink**) 06-05-2011, 08:28 PM

I can see up close without contacts fine. Without contacts things in the distance all blur together.

Logopolis · #5 (**permalink**) 06-06-2011, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Oden

I can see up close without contacts fine. Without contacts things in the distance all blur together.

Have you tried the methods mentioned above? Can you tell us from experience whether or not they work? A little "anecdotal evidence" for us?

Ryan Oden · #6 (**permalink**) 06-06-2011, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logopolis

Have you tried the methods mentioned above? Can you tell us from experience whether or not they work? A little "anecdotal evidence" for us?

I haven't tried the methods mentioned above. I now feel silly for posting what i posted. I'm new at forums. That was my first post and now I realize that it made no sense at all in relation to the Vision without Lenses Thread. However, I may try the vision without glasses for only $37.

Hottchick · #7 (**permalink**) 06-08-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Oden

I haven't tried the methods mentioned above. I now feel silly for posting what i posted. I'm new at forums. That was my first post and now I realize that it made no sense at all in relation to the Vision without Lenses Thread. However, I may try the vision without glasses for only $37.

Do you mean the "Bates Method"? With the swinging and palming and all that?

Ryan Oden · #8 (**permalink**) 06-08-2011, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hottchick

Do you mean the "Bates Method"? With the swinging and palming and all that?

Right the Bates Method.

Nursenancy · #9 (**permalink**) 06-08-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Oden

I haven't tried the methods mentioned above. I now feel silly for posting what i posted. I'm new at forums. That was my first post and now I realize that it made no sense at all in relation to the Vision without Lenses Thread. However, I may try the vision without glasses for only $37.

Okay, I'll bite. What's "vision without glasses"?

Ryan Oden · #10 (**permalink**) 06-08-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nursenancy

Okay, I'll bite. What's "vision without glasses"?

Vision without glasses is a program that guides you step by step to restore near perfect vision in 1-3 months:

//16e461mkx9hqa6aitkqar2fvyi.hop.clickbank.net/

PrincePlanet · #11 (**permalink**) 06-09-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Oden

Vision without glasses is a program that guides you step by step to restore near perfect vision in 1-3 months:

//16e461mkx9hqa6aitkqar2fvyi.hop.clickbank.net/

That web address scares me. I'm not going to copy and paste that. Don't you have anything normal like "visionwithoutglasses.com"?

Ryan Oden · #12 (**permalink**) 06-10-2011, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrincePlanet

That web address scares me. I'm not going to copy and paste that. Don't you have anything normal like "visionwithoutglasses.com"?

that is the link at the top of the page. I copied and pasted on my computer and had no problems. Go to your local library and use their computer if you don't want to use yours or don't view it at all for all i care. <---------------------(not to be mean.)

sexynerd · #13 (**permalink**) 06-10-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Oden

that is the link at the top of the page. I copied and pasted on my computer and had no problems. Go to your local library and use their computer if you don't want to use yours or don't view it at all for all i care. <---------------------(not to be mean.)

You said up above that this is also called the Bates Method, right?

Ryan Oden · #14 (**permalink**) 06-12-2011, 07:36 AM

I guess it could be called an improved Dr. Bates Method....yes.

timetraveler · #15 (**permalink**) 06-13-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Oden

I guess it could be called an improved Dr. Bates Method....yes.

I've never tried that Bate's Method because I'm skeptical. Can someone give me a website that gives an unbiased perspective?

eye2eye · #16 (**permalink**) 11-04-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timetraveler

I've never tried that Bate's Method because I'm skeptical. Can someone give me a website that gives an unbiased perspective?

What about the link that Rosetyler posted? Do you trust Wikipedia as being unbiased?

Rosetyler · #17 (**permalink**) 11-11-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eye2eye

What about the link that Rosetyler posted? Do you trust Wikipedia as being unbiased?

Thanks, eye2eye. Wikipedia is a little bit biased sometimes, but they have a pretty good watchdog program there. I've seen some article flagged because they didn't seem to be objective enough. That Bates article has no such flags.

sexynerd · #18 (**permalink**) 11-17-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosetyler

Thanks, eye2eye. Wikipedia is a little bit biased sometimes, but they have a pretty good watchdog program there. I've seen some article flagged because they didn't seem to be objective enough. That Bates article has no such flags.

Here are some quotes from that unflagged article.

The Bates method is an alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight. Eye-care physician William Horatio Bates (1860–1931) attributed nearly all sight problems to habitual strain of the eyes, and felt that glasses were harmful and never necessary. Bates self-published a book as well as a magazine . . . detailing his approach to helping people relax such "strain", and thus, he claimed, improve their sight . . .

Despite continued anecdotal reports of successful results, including well-publicized support by Aldous Huxley, Bates' techniques have not been shown objectively to improve eyesight, and his main physiological proposition – that the eyeball changes shape to maintain focus – has consistently been contradicted by observation. In 1952, optometry professor Elwin Marg wrote of Bates, “Most of his claims and almost all of his theories have been considered false by practically all visual scientists.” Marg concluded that the Bates method owed its popularity largely to "flashes of clear vision" experienced by many who followed it. Such occurrences have since been determined to most likely be a contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye.

Lens 101--discrediting W.H. Bates over and over again.

eye2eye · #19 (**permalink**) 01-12-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexynerd

Here are some quotes from that unflagged article.

. . . Bates' techniques have not been shown objectively to improve eyesight, and his main physiological proposition . . . has consistently been contradicted by observation.

It's hard to continue to put forth a method that has been contradicted by observation. How do you know it's not true? You've seen it not happen.

Stylinbabe · #20 (**permalink**) 01-16-2012, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eye2eye

It's hard to continue to put forth a method that has been contradicted by observation. How do you know it's not true? You've seen it not happen.

Yes there are thousands of people out there who claim to have tried it and it does work.
Of course, there are thousands of people who believe that an amputated animal's foot has brought them luck.

Nursenancy · #21 (**permalink**) 01-19-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stylinbabe

Yes there are thousands of people out there who claim to have tried it and it does work.
Of course, there are thousands of people who believe that an amputated animal's foot has brought them luck.

The obvious reply to that would be "it didn't help the rabbit, did it?"