Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 8 December 2007

Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Oldscipeerreview

Bias

This article currently sounds like a Hatchet job on poor Mr. Bates. It's not balanced at all. Can some please edit it to move all the criticism into one section or at least remove some of it.

Something else about the tone of this article bothers me. It seems to be holding this holistic therapy up to the standards of conventional, western surgery/medicine/science. Can we please discuss Bate's Method within the realm of Holistic, alternative healing.

41.245.138.107 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC) vgeddes

Swinging

This article doesn't give a fair treatment of Dr Bates' theory.

His premise is that strain is the cause of imperfect eyesight amd that once sufficient relaxation is attained, perfect sight will result. All his methods try to produce this relaxation except from 'swinging', though relaxation is a by product of 'swinging'.

'Swinging' encourages the proper use of the focal point on the retina, which persons with imperfect sight fail to do. 'Swinging' also results in relaxation, and is sometimes more helpful than other methods as it is an active means of attaining it.

If you read Dr Bates' book and note how often he talks about relaxation you will see that it is relaxation and not exercises which form the basis of his methods.

Other exercises?

Eye exercises redirects here (at least at the moment). Is this the primary/only method? There's a lot of hype around the "See Clearly Method" these days. —User:Mulad (talk) 16:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Change to introductory sentence

The first sentence states: "For the general public and the orthodox ophthalmology the Bates Method is a controversial system of techniques that is intended to improve vision through a set of practices that are claimed to relax the eyes." "Controversial" means essentially "marked by controversy" and "controversy" is defined as "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." The first part of the first sentence is redundant so I am going to delete: "For the general public and the orthodox ophthalmology". AED 2 July 2005 19:04 (UTC).

In my opinion this information is not redundant. The reason is that when you nowadays look in books written by and for the orthodox you will find pictures explaining myopia and hypermetropia which correspondent with the theories of Bates. Meaning that the eyeball is the cause of myopia ( to long ) and for farsightness ( to short ). In most books written for the general public you will find pictures showing that the lens is the cause.

See figure 4 of perfect eyesight without glasses.

(foregoing comment added August 27, 2005 by seeyou)

Criticism section - Theory regarding the pathogenesis of refractive errors

I'm going to remove what is currently the second paragraph in this section. The author(s) of this paragraph do not fully understand the mainstream explanations for how the eye works, nor do they understand the Bates advocates' claims: The mainstream objection to the Bates Theory of Myopia Pathogenesis is that the ciliary muscles which control focusing contract to focus on near objects and relax to focus on distant objects . It is near focusing, not far, that exercises these muscles. Thus, the effect of weakened eye muscles ought to be farsightness (hypermetropia) rather than nearsightness (myopia). The negative lenses that are used to correct myopia cause the muscles to work harder than they would otherwise need to and might, if anything, be expected to strengthen them. Accommodation to distant objects is a passive process and does not involve the use of muscles. In distant accommodation, the ciliary muscles simply relax; accommodation results from the elastic action of the suspensory ligaments and the lens of the eye itself. [Again, there is no such thing as "distant accommodation". AED 7 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

I question the assertion that 'there is no such thing as distant accommodation'. Accommodation is surely just about changing focus, whether this requires muscle effort, relaxation, or slow recovery of shape after muscle effort, and regardless of refractive change necessitated. --Lindosland 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the sun isn't so dangerous.

ooking directly at the sun is very dangerous.

That's not completely true. Under normal conditions, looking at the sun with the naked eye cannot cause any permanent damage, unlike commonly believed. See Talk:Sun#The_Sun_and_eye_damage. I myself have stared at the sun for tens of minutes, and my vision hasn't suffered any noticeable damage. --Army1987 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know any animal which has the strange habit to stare at the sun !!! In my opinion looking for less than half a second to the sun at noon is harmless. Looking or even staring to the sun for a longer period is not natural.

Whatever you mean by "not natural", it isn't very dangerous either (unless you look at it through magnifying lenses or binoculars...)--Army1987 21:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing a section pending sources

I asked a week ago for sources for key assertions in this section; so far they haven't been provided so I'm removing the section until they are. It should not be reinserted without sources. Per the verifiability policy "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."

To reinsert the material, it is not necessary to prove that these facts are true, but it is necessary to show, by citing sources, that they have already been published by reputable source. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A grain of truth - the modern debate

Modern research does lend some support to Bateson's {who is Bateson?} 71.32.109.22 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) overall idea that reading and close-work play a part in the development of myopia in children and it is hard to find any other reason for the epidemic of myopia that afflicts our children, with the percentages of children reported as myopic in different countries appearing to be highly correlated with the amount of early study.

Whatever the mechanism, it does seem likely now that prolongued straining of the ciliary muscle does probably play a part in the development of myopia, and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development. . This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time.

An area of relevance that does not seem have been adequately researched concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses our eyes. Does it take its cue from a guess at object size (which links somewhat with Bateson's emphasis on memory)? Or does our perception of object size and distance take cues from the degree of focus effort needed? It seems obvious that whatever the cues, the wearing of glasses is going to mess them up, so that the wearer must develop two or more separate programs in the brain for aquiring focus with and without glasses, especially when presbyopia sets in and we start to focus through multiple lenses or varifocals. There would appear to be no way in which the eye can tell whether a blurred image is being brought to focus in front of or behind the retina, and hence which way to change focus, other than by using a trial and error approach (not very good) and so other cues would seem to be vital. It may be that there was a grain of truth in what Bateson was doing in so far as he tried to train the brain to improve its focus strategy, or ignore a false strategy.

Unsourced material in Bates method

(reply to your personal page was blocked by spam filter!)

See Talk:Bates method. You can put this section back, but first you need to provide sources that show that its major assertions have already been published by a reputable source. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, and I intended to look for sources, which I believe may already appear in associated articles like myopia. I'm thinking of a recent New Scientist article. Sorry, I got involved in a lot of writing for other areas, but will try to sort this section out. I sometimes feel that some things need not be sourced on the grounds that they are self-evident, that they follow from basis reasoning, and its hard to draw the line at where sources are cited, but since you've challenged I must try. I wonder for example whether it is acceptable to say, 'an area of research that does not seem to have been adequately researched concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses the eyes'. This is not original research, which is of course taboo, but comment on lack of research, and as such self-evident unless research comes up. This topic, which has existed in the shadows for so long, and is often put down by specialists who actually still do not understand all the mechanisms involved, can perhaps stand a little comment of this sort, which makes no great statement, but stands as a pointer and a challenge to others to come up with more facts. Regards --Lindosland 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope not to too much of a jerk about this, and in reality as I'm sure you've noticed plenty of unsourced "common knowledge" does get into Misplaced Pages. I think it was fair for me to challenge and remove the material in its present form, as it's really just a personal essay. With regard to reinsertion I'm not going to insist on perfection, and I intend to use verifiability in a good-faith way.

I don't, however, agree that you can just say, without sourcing, 'an area of research that does not seem to have been adequately researched concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses the eyes.' Without doing a literature review myself, how can I judge whether that's true? What would be OK in my opinion is to state that, say, "thus-and-such textbook of ophthalmology or optometry, in pages so-and-so through so-and-so, discusses the physical mechanism of accommodation but never addresses the issue of how the brain knows in which direction to accommodate." My reasoning here is that a standard textbook of ophthalmology would be a reliable summary of the important facts that are generally accepted about accommodation. What I'm saying is that I think you could have a negative source citation, thus-and-such source says nothing about so-and-so. That's objective and verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue this: the truth is I am not quite sure what I feel about some of the finer points of Misplaced Pages, but I'm hooked on it nevertheless and find trying to be NPOV, while trying to put out what I consider the right messages to be a fascinating and strengthening excercise! I'll see if I can do this better and learn in the process. --Lindosland 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now put the disputed section back with citations. I would ask that the final section be left for now, though I have yet to rephrase it with a reference. It does not attempt to mislead in any way, such as by presenting unsupported facts, and I think it may be very valuable and relevant, so perhaps if it is left others can consider it and firm up the basis for it, as I will if I can. --Lindosland 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted the recent additions. The Nova Southeastern study supports the common idea that hyperopic defocus due to lag of accommodation may cause myopia… not Bates' muscle squeezing theory. The "A grain of truth - the modern debate" section was clearly POV, most likely due to a misunderstanding of that study. AED 06:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstand the study, and did not claim that it supported Bates' muscle sqeezing theory, which I understand there is much evidence against. This article is about the Bates method, not Bates' muscle squeezing theory, and I meant that there is some truth in some of Baates' ideas, in particular the idea that habit can alter refractive error, which forms part of Bates hypothesis, and which is the conclusion of the Nova Southeastern study. I am putting my material, which in any case includes other ideas, back, though I will make some changes. I do not support Bates, who I think was mostly wrong, but I think it should be made clear that much recent research is casting doubt on prevailing ideas and treatment --Lindosland 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• • No, this (and the section entitled "The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought") is YOUR interpretation of recent research. Misplaced Pages is not the place to express original interpretations of what research may indicate. AED 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. The literature is pretty unanimous in saying that we do not yet have the definitive answers regarding Myopia, its causes and its treatment. That means that we as editors can only choose what WE consider to be most relevant. What I have written is now heavily cited, though I am working hard at researching this and intend to tie in everything with citations as I improve it, especially with regard to CA/C ratio and the use of prisms. I must admit that I started hypothesising about this (before I came to this article) on the basis of some personal obserbations, and have been surprised to find that I am not the first, and that a lot of quite involved hypothesising and investigating has been done along the lines I was developing. I find this quite shocking, as no opthalmologist ever made any attempt to bring such important details to my attention, to prescribe plus lenses for reading when I was young, or for example to prescribe prisms to balance the CA/C ratios now that I wear multiple glasses and find I am observing subtle jumps in size/depth perception, and an apparent ability to focus sharply beyond my far point if I make special mental efforts (I didn't arrive at these observations through any interest in the Bates method). This is good reason for me to fight to get knowledge of such things out there through Misplaced Pages. After all, people come to Misplaced Pages for understanding, to solve mysteries, not just to get a nicely balanced (likely to be revised/overturned)contemporary view. I can now say that nothing I have written is MY interpretation alone, though it reflects the direction my research has taken me in. If someone out there has said the same, and I quote them, then I don't think you should revert it. You are of course entitled to add your own selection.

While familiar with the guidelines, I think there is a sense in which Misplaced Pages articles like this one are forced in a to do 'original research' but with the proviso that the research is in sifting and comparing and selecting to try to provide the most useful answers, rather than in doing actual research. If such a process actually ends up arriving at the real answer, through straightforward application of logical thought (much as Watson and Crick did using others' results!) then I don't think Misplaced Pages can or would condemn that. It's paper research aimed at consensus through logical demonstration. How else do you try to acheive consensus? --Lindosland 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• My objections to it as being unsourced are withdrawn. Thanks. That doesn't make it immune to criticism on questions of POV/balance, though in general I'd prefer to see that handled by expanding the amount of high-quality content on both sides since regardless of what one thinks of the truth of the Bates theory, it is patently a fact that that theory does have many adherents. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I favour effort at expansion over effort to achieve 'balance' (which is forever subjective, especially on controversial topics). --Lindosland 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Lindosland's comments above: “I can now say that nothing I have written is MY interpretation alone, though it reflects the direction my research has taken me in. If someone out there has said the same, and I quote them, then I don't think you should revert it.” First of all, this is not supposed to be about your research. Secondly, your interpretation of the facts is not mirrored by the references you have cited. Let's take a point-by-point look at the paragraph you wrote:

"The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought"

In the context of this article, this title makes it seems as though the idea that myopia, or various forms of myopia, can be prevented or reversed is unique to Bates. That is not true.

"Though modern research refutes Bates' claims regarding the role of the extraocular muscles in focussing, many studies are confirming that reading and close-work play a part in the development of myopia in children. It is hard to find any other reason for the epidemic of myopia that afflicts our children, with the percentages of children reported as myopic in different countries appearing to be highly correlated with the amount of early study ."

This citation reflects only the idea that environmental factors affect myopia… an idea that is not unique to Bates.

"A study of students with myopia showed that while their refractive error progressively worsened over the period of a year, it actually reduced during periods of vacation in which they reported doing less close-work. While this in no way supports Bate's main ideas, it does support his basic tenet that refractive error is not just something that has to be accepted, and that it can to some extent be reversed by change of habit."

Who stated that Nova Southeastern study supports Bates’ “basic tenet that refractive error is not just something that has to be accepted, and that it can to some extent be reversed by change of habit”? This is a conclusion not supported nor declared by the study. It certainly does not support Bates’ idea that the eye accommodates through squeezing of extraocular muscles.

"Whatever the mechanism, more and more research is supporting the idea that prolongued straining of the ciliary muscle does probably play a part, along with herditary predisposition, in the development of myopia (a theory actually opposed by Bates), and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development . This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time, and that in children in particular, anything that relaxes the eyes is likely to be beneficial."

This paragraph is filled with your conclusions. First of all, research does not necessarily suggest that “straining of ciliary muscles” causes development of myopia; however, it does suggest that retinal defocus may play a part. Secondly, the O’Leary study does not state that “corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten” the development of myopia. O’Leary’s study found that undercorrection of myopia cause an increase in myopia!

"An area of great relevance concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses our eyes and converges our binocular vision for near-sight. Basic optical principles suggest that there is no way in which the eye can tell whether a blurred image is being brought to focus in front of or behind the retina, and hence which way to change focus. This is supported by the fact that modern digital cameras with passive autofocus use a trial and error approach, shifting focus first one way and then the other while attemting to maximise contrast in areas of fine detail. If the brain uses this trial and error method, then it must remember what stage it is at and decide when to stop, a difficult task for a neural network, and one that does not always work reliably or quickly in cameras."

Good information about emmetropization and development of myopia, but nothing directly relevant to Bates.

"This suggests that the brain might use other cues like binocular convergence, or perceived object size and distance to direct focussing, perhaps with trial and error for fine trimming. In principle, convergence on near objects to avoid double vision need not be trial and error, but can use negative feedback from the two apparent image positions to adjust the extraocular muscles rapidly for coincident images. Convergence could therefore be the driver for accommodation. The whole issue of convergence and accommodation is discussed in detail in the 'Myopia Manual' by Klaus Schmid , which attempts to review the entire published literature. In section 3.4 of the Myopia Manual, Phoria is described as a defect in which convergence and accomodation do not track together properly. Too much convergence is called esophoria, and too little convergence exophoria. The manual refers to evidence that the progression of myopia is in fact linked with the degree of phoria, and refers to more technical details involving the AC/A and CA/C ratios."

Good information about emmetropization and development of myopia, but nothing directly relevant to Bates.

"If such cues are indeed used, then it follows that the wearing of glasses is likely to confuse the brain, and weaken its aquired algorithms, by changing the relationship between convergence and apparent focus distance, requiring the wearer to develop two or more separate programs in the brain for aquiring focus with and without glasses. The Myopia manual goes on to describe the use of prisms for correcting phoria, indicating that prisms added to prescription lenses might slow the progression of myopia."

Good information about emmetropization and development of myopia, but nothing directly relevant to Bates.

"Phoria could be part of the reason myopia progresses in young people wearing corrective glasses. It could also be relevant when presbyopia sets in and we start to focus through multiple lenses or varifocals. It may be that there was a grain of truth in what Bates was doing in so far as training excercises might help the brain to improve its focus strategy, or to ignore a false strategy."

An encyclopedia article is supposed to be about what is, not what one editor speculates “may be”. - AED 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

False logic regarding what is relevant to Bates method

I find all of the statements by AED about my section on the modern debate to be based on false reasoning:

"The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought" In the context of this article, this title makes it seems as though the idea that myopia, or various forms of myopia, can be prevented or reversed is unique to Bates. That is not true.

• It does no such thing! It makes no such assertion. However, it is a fact that for almost a hundred years following Bates' writings, opticians have mostly advised their patients that myopia was not reversible, and they have certainly not told them of anything they might do to reverse it. Now, as you seem to agree, there is considerable scientific evidence that it can often be reversed, or arrested. Time therefore, I suggest, to give Bates credit for being right - not about the focus mechanism, not about extraocular muscle involvement, not necessarily about the best way to reverse it - but just about reversibility! It's one point, anything else you choose to read into it is uncalled for, however much you think (as I do) that Bates' was mostly wrong about mechanisms.

• You wrote “myopia is not as irreversible as was thought” without explaining what was previously thought on the subject. If medicine flatly discounted the possibility that myopia could be prevented, arrested, or reversed, how does one explain advances in myopia control such as atropine, pirenzepine, orthokeratology, and refractive surgery? Nevermind the fact that eyecare professionals have known for years that myopia secondary to near-work induced accommodative spasm is amenable to vision therapy and plus-power lenses. Singling out Bates to give him credit for merely attempting to solve the issue of myopia is like giving credit to the inventors of trephination for modern brain surgery. AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Though modern research refutes Bates' claims regarding the role of the extraocular muscles in focussing, many studies are confirming that reading and close-work play a part in the development of myopia in children. It is hard to find any other reason for the epidemic of myopia that afflicts our children, with the percentages of children reported as myopic in different countries appearing to be highly correlated with the amount of early study ." This citation reflects only the idea that environmental factors affect myopia… an idea that is not unique to Bates.

• Again, just read what I wrote, not what you read into it! Environmental factors affect myopia. It follows that changes of habit may reverse or arrest myopia. Bates thought that too, so lets credit him for that one point now that we know.

• The article you references is entitled: “Lifestyle causes myopia, not genes”. Nevermind that that article’s title is an oversimplifcation of the issue, are you actually suggesting that Bates was the first to hypothesize that environmental factors affect myopia? AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"A study of students with myopia showed that while their refractive error progressively worsened over the period of a year, it actually reduced during periods of vacation in which they reported doing less close-work. While this in no way supports Bate's main ideas, it does support his basic tenet that refractive error is not just something that has to be accepted, and that it can to some extent be reversed by change of habit." Who stated that Nova Southeastern study supports Bates’ “basic tenet that refractive error is not just something that has to be accepted, and that it can to some extent be reversed by change of habit”? This is a conclusion not supported nor declared by the study. It certainly does not support Bates’ idea that the eye accommodates through squeezing of extraocular muscles.

• Who stated that the study supports Bates? I did, by logical deduction, not my opinion. That's allowed, it's used all the time in Misplaced Pages. I not saying that the man who wrote the study said that it supported Bates, I'm saying here is an article that says the same thing as one of the things that Bates said. That is, it supports his basic tenet ... One point and one point only on which to credit Bates. No it certainly does not support his accomodation theory! You reason as if any support for Bates has to be total support and cannot be dissected point by point. That's not fair at all, and not the way most people would interpret my statement.

• The findings of the Nova Southeastern study “support the notion that myopic progression is related to high near work demands and suggest that this progression can be slowed by a period of reduced near work”, but you wrote that it supports Bates’ “basic tenet that refractive error is not just something that has to be accepted, and that it can to some extent be reversed by change of habit”. Given that the study did not state that near-work induced myopia could be reversed by a change of habit to some extent, it is only your opinion that it supports Bates’ “basic tenet”. AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Whatever the mechanism, more and more research is supporting the idea that prolongued straining of the ciliary muscle does probably play a part, along with herditary predisposition, in the development of myopia (a theory actually opposed by Bates), and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development . This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time, and that in children in particular, anything that relaxes the eyes is likely to be beneficial." This paragraph is filled with your conclusions. First of all, research does not necessarily suggest that “straining of ciliary muscles” causes development of myopia; however, it does suggest that retinal defocus may play a part. Secondly, the O’Leary study does not state that “corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten” the development of myopia. O’Leary’s study found that undercorrection of myopia cause an increase in myopia!

• I did not say that "straining of ciliary muscles CAUSES ... I'm a scientist used to distinguishing association and cause. There is lots of research that concludes that where there is sustained ciliary muscle tension myopia tends to develop. There are many theories as to the why this association exists. Yes, retinal defocus is also seen to cause lengthening, probably by an interesting active process probably involved in emmetropization and possibly even localised micro focussing. I believe the jury is still out on the exact reasons for the association. There is a lot of association between esophoria and the progress of myopia, and also pre-existing esophoria and the development of myopia. Some note that positive lenses counter esophoria etc etc. Just read what I said! We can fine tune it by all means, but it is very relevant.

• You said “more and more research is supporting the idea that prolongued straining of the ciliary muscle does probably play a part, along with herditary predisposition, in the development of myopia”. Again, this is merely your interpretation of this research. The Nova Southeastern study didn’t say this and neither did the O’Leary study. Regardless, this information much more appropriate in Myopia than in Bates Method. AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"If such cues are indeed used, then it follows that the wearing of glasses is likely to confuse the brain, and weaken its aquired algorithms, by changing the relationship between convergence and apparent focus distance . . . . . Good information about emmetropization and development of myopia, but nothing directly relevant to Bates.

Bates is about Myopia, and some possible causes and cures. Emmetropization is fundamental to our modern understanding of Myopia and the axial lengthening that Bates wanted reasons for. Bates thought it was the eyeball getting squeezed. We now know he was almost certainly wrong. I think people interested in what Bates wrote are very interested in how exactly he was wrong, but how there is now scientific evidence for mechanisms that could explain why his excercises might nevertheless have value (as so many people clearly think that they do - or Bates would have been long forgotten). They might have value precisely for the reasons I give concerning brain mechanisms - this is reasoned linkage of relevant published facts, not original research. --Lindosland 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, Bates method claims are much, much more than myopia control. The later bits of information you have posted are indirectly related to Bates. Secondly, I do appreciate your interest in myopia pathogenesis, but your interpretation of what has been published and its application to this article is not what I would call “reasoned linkage”. AED 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am not prepared to keep on replying to accusations based on things you infer, but which I did not say, with a mass of spurious new facts thrown in. You clearly have a good knowledge of the field, but I think we are actually both on the same side, and that it is your tendency to read things into my carefully worded contribution that were not written or intended that causes you to argue with me. It's pointless to continue trying to defeat your false reasoning, but I have defended by contribution with considerable effort. Please therefore leave my material up, for others to judge the matter, and if you have new things to contribute, then say them in the article. --Lindosland 10:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• The section entitled “The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought” is clearly POV, so I’m going to begin making unilateral changes if you’re not interested in repairing it. AED 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Then please do it one point at a time. I do not accept that it is POV, though no doubt it can be improved on. I am not the first to say here that this article does not give fair treatment to Bates, and you seem to want to put down any suggestion that anything he ever said was right. --Lindosland

• Then please do it one point at a time. I do not accept that it is POV , though no doubt it can be improved on. I am not the first to say here that this article does not give fair treatment to Bates , and you seem to want to put down any suggestion that anything he ever said was right. AED 07:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the section entitled "The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought"

1) I am changing the title from "The modern debate - myopia is not as irreversible as was thought" to "The modern 'debate'". There really is no debate, and as I mentioned previously, it was never explained what was previously thought. AED 07:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

2) I am removing "Though modern research refutes Bates' claims regarding the role of the extraocular muscles in focussing, many studies are confirming that reading and close-work play a part in the development of myopia in children. It is hard to find any other reason for the epidemic of myopia that afflicts our children, with the percentages of children reported as myopic in different countries appearing to be highly correlated with the amount of early study ." Bates claimed that "mental strain" caused refractive errors and other ocular abnormalities. He never claimed near-work in and of itself caused myopia in children. I will save the link, however, for a large re-write. AED 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3) I am removing "A study of students with myopia showed that while their refractive error progressively worsened over the period of a year, it actually reduced during periods of vacation in which they reported doing less close-work. While this in no way supports Bate's main ideas, it does support his basic tenet that refractive error is not just something that has to be accepted, and that it can to some extent be reversed by change of habit." The Nova Southeastern did NOT find that reducing near-work would reverse myopia. It found that reducing near-work would reduce the progression of myopia. This contradicts Bates who held the tenet that near-work need NOT be reduced to decrease myopia. (e.g. “The remedy is not to avoid either near work or distant vision, but to get rid of the mental strain which underlies the imperfect functioning of the eye at both points”) He did not consider reducing near-work to be a “change of habit”. I will save the link for the re-write. AED 07:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

4) I'm splitting the later half to a section entitled "Pathogenesis of myopia". It doesn't even really belong in this article, though, since this is supposed to be about Bates. AED 07:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

5) I'm moving some of this paragraph and rewriting the rest of it: "Critics of bates over the years have often made bold statements such as the following one quoted in 'Fallacies of the Bates system' (1956). "The matter is summed up succinctly by Dr. Glen R. Shepherd, who stated that eye exercises cannot reduce or eliminate any condition caused by "structural defect of the eyeball" -- hence they cannot possibly reduce or eliminate any refractive errors" . 'Cannot possibly' is a dangerous thing to say, and we now have considerable evidence, from experiments on animals as well as human subjects, that the eyeball adjusts its length by cellular growth processes occuring behind the retina and possibly elsewhere, which are triggered whenever a blurred image occurs on the retinal in conditions of high brightness and contrast. Some studies even indicate that the direction of growth may depend on whether the blurred image is focussed in front of the retina or behind it, though the mechanism for detecting this is not known. It follows that if the state of focus of the image can stimulate such growth, then eye excercises might well alter the refractive errors by virtue of the fact that they alter the state of focus at the retina." AED 07:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

6) I'm rewriting this sentence: "Whatever the mechanism, more and more research is supporting the idea that prolongued straining of the ciliary muscle does probably play a part, along with herditary predisposition, in the development of myopia (a theory actually opposed by Bates), and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development ." As I mentioned previously, the citation references the O'Leary study which does NOT state or suggest "that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development". The O'Leary study found that undercorrecting myopia caused myopia to worsen faster. The citation completely contradicts the sentence that follows: "This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time, and that in children in particular, anything that relaxes the eyes is likely to be beneficial." AED 07:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

7) I'm removing this sentence: "This does make sense according to our current understanding, suggesting that many children may have been damaged by the prescribing of corrective lenses to be worn all the time, and that in children in particular, anything that relaxes the eyes is likely to be beneficial." It is not OUR current understanding that children may have been damaged by corrective lenses, nor is it evident that "relaxing the eye" (given its ambiguity) is beneficial. O'Leary study found that undercorrecting myopia caused myopia to worsen faster! AED 07:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

8) I'm removing this sentence: "It may be that there was a grain of truth in what Bates was doing in so far as training excercises might help the brain to improve its focus strategy, or to ignore a false strategy." Vergence training in vision therapy is vastly different than the techniques Bates used. AED 07:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

9) I'm removing this sentence: "Too much convergence is called esophoria, and too little convergence exophoria." Convergence excess is not called esophoria, nor is convergence insufficiency called exophoria. AED 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

10) I'm removing this paragraph as an original interpretation of Bates' work: "Modern research confirms that the eyeball changes length in response to a blurred image at the retina, but those opthalmologists who attribute the change to the blurr itself fail to explain how the eye knows which direction to adjust in, since no mechanism has been identified by which the retina might sense whether the blurred image is coming to a focus too early or too late. The fact that accommodation is part of a negative feedback system makes it impossible to determine whether blur is the driver for lengthening without breaking the feedback loop, since several things are forced to change in unison (see 'Pathogenesis of myopia' below for more details). Bates 'straining' would appear to mean 'willing' a correction signal into this feedback loop when it fails to perform properly. His assertion that it is 'mental tension' that has blocked proper functioning of this normal feedback process is not unreasonable according to current thinking. Athletes of all kinds place great emphasis on state of mind as vital for best performance, and relaxation excercises are promoted by mainstream medicine as well as alternative practitioners, as a way curing many ailments, high blood pressure being a prime example. Musicians, who rely heavily on pre-programmed motor activity, also recognise that stress interferes with good playing. Biologists refer to negative feedback as homeostasis." There is nothing to reference Bates method as affecting a feedback mechanism. Sorry. AED 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept what you have done, as it completely wipes out the meaning of what I put into a section that I created. You say above 'there never was a debate'. I think you want to suppress such debate. Much of what you wrote begins with 'despite ...' or similar phrases, playing down the 'pro' and the giving the 'anti'.

I'm reverting, as there was a lot of work in my contribution (as there is now in yours) and I suggest that you put yours in a section created by you, or in the section against Bates. The Misplaced Pages advice is to present both sides where both sides exist significantly, and not to try to create balance. I don't think POV is the problem we have, its two mainstream sides in a debate, and I want both put.

-

I was thinking that it might be better to reorganise the whole article to clearly state firstly that Bates' method is about two things - his theory of vision, and his excercises. Then list each of his points in each of these two main categories separately with a section to each, like accomodation by sqeezing, et, and give an analysis based on current knowledge, in terms of both sides. Would you go along with that? It gets round the problem that you interpret my statements as being broader than they are. It also allows both sides to add to sections without wiping out views on the other side. --Lindosland 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-organising article

Reading the article through as it stood appeared as a jumble or poorly organised ideas. There was much duplication of works and ideas in the introduction, so I have made this more concise. I have clearly listed the techniques, and added an important one to the list - central fixation.

Is this approved of? If so I plan to carry on the re-organising starting with a theory section. --Lindosland 12:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry AED, I now realise that in my haste I missed the point that you had moved my contribution to 'Pathogenesis of Myopia', which is fair enough. I wouldn't have reverted if I'd realised that! I'm coming to regret introducing 'The modern debate' as I'm beginning to agree that there isn't one as such. Rather there are two camps, as there were in Bates' day, without much debate, though there are matters of relevance in current thinking on myopia. --Lindosland 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think the yoga reference needs a citation. Enter "bates method" and yoga into Google and you get 23,200 results. The comparison is everywhere, and a single 'authoritative' reference would be hard to choose. --Lindosland 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Choose one and insert it, please. I'm not too picky, but I want to see a source. (If pressed, I'd say the best source would be a book on yoga, since it is yoga practitioners who would be most knowledgeable about what techniques are and aren't like yoga). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• If we're going to use the yoga reference, we need to attribute it to someone. Here's a link for starters: . AED 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll do. Done.

Works for me. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, we clashed on edits, try again: AED: you say that Bates method supporters 'cling to the idea that mental strain is responsible through extraocular squeezing'. Bates himself placed great emphasis on lack of central fixation, resulting from mental strain, and refers to consequent unsuccessful attempts to focus. I am not sure that he actually claims any specific mechanism for residual accommodation remaining after squeezing. I am trying to say that this lack of proper focus which he postulates is actually consistent with the modern realisation that a blurred image leads to gradual eyeball elongation. Can you not agree that there is a significant correspondence here, without any need to accept his extraocular theory, which can be taken separately. --Lindosland 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Bates considered a blurred retinal image to be merely an effect whereas modern research considers it to be a cause. I think the only similarity between the two is that both were/are attempting to explain the development of refractive error. AED 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes AED, perhaps, but those who jump to the conclusion of cause seem to me to be falling for the same trap as many systems engineers do when dealing with negative feedback systems. Everything is linked in a feedback system, so a blurred image is normally concommitant with several other states in the brain and the muscles. Without breaking the loop it is impossible to say which of these states is the cause. Some have presented a blurred image without defocus using translucent or frosted material, but that only presents a 'fault' condition, which we would expect to confuse the system, so a drift one way means little. There does seem to be a lot of evidence that the direction of focal error determines the direction of change, and that is fascinating because it would appear to be almost impossible for the retina to detect the direction. A theory that chromatic aberration is used to sense the direction claimed to eliminate this as possible. Retinal sensors at different depths is possible, but is there any evidence for this? That leaves the brain as the source of the directional cue, with convergence as a contender as the thing in the loop that can indeed provide the check on distance, and the degree of esophoria as perhaps the variable that drives elongation. This is my research, and my conclusion, I know, but do you see why I think as I do. It challenges the quote 'there is no scientific rationale'. I'm interested in whether you agree with the above, or would fault it. Working out whether it can be reasonably put into Misplaced Pages is another matter of course, put presenting 'rationale', based on a series of citations is perhaps permissible. That's what I was getting at earlier. Would you agree that providing rationale is not research, its making the logical connections. --Lindosland 13:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:No original research is pretty clear in stating that an edit is original research if "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." AED 06:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:No original research also says "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I think this is a very difficult area. If 'collecting and organising' makes a conclusion obvious, then that seems to be allowed, so long as, perhaps, we don't state the conclusion! I can probably manage that. If I were to 'publish' my theory on the web would you say that 'counts'? Yes it's not 'third party', but then what if I got it published in Nature? Can we refer to our own papers?

I did say I was interested in your comments on my analysis though, and of course Misplaced Pages does encourage all such things on the talk pages. You don't have to comment of course, but it might help us make a good article if we knew what we were agreed on.

Citing sources

Actually, the yoga reference is only one of many, many places where this article needs to cite sources. It caught my eye because it was new. But this problem exists throughout the article, both in portions that are supportive of Bates and portions that are critical of Bates. For example:

"The vast majority of optometrists and ophthalmologists do not recommend the Bates Method."

Probably true, but needs to be sourced... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• How about this one? It's a bit biased in its explanation, but it'll do for me. AED 01:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I found that one, too. And as it happens, I personally thought it wouldn't do. (Also, after getting scads of hits about "functional optometry" I began to think that there are a substantial number of optometrists who, if they are not recommending the Bates method by name, are personally using something at least vaguely akin to it). I couldn't find anything about Bates, pro or con, on the obvious professional-association sites, either.

I rather liked this passage:

The mainstream medical community criticized his theories then and remains skeptical today.

Individual success stories may make people feel good about a particular treatment, but they don't prove that it works, said Dr. Kathryn A. Colby, an ophthalmologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.

"There's no scientific rationale to support this treatment unless you're in the wrong glasses to begin with," she said. "It probably wouldn't hurt you, but there's no scientific data to suggest that it works. it might hurt your pocketbook if you shell out X hundreds of dollars and it doesn't work."

That seemed to me like a good, well-sourced, authoritative statement of what might be called the mainstream view. Might be a place for it in the article somewhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the following, as Bates does not propose weakened muscles.

"Some advocates of the Bates Method propose that myopia is not caused by weakened muscles, but by muscles that are being used improperly. They suggest that when a myopic person focuses on distant objects, they are no longer relaxing the muscles used in accommodation. Instead, they are "straining" to see the distant objects with the same muscular tension exhibited when viewing at the nearpoint."

I think I've now completed my re-organisation, with comprehensive a list of Bates' theories, set alongside modern comment. I realise that some of the modern comment may be improved by citations, but I hope what I've written can be agreed in principle. --Lindosland 15:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories. Quackery, ophthalmology are BOTH valid

The purpose of categories is not to make some pronouncement of truth, but to help readers find articles.

Many people feel that the Bates system is valid ophthalmology. Therefore it is completely appropriate to have it in the "ophthalmology" category, even though most ophthalmologists would probably disagree."

Many people feel that the Bates system is quackery. If so, it is notable and important quackery. Therefore it is also completely appropriate to have it in the "quackery" category.

People who are trying to find articles about quackery will want to find this article, so it should be in this category. It's not a definitive pronouncement of truth, it's a search aid. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with that synopsis. AED 06:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article quackery says: "While quacks may not be knowingly deceptive, it is implicit that they have not applied acceptable testing procedures, if any, to their treatments." I think Bates did apply acceptable testing procedures, at least for his day, though I was wondering, as I see is now discussed above, what peer reviewed publication etc took place. I agree that categories are mostly to help find things, and will not fight the category decision above therefore.

• Bates was not necessarily a quack in his time, but the contemporary advocating of his techniques in the absence of any evidence that they work is quackery. AED 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, modern use of this method is simple quackery. So I'm re-adding the category label. Famousdog 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Published papers by Bates?

The text of what is said to be his entry in "The National Cyclopaedia of American Biorgraphy"

• At the bottom of this page, there are links to his works published in the "medical literature". Don't know if any of it were peer-reviewed, but there is no way they would make it to print by today's standards. AED 07:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of 'see also'

I'm surprised by your removal of my 'see also' links AED. Can you quote a wiki rule regarding this. I find that it is normal to list all relevant pages together under see also, in order of likely relevance, and when I read pages I make this assumption and I certainly do not wish to search the text for relevant links. I have never before seen any objection to my principle of listing all links.

I recently proposed the Root page concept, in an attempt to make it easier for editors to tie together pages that were created independantly. Though it has not had a lot of interest, and is currently on hold, it appears that I am not the first to note the need for some way of giving editors a 'base' from which to work and coordinate their contributions. Intrinsic in the root page concept is the idea of listing all associated pages in 'see also', and I suggest that even if my concept is not approved policy, there is merit in listing associated pages to assist coordinated editing. I did not realise immediately that Bates had a page, and that is why I added the link. --Lindosland 12:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Here is a Wiki reference:. It's unnecessary to list articles that are linked in the article. AED 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

remarks and changes

In my opinion the text had become worse.

I do not think the word system is good choice. The BM presented in his first book is not very clear explained. So it to positive to call it a system. Also in my opinion the word vision instead of eyesight is not handy. ( You need vision to improve your eyesight. You do not need eyesight to improve your vision. ) And Bates himself talks about eyesight. Maybe we should introduce the term classical bates method and second generation Bates method.

Also in my opinion the text should stay simple to read and informative. Ocular disorders can be replaced by eyeconditions like myopia, farsightness, astigmatism , strabismus and amblyopia.

• Not sure who wrote the above, but I think the "classical" vs. "second generation" idea is a gone one. For example, the section currently entitled "Close work" mention what Bates advocates think. Although modern interpretations of Bates' work should probably be included, I think the sections on Bates' theories should reflect what he thought. AED 23:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• • It is important to also mention second generation Bates. Second generation Bates are the authors who never knew Bates personal, but knew his students. They are most often experienced succesful teachers with a simpeler explanation or approach to understand what Bates tried to explain.

See the site : http://www.i-see.org/vision_books.html

Deleted the yoga link. People who are succesful with the second generation Bates Method often use al kind of different meditationforms to improve relaxatio posture breathing etc. Not only Yoga. When you mention yoga you should also mention Tai Chi, Chi Kung, a martial arts, Trancedental meditation etc.

Pathogenesis and control of myopia: the modern "debate"

This information is not directly related to the Bates method, so I am saving it here in the event someone wants to move it to Myopia. -AED 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More and more research is supporting the idea that prolongued retinal defocus probably plays a part, along with herditary predisposition, in the development of myopia, and there have been recent suggestions that relieving this strain by the use of reading glasses with positive lenses might stave off the development of myopia, while corrective (negative) lenses for far vision might hasten its development.

An area of great relevance concerns the mechanism by which our brain focuses our eyes and converges our binocular vision for near-sight. Basic optical principles suggest that there is no way in which the eye can tell whether a blurred image is being brought to focus in front of or behind the retina, and hence which way to change focus. This is supported by the fact that modern digital cameras with passive autofocus use a trial and error approach, shifting focus first one way and then the other while attempting to maximise contrast in areas of fine detail. If the brain uses this trial and error method, then it must remember what stage it is at and decide when to stop, a difficult task for a neural network, and one that does not always work reliably or quickly in cameras.

This suggests that the brain might use other cues like binocular convergence, or perceived object size and distance to direct focussing, perhaps with trial and error for fine trimming. In principle, convergence on near objects to avoid double vision need not be trial and error, but can use negative feedback from the two apparent image positions to adjust the extraocular muscles rapidly for coincident images. Convergence could therefore be the driver for accommodation. The whole issue of convergence and accommodation is discussed in detail in the 'Myopia Manual' by Klaus Schmid , which attempts to review the entire published literature. In section 3.4 of the Myopia Manual, Phoria is described as a defect in which convergence and accommodation do not track together properly. The manual refers to evidence that the progression of myopia is in fact linked with the degree of esphoria, and that the development of myopia is linked with pre-existing esophoria. The manual goes into more technical details involving the AC/A and CA/C ratios which describe how accommodation and convergence track each other. A recent study in Malaysia also concluded that phoria might be an important factor in myopia development .

If such cues are indeed used, then it follows that the wearing of glasses is likely to confuse the brain, and weaken its acquired algorithms, by changing the relationship between convergence and apparent focus distance, requiring the wearer to develop two or more separate programs in the brain for acquiring focus with and without glasses. The Myopia manual goes on to describe the use of prisms for correcting phoria, indicating that prisms added to prescription lenses might slow the progression of myopia.

Phoria could be part of the reason myopia progresses in young people wearing corrective glasses. It could also be relevant when presbyopia sets in and we start to focus through multiple lenses or varifocals.

Explanation of reversions of three recent edits

We can have facts about opinions; in particular, statements such as "X said Y about Z" are acceptable, although it is much better if they are sourced: "X said Y about Z in thus-and-such a place."

Bates believed exposure to light was good for the eyes

is an unsourced but almost certainly verifiable statement of something Bates said. People may disagree about whether it's true, but there's no reason to disagree about the fact that Bates did believe this. The expansion to

as limited exposure to, say, sunlight, induced an intolerance to it. This intolerance is a characteristic of many visual disorders, especially myopia, and relieving this intolerance often improves visual function.

adds unsourced opinion to a simple factual statement. If Bates actually said this, this should be made clear. If a published work on the Bates system said this, this needs to be clear, too. This material can be reinserted if it is accompanied with a good source citation. If it is just the ex cathedra pronouncement of a Misplaced Pages editor, it is not acceptable.

Martin Gardner, in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, characterized Bates' book as "a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences and anatomical ignorance." He suggested that the Bates method may however work, to a limited degree, by increasing the trainee's ability to interpret and extract information from blurred images.

is a (vaguely) sourced statement about something that Martin Gardner said. Again, this is a factual "X said Y about Z"

Martin Gardner, in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, characterized Bates' book as "a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences and anatomical ignorance." However, his suggestion that the Bates Method may, to a limited degree, work by increasing the trainee's ability to interpret and extract information from blurred images is nonsensical. Even a small child can distinguish between the phenomenon of "blur interpretation" and the experience of clearer vision.

is unacceptable as written because the second sentence includes an opinion for which no verifiable source is indicated. It appears on the face of it to be the personal opinion of the editor making the edit.

Bates Method Discussion Group

is described as a "discussion group," but in fact is a commercial website. I believe this to be linkspam. It has been removed as linkspam several times and nobody has come forth to explain why it should not be considered linkspam. This should not be reinserted unless it is discussed here and there is consensus that the amont of valuable, encyclopedic information it contains outweighs its obvious commercialism. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

General

Guys,

I'm concerned that this section on Bates method has been written by people who haven't used it, and have soemething against it. I AM using it now to improve my vision and my vision is improving (3 weeks in, my vision has changed from -5.50D with 1.0D of astigmatism to -5.25D with .75D astigmatism as measured by my non-believing optometrist). I can attest personally to the truth of many things mentioned by Bates.

I'd like to change a few simple words throughout the text, for example "claims" to "believes". You've made it sound like Bates was some wild ranting thing, rather than the scientist and practitioner he was. There was plenty of proof in his book, of improvements in patients' sight. And there have been more since. If people are looking at natural vision improvement, the Bates method is grandaddy of them all.

If people are looking in wikipedia for information on Bates method that's what they should find.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HazelR (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

Comment

I put the following info back

Still there have also been studies which contradict much of the suggestions mainstream medicine has given us. Take for example the study Dr Steven M. Beresford and others did, they discovered eyesight can improve naturally

Because in my opinion it is very important information. What aruguments are there to remove this information. When you check this information with google and Dr steven Beresford you will discover it is true. Again what are the arguments to remove this information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeyou (talk • contribs) 05:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

The arguments to remove the statements are this: 1) When you contribute to Misplaced Pages, the burden is on you to cite verifiable sources for your assertions. There is no reference for that assertion. 2) It is not clear what particular study to which you are referring for anyone to fact check your assertion. -AED 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The source of this information is the book

Improve Your Vision Without Glas... written by Dr Steven M. Beresford and DR. W. Murris, DR .Merill J. Allen and DR. Francis A. Young

You can partly look inside this book for free at certain big bookstores. I dit not mention the complete title to prevent advertising. It is a reliable source !!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.58.40.166 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

You said: "there have also been studies which contradict much of the suggestions mainstream medicine has given us". What are "the suggestions mainstream medicine has given us" as described by the above authors? What studies were they referring to? What did those studies test? What did those studies find? -AED 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

> What are "the suggestions mainstream medicine has given us". The first and most important suggestion of mainstream medicine is : vision can not improve naturally. They also suggest myopia is hereditary. Research amd studies on pre-industrialized people showed myopia is not hereditary at all. > What did those studies test? Can you improve your vision naturally. > What did those studies find? You can improve your vision naturally. To AED, Maybe you can adjust the information instead of completely removing it. Do you represent An Eye Doctor (AED ) or are you respresenting mainstream ophthalmology. I think the general public has the right to know about this information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeyou (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

You can put this information into Misplaced Pages if you follow the policy of verifiability. This means that what you put in must be from a published source that meets the reliable source guidelines, and that source must be cited. The essential point is that the reader must know where the material comes from, and must be able to judge the reliability of the source for himself. So, if Steven M. Beresford has written a book or authored some journal articles you can quote what he says and cite that book or that journal.

The existence of this article, and its contents, show that nobody is trying to suppress information about natural vision improvement or nontraditional medicine.

WIkipedia also has the policy of a neutral point of view. That means when there are substantial bodies of opposing opinions, they all need to be presented. The formula is "A says B about C." You can't say in the article "mainstream medicine is bunk." You can't say in a vague sort of way "Bates supporters think mainstream medicine is bunk." You can say "so-and-so, in his book Thus-and-such, says on page 234, 'mainstream medicine is bunk.'". Clear? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved the information of the natural vision improvement article to the Bates method article where I agree with dpbsmith it belongs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeyou (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Natural vision improvement

AED the reference websites you added http://www.allaboutvision.com/ does not really give information about natural vision improvement or the see cleary method. It assumes it but it a very comercial website for the opposite unnatural choice. ( assuming it is impossible to improve eyesight naturally ) When you look at the http://www.allaboutvision.com/sitemap.htm it makes one very clear is a mainstream ophthalmology site. This references create in my opinion diffusion !!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeyou (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

The statement in the article we are referring to is this:

"The See Clearly Method is one well-known program developed by four doctors calling themselves the American Vision Institute and based on their book Improve Your Vision Without Glasses Or Contact Lenses : A New Program Of Therapeutic Eye Exercises."

The first link I provided references the assertion in the statement that The See Clearly Method was based on the book Improve Your Vision Without Glasses Or Contact Lenses : A New Program Of Therapeutic Eye Exercises by four doctors. That link states: "VIT stated that The See Clearly Method is an educational program based on the book, Improve Your Vision Without Glasses or Contact Lenses, by Dr. Steven M. Beresford, Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Dr. Francis A. Young, and Dr. David W. Muris, originally published in 1996 by Simon & Schuster." The second link I provided references the assertion in the statement that those four doctors called themselves the American Vision Institute. That link states: "No word promoting the product — a regimen developed by four doctors calling themselves the American Vision Institute and marketed by a Fairfield, Iowa, agency called Sentient Global Marketing — promises anything." Both references are required to support the statement. (By the way, please type ~~~~ to sign your posts.) -AED 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Material removed

I have removed the following:

"Ophthalmologists acknowledge a simlar phenomenon, a type of hysteresis, where the eye takes time to restore its range after extended use at one distance. They also observe that hysteresis is greater in myopic subjects, who they find cannot adjust their focus so quickly as normal subjects. They would not regard this as 'injuring the eye' to any significant extent."

In context, most of this makes no sense. Accommodative infacility (assumming that is what the author of these comments was referring to) is different than Bates' assertion that the amount of myopia or hyperopia present changes from day to day or from hour to hour. AI is not an ocular injury but it is certainly an ocular disorder. Still, I don't see the relevance. -AED 20:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following:

"The practice of opening the eyes briefly while looking at the sun is claimed to be effective by some supporters but this is one aspect of the Bates method that must be considered potentially dangerous."

Multiple problems exist with this sentence: 1) Without citation, "some supporters" is weasel wording. 2) Effective for what? Reducing myopia? "Strengthening" the eyes? 3) That sungazing must be considered dangerous, or potentially dangerous, is POV. The prognosis for solar retinopathy is often good. -AED 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See clearly method or reference 23 versus 25

It is interesting to read what the owner of the website with worldwide list of natural vison improvement sites says about the court order on the see clearly method.

I agree with the court order, and I am glad this product will no longer be for sale. I am eager for people to learn about natural vision improvement through the Bates Method, yet products like the See Clearly Method misled many people into believing that natural vision improvement involves eye exercises. It doesn't. People who have good vision do not do eye exercises. Blurry vision is not due to a lack of eye exercises! Therefore eye exercises are not the solution. Muscles that are tight from strain do not need exercises put on top of their strain. They need relaxation first and foremost. Learn the Bates Method from an experienced teacher, and you'll soon know the difference. Actually, you'll SEE the difference.Seeyou 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you explain what the BM actually is, instead of lecturing us on what it isn't? Famousdog 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

disadvantages to eyeglasses

removed the following sentence : Although these symptoms are still experienced from time-to-time by some of today's eyeglasses wearers, improvements in modern lenses have generally improved vision quality, such as anti-reflective coatings that have improved image contrast by reduced scattering.

Reason : This is an opinion. Fact is that dispite the quality of the glasses, glasses will always filter some light. Resulting in a less stimulation of the collour sensitve cells in the retina. Fact is also glasses will become dirty. Resulting also in an filtering of light, before it reaches the fovea centralis.Seeyou 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I'm removing the 'citations missing' tag. I think this is now a reasonably referenced article. Famousdog 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2 experiments

Experiment 1 : The concept that relaxing the extraocular muscles can reliably or predictably reduce refractive error has not been substantiated by patients whose muscles are loosened during strabismus surgery. Although small refractive changes may occur following this type of muscle loosening surgery (recession), these alterations are generally small, clinically insignificant, transient, and occur in both directions (stronger and weaker) {{cite journal | author = Preslan M, Cioffi G, Min Y | title = Refractive error changes following strabismus surgery. | journal = J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus | volume = 29 | issue = 5 | pages = 300-4 | year = | id = PMID 1432517

Another source regarding this information.

Experiment 2 : Additional evidence that the genetic theory is wrong comes from research where scientists deliberately created strabismus in normal monkeys by surgical reattaching an extraocular muscle to the wrong place. To their amazement it was impossible to create a permanent state of strabismus and all the monkeys spontaneously straightened their eyes within a few weeks. . ( Page 36 en 37 ) .

Explanation the experiment above proves by accident a whole body approach. It is not only the eyes it is a system in which the eyes play off course an important role, but the brain and the mind’s memory play an even more important role. In the first experiment the brain and mind were sepperated and kept sepperated. So there was no connection for improvement.. In the second experiment the eyes brain and mind were fully connected..

Now some facts :

1. The direction for true healing is always from inside to outside.

2. The first experiment is not about natural healing, because the direction is from outside to inside.

3. The second experiment makes clear healing can happen. ( In other words a healthy brain can heal unhealthty eyes. Healty eyes can not heal an unhealthy brain. )

4. The first experiment forgets the brain, mind and whole body are also involved. Seeyou 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... what? This is drivel. Firstly, the mind IS the brain, you can't separate them. And yes, the visual system is the eyes AND the brain. Secondly, I don't think the first experiment "forgets" anything, they're probably well aware that the whole visual system is involved in vision. Thirdly, I'd ask you to define what you mean by a "healthy eye" or a "healthy brain". In amblyopia, for example, the eye is both healthy and functionally normal, but the brain's development has been abnormal, resulting in a disorder of vision. However, amblyopes' brains are "healthy" as in "not diseased", they have just developed abnormally. And what's all this nonsense about the "direction for true healing"? Frankly, what you call "facts" are unjustifiable, unscientific and therefore meaningless. Famousdog 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... what? This is drivel. Firstly, the mind IS the brain,

Famousdog check wikipedia for mind and brain !Seeyou 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. I'm well aware of the difference between mind and brain. Judging by your comments above, you seem not to be. Famousdog 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

book citation should stay original

Why sources should be cited To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism. To show that your edit isn't original research. To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor. To help users find additional reliable information on the topic. To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Misplaced Pages. To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise. To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Note: Misplaced Pages articles and categories cannot be used as sources in and of themselves. Sources must be independent from Misplaced Pages.

Seeyou 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to here? Which citation seems to be the problem? I know why sources should be cited because I'm an academic. I cite sources day in, day out. Why the lecture??? Famousdog 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears some further clarification lies in Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Bates Method. Cowman109 23:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that this has gone to mediation, frankly. Here is my response to the arguments put forward by Seeyou on the mediation page: I am of the impression, firstly, that Seeyou is confusing a 'citation' with a 'quotation'. If his changes to the leader paragraph were a direct quotation of Quackenbush, then obviously such additions should not be changed. However, Seeyou's changes were not put in quotation marks and they were grammatically incorrect, suggesting that they are not a direct quotation of Quackenbush. I therefore believe that Seeyou's changes reflect his opinion - albeit an opinion which may have been formed after having read Quackenbush's book. If they are Seeyou's opinions, they are POV and do not belong in the article, certainly not in the leader. If they are Quackenbush's own words, they should be in quotation marks (and since Quackenbush appears to be pushing a minority viwepoint, his comments should either not be in the lead paragraph, or should be qualified with a counterargument). Secondly, I object to Seeyou's repeated assertions that I "do not understand" the BM, or am not using "common sense" or "real arguments" (in my opinion, "common sense" is usually informed by laziness and predjudice and should be looked upon with skepticism until informed by evidence). If only "trained Bates Method teachers" (i.e. those who already subscribe to that viewpoint) are qualified to discuss the Bates Method, then we may as well give up the whole scientific enterprise and just believe what anybody claiming to be an "expert" tells us. Seeyou needs to sort out, firstly, whether he/she is talking about a 'citation' or a 'quotation' and, secondly, stop asserting that I am not qualified to discuss this. Then we can proceed. Famousdog 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The mechanism of accommodation for older people who have normal sight ?

There are a few problems with the presbyopia lens-hardening-with-age theory. The biggest one is that there are many people who have lived well over the age of 40 who never became presbyopic. Even people 99 years old with perfect eyesight have been examined by eye doctors. These "old" people see clearly both far and near naturally, without glasses, contact lenses, surgery, drugs, etc. Since old-age non-presbyopia is a fact observed by essentially all eye doctors of any experience, one might wonder if older people who never become presbyopic are doing something different than the older people who become presbyopic. (I have never know anyone to suggest that presbyopia is hereditary, or any other reason for that matter, except the lens hardening of course.)

While writing "Relearning to See" I contacted two eye doctors, an ophthalmologist and optometrist, to ask them what the mechanism of accommodation is for older people who have normal sight. Interestingly enough, both of them gave me the same answer. (These two eye doctors did not know each other.) Their answer was: "We don't know." What?! Before age 40, we are told that the lens/ciliary muscle is the mechanism of accommodation. After age 40, if a person has normal eyesight, we are told that the mechanism of accommodation is unknown! Of course I have thought about this strange situation a long time. (If anyone has an explanation from an eye doctor of how the eye accommodates in older people with normal eyesight, I would like to know.)

The eye doctors are in a real dilemma here. If they say that the lens is the mechanism of accommodation for older people without presbyopia, then obviously there is a way for the lens to still change its curvature in older people---it obvious hasn't hardened, or at least not enough to prevent normal accommodation. But this would contradict their conventional teachings, and many (if not most?) eye doctors would probably not be willing to risk taking that position. After all Bates was ejected from his post of teaching ophthalmology due to his beliefs and teachings. If they maintain their position that the lens is hard and cannot change its curvature for anyone older than age 40, then these older people are accommodating in some other way---in which case the lens' ability to change its curvature could be considered irrelevant since the eye is obviously able to accommodate in some other way! A curious problem to say the least.

I moved this section here, because i see a lot of problems with it. Namely, is this a quote or is this original research? If its a quote it's too long (in fact, its probably a breach of copyright as well...) and its not in quotation marks. If its original research, it doesn't belong here unless you can find some more evidence to back it up. Quackenbush is not a reliable source as he is selling books promoting the Bates Method. Who is the "I" that is referred to in this paragraph? Is it SeeYou, who added the section, or is it Quackenbush? Famousdog 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Culled links

Hi all, decided to cull the links section. There's simply too much linkspam, sites advertising eye-exercises, pop-up ads (a sure sign of vested interest), etc. I've also removed multiple links to the same site. Frankly, offering a "free e-book" seems to be a common way to attract people to your site so you can sell them something else. Also, the recent "free e-book" posted by McFadyn says that it is "free for a limited time". Well, how long until that link is out of date? I think I'm justified in proactively ensuring this article stays relevant! Hope people agree. Famousdog 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

CONTROVERSIAL, it is not rejected by rejected by mainstream medicine ! It is neglected. I have heard someone say promoting the bates method or Natural vision improvement is not about science it is about politics. For example look at AED and his contribution to wikipedia. Seeyou 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard someone say: "Aliens abducted Elvis and brainwashed him into killing Princess Diana!" I think it was a tramp. If you can't provide a better citation for rejection of Bates being "political", why should we believe you? As for you argument: Study of the Bates Method is "neglected" because it has previously been rejected as useless and there is no point going over old arguments. And anyway, it is still studied by mainstream researchers: See the Rawston review, for example. They conclude that there's no evidence that eye exercises do anything helpful. Famousdog 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Something interesting from the political point of view. User : AED removed his visible contributions. Why ? He made a lot. Also in this article about the batesmethod. Looking at the enormous amount of contributions. I wonder. Does someone pay him ? Is he or she A Eye Doctor ? Check this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:AED&diff=72480206&oldid=59895313 Since AED disappeared. Famousdog came back. Looking at skeptic view. I is not impossible AED changed his identity into Famousdog. But of course this is only speculation. This anonymous comment was added by SeeYou.

Yeah, you're f*cking right it's speculation! It's also well-poisoning and bullsh*t. Making accusations of sockpuppetry is a great way to get yourself blocked, so just keep going buddy. I've no idea who AED is, apart from him being the guy that started WikiProject Ophthalmology. If you check out his talk page, you'll see a message from me asking him for assistance on the BM page. It would be a bit stupid of me to draw attention to myself that way wouldn't it? If you really care, I'm sure our IP addresses locate us on separate continents. Famousdog 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm appalled by this accusation so I'm taking this to arbitration. Famousdog 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving eyesight "naturally"

Famousdog, Can you please explain why do you think it is impossible to improve eyesight naturally ? Maybe you can teach me something I do not know or understand. Seeyou 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're mistating my position. I just think the Bates Method is harmless rubbish, but you asked me why I think it is impossible to improve eyesight naturally? This is a complex question, so lets split it up. Firstly, is is possible to improve eyesight? is a difficult question in and of itself. What do you count as an improvement? An increase in contrast sensitivity? Better acuity? Loss of diplopia? You might see an improvement in one of these measures after training a subject in some way (perceptual learning), but not in all of them simultaneously.

It depends what is wrong with the person's eyesight in the first place. Some problems can be solved (via surgery, patching, correction...) and some problems can't be solved (yet). Amblyopia is one such problem that the Bates Method supposedly "improves." Now, I work all day every day with amblyopes and, believe me, they've tried everything! The problem is that Amblyopia is a developmental problem and it results in very complex changes to the visual system which can be prevented, usually by patching at the right age, but not cured (yet). Prescribing relaxation, swinging of the eyeballs and exposure to the sun to "cure" such a complicated issue is ludicrous. Most of the amblyopes we see are very relaxed and get plenty of sunlight exposure and wiggle their eyeballs all over the place, but it doesn't improve their eyesight one bit. Some of them have tried either the BM or some derivitive method to no avail.

Secondly, what do you mean by "naturally"? Everything that humans do - even driving F1 cars - is "natural" because humans have evolved according to the laws of nature. You seem to be using "natural" to mean "without glasses" or "without the help of an ophthalmologist". How is improving your vision by following a set of instructions written over a century ago by a rogue ophthalmologist like Bates any more "natural" than taking the advice of a modern ophthalmologist who has an extra century of accumulated knowledge and experience to draw on?

Anyway, I hope that's helped to explain my position. If people want to try the BM then go ahead, but I and my colleagues think its a bloody waste of time and (invariably) money and I'll be damned if I let people write nonsense about it on Misplaced Pages without being challenged to support their arguments with reliable evidence. Famousdog 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

> I just think the Bates Method is harmless rubbish, Answer : thinking something is different than to knowing something.

> What do you count as an improvement? Anwer : An increase in contrast sensitivity? > Better acuity? Yes. > Loss of diplopia? < == fusion !! more intense colours, 3D awareness. Being able to drive a car safely without glasses of course while this was not possible before, Being able to read fine print while this was not possible before, Being able to fuse the image of the right eye with the left eye into one combined image etc.

> You might see an improvement in one of these measures after training a subject in some way (perceptual learning), but not in all of them simultaneously. Why is not it possible to combine improvements ? Answer : In my opinion a lot aspects of eyesight interact with other. For example centralisation will influence movement of the eyes and neck ( head ). More movement will result in more awareness of one’s body and thus improvement of posture.More movement will demand more energy. Which the body will adapt to . When the the ( exercise ) becomes a habit.

> It depends what is wrong with the person's eyesight in the first place. Some problems can be solved (via surgery, patching, correction...) and some problems can't be solved (yet). Answer : The Batesmethod is focussed on getting rid of the chronic tension of the external musscles of the eye.

> It depends what is wrong with the person's eyesight in the first place. Some problems can be solved (via surgery, patching, correction...) and some problems can't be solved (yet). Amblyopia is one such problem that the Bates Method supposedly "improves." Now, I work all day every day with amblyopes and, believe me, they've tried everything! The problem is that Amblyopia is a developmental problem and it results in very complex changes to the visual system which can be prevented, usually by patching at the right age, but not cured (yet).

Answer: According to a second generation bates book ( Relearing to see ) the amblyopic eye or lazy eye is not lazy. It is tensed. It needs relaxation. NVI has a opposite aproach. You can improve amblyopia by getting rid of the extreme tension. Often the amblyopic has also a different shape. Often it is visible bigger. I have seen this change into normal !

The people who invented the newspaper did not invent the radio the people who invented the radio did not invent the television. The people who invent glasses, contact lenses and lasertreatments will not provide information to improve eyesight naturally !

There are also people with amblyopia who are surccesful with the Batesmethod. Did you never meet people who were succesful with the Batesmethod. See the newsgroups about this subject.

Amblyopia is one such problem that the Bates Method supposedly "improves." Now, I work all day every day with amblyopes and, believe me, they've tried everything!

Answer : How about really give these people helpful information. For example the experiment with the monkeys. The problem is located in the brain in the case of amblyopia. People with amblyopia can improve their weak eye with their eyes closed ! How about telling these people their eye is not lazy but stressed. When you only stress something which is already stressed you are doing something wrong. My advice search for a really skilled teacher. He will not teach exercises He or she will teach habits . > Most of the amblyopes we see are very relaxed. Are the still relaxed when they are forced to look with their amblyopic eye ? but it doesn't improve their eyesight one bit. Have you ever talked about the subject with a succesful batesteacher ?Some of them have tried either the BM or some derivitive method to no avail. Answer : Did you see the link in the amblyopia artcle. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4436439.stm

Is is very important the BM is properly educated. It is not only a program it is an educational program. The Batesmethod in WH Bates first book was not properly explained. Fortunatly there is a book available which give a far bettter explanation. ( This book is based on Bates his initial writings ) But stil it is very hard to learn the method only with this book. Is your opinion about the Batesmethod only based on bates his first book and Better eyesight magazines ? Mine is not.

> The problem is that Amblyopia is a developmental problem and it results in very complex changes to the visual system..

Answe :

I fully agree with you. And it is not possible to change it in a week. Improvement in small steps is possible. Natural vision improvement is the law of adaptation in the right direction. 

I have personally experienced a lot of improvement thanks to the initial work of Bates and the generation of teachers who followed him. I hope you respect my point of view. When my speculation really was not true. I think you would have not reacted the way you did. Also you did not tell the truth about the rejection of natural vision improvement by mainstream medicine. Controversial is not the same as rejection

> Secondly, what do you mean by "naturally"? Everything that humans do - even driving F1 cars - is "natural" because humans have evolved according to the laws of nature.

Anwer : Naturally are the things our body have always been doing. When you see our body is lets say 20000 years old. F1 driving is not very natural. Running on the other hand is very natural.

We are currently doing quite a lot of thing differently than let’s say 100 years ago. For example our food..

You seem to be using "natural" to mean "without glasses" or "without the help of an ophthalmologist".

Answer : No not without a ophthalmologist. Ophthalmologist should always be available and consulted. They will see what NVI can result in. And if there are real problems they can help. NVI can help people to take responsibility for themselves.

> How is improving your vision by following a set of instructions written over a century ago by a rogue ophthalmologist like Bates any more "natural" than taking the advice of a modern ophthalmologist who has an extra century of accumulated knowledge and experience to draw on? Answer : Bates first book is very hard to read and umderstand. Fortunatly others have made his method much more easy to understand. ( Janet Goodrich, Thomas Quackenbush for example ) The bates method had developed and still is ! That is why is is very good the second generation books are also in the article.

> Anyway, I hope that's helped to explain my position. If people want to try the BM then go ahead, but I and my colleagues think its a bloody waste of time and (invariably) money and I'll be damned if I let people write nonsense about it on Misplaced Pages without being challenged to support their arguments with reliable evidence

Anwer : Again, It is not about science it is about politcs.

Question to a eye doctor : Retinal detachament happens more often when there is a high degree of myopia. Why ? It is by the way very hard to find a proper explanation in books. Bates has the answer. The myopic eye has a different shape. It is larger. Bates explains, this is the result of the extreme tension in the oblique mussles. So when people succeed in getting rid of this tension. The myopic eye becomes normal and the risk of retinal detachment is gone. This is prevention. What can the orthodox do for people with a high degree of myopia, which keeps on becoming higher and higher, to prevent retinal detachment ? Seeyou 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And round and round and round we go... If you don't want to listen to any of my arguments, scientific evidence or experience and just keep making unsupported assertions, repeating old arguments made by quacks like Quackenbush and insisting that this is "political..." then go ahead. I'm not interested and neither is the Misplaced Pages arbitration committee it would seem. Just don't try to pass off your second-hand b*llsh*t as scientific fact. Famousdog 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As for that BBC story, I don't see your point. Its about patching and how it helps if administered properly. Patching the good eye releases the suppression on the bad eye, allowing the bad side of the visual system to develop more "normally". This is already widely known... Ophthalmologists have been patching for hundreds of years. Its the best therapy we have currently. How is that relevant to your assertions that Bates is cleverer than all the other vision specialists in the known universe? Famousdog 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply :

It is very clear to me and I think and hope to others reading between your lines. You are again walking away famousdog or AED, by not answering questions and not giving arguments on which your opinion about the BM is based..

To be honest I am not really interested in your answers. But this does not count for my question about retinal detachment and why high myopes have a greater risk to develop retinal detachment. It would be really helpful and supportive for this article when you would answer this very interesting and important question. ( If famousdog/AED does not answer this question read the wikipedia article about retinal detachment.)

It is also clear to me why you did not like to see the BM described as educational program. The orthodox do not give any education as far as I know. So educational would emphasize on a difference in favour of the BM.Seeyou 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this excerpt on the wikipage about Quackery regarding the reasons that quackery persists:

I think it explains a lot. Now please stop insisting that I am User AED. I am not. You are a f*ckwit for continuing to accuse me of sockpuppetry. Nobody else is remotely interested in this argument and I am sick of it. Regarding retinal detachment, I will not venture to theorise, as it is not my area of expertise. I very much doubt that it is your area of expertise either, so why don't you talk to somebody who does know about it? Why not add your theories to the page Retinal detachment and see what kind of response you get? This obsession is getting tiresome. Famousdog 13:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

He who knows not, and knows he knows not. He is a child teach him

He who knows not, and does not know he knows not. He is a fool. Shun him

He who knows, and knows not he knows. He is asleep. Wake him.

He who knows, and knows he knows. He is wise. Follow him. Seeyou 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure... whatever. Famousdog 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep going, you're almost in breach of 3RR

Seeyou, whilst I have attempted to compromise and include your material, you are simply reverting my edits and this is getting f*cking tedious. Do it once more and I'll report you for 3RR. Any luck finding a citation for that research that Beresford mentions? No, I thought not... Famousdog 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Quite a few of the external links in this article violate the guideline on external links, in that they are primarily promotional, add nothing encyclopedic to the article, contain unverifiable research, etc. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links, nor a clearinghouse for all links Bates-related or a substitute for Google. External links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:EL). Instead of fighting over expanding the external links section, the time would be better spent finding reliable sources among those links and incorporating the encyclopedic content from those sources directly into the article. MastCell 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply :

It is interesting to see those testimonials really made some change to the external links. In my opinion a bit weak of our sceptics to remove them. It looks like they do not want to see there might be people who have really improved their eyesight. A lot of people will have trouble believing eyesight can improve naturally. The possibility and prove eyesight can be summarized in three words law of adaptation ! Only by saying this law is untrue you can say Natural vision improvement is impossible. Of course these testimonials can be fake, but I am also one of these persons successful in improving my eyesight. So for me it is very hard to believe these testiomonials are fake.. Also an argument to leave Meir Schneider’s site present is for example what health professionals like Creig Hoyt, MD, ( Chairman of the Ophthalmology Department and Director of the Beckman Vision Center ) say about Natural vision improvement. Again I find it very hard to believe this information is fake or not reliable.

So in my opinion the link :

Link 1. http://www.self-healing.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=85 & link 2 http://www.visionsofjoy.org/testimonials.htm

should be listed.

Also link 3 :

http://www.visionsofjoy.org/visionlinks.htm A list of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites should stay. This link provides interested people a worldwide help to find a teacher or information.

Problem for the NVI movement is there is not really a site which represents the NVI movement as a whole. The link : [http://www.visionsofjoy.org/visionlinks.htm A list of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites was the best site I could find. Most sites pronote only themselves and product but site gives information of teachers and schools worldwide.

The other sites :

• Central-Fixation.com
• Imagination Blindness
• I-See.org
• Vision Improvement Site
• List of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites

http://www.central-fixation.com Is okay but also available in link 3

http://www.iblindness.org is okay, but is also in link 3

http://www.visioneducators.org is okay offers worldwide links for teachers & teachertraining. The other link 3 contains more worldwide links.

http://www.i-see.org/related.html worldwide extra links. Should be in the list.

www.visionimprovementsite.com not in the list commercial site.

My conclusion to represent the unskeptic part of this article the following links should be listed :

Testimonials :

• what people say about
• testimonials

external links

• List of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites
• www.i-see.org

Gladly read your feedback Mastcell. Seeyou 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If your goal is to disprove the "skeptics" or demonstrate that the Bates method actually works, then I'd encourage you to find reliable sources supporting the method's effectiveness and cite them in the body of the article. Tacking on a laundry list of external links which explicitly fail the guidelines to try and make the point isn't appropriate. MastCell 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Seeyou, you are fighting this battle in the 'external links' section because you cannot win it in the text of the article by (as MastCell rightly says) citing reliable sources that demonstrate the effectiveness of the Bates method. Stating that you, personally, have improved your vision or think that some links are "okay" is hardly a sufficient criterion for inclusion. There are over 6 billion people in the world. You are just one. In addition, providing multiple links to the same web site (Visions of Joy, for example) is excessive. One link is sufficient. Famousdog 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bates' technique

I find this section sketchy and inaccurate.

'Relaxation is at the core of the Bates method' - yes, but not just relaxation. What Bates described as 'mental control' is equally important. It is about a feedback mechanism between mental and physical relaxation, achieved by the use of memory and imagination. See the chapter on Memory and Imagination in 'Perfect Eyesight" by Bates.

> Chaper 13 & 14.. I will read these chapters and make notes. Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'Swinging involves deliberate movements of the body with relaxed awareness of vision...' - no. It is not about relaxed awareness of vision. It is about relaxed awareness of movement within the visual field. The point of swinging is to be aware that you perceive movement. And swinging as a technique goes hand in hand with shifting: see ibid, chapter on shifting and swinging.

It is about relaxed awareness of movement. > I fully agree. And the movement is oppostitonal of course. see ibid, What do you mean by ibid ? Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'Palming or cupping is one technique that advocates claim achieves relaxation' - but this article is not about what 'advocates' claim, is it? It's about the technique of Dr Bates. Dr Bates did palming, not cupping. It is simplistic to imply that palming is done to achieve relaxation by seeing black. Bates said that seeing black did not work for everybody. The point is to engage your imagination in a mental activity that you enjoy and that you can sustain while covering your eyes. This is what engenders the relaxation.

> I agree. And thank you for making this clearer.Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Central fixation is not a technique, or part of a technique. It is the process whereby we find objects within our visual field, in conjuction with the perception of movement. For optimal image-building, the parts of the image have to be taken through the centre of the visual field, where the greatest clarity is obtained. Bates' point about central fixation was that if you try to stare at something, you inhibit the functioning of central fixation, slow down the movement of the eyeball, and prevent focal adjustment. This is why he said relaxation was important.

centre of the visual field, where the greatest clarity is obtained. > Using the fovea centralises where most of cones are located.Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this section on technique rewritten totally. I wouldn't mind having a go, but being new here, I just present my point of view for now. HappyHag 12:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

> Great. Just start and in case of problems don’t hesistate to ask questions to wikipedia or me (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Seeyou )Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Famousdog And / or AED ( Both Eye Doctors )

If the seeclearlymethod is equal to the batesmethod. The batesmethod is illegal. So then you can also delete or redirect this page to something else. maybe redirect this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Ophthalmology or http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ophthalmology.Seeyou 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other users and contributors, please be aware that User:Seeyou appears to be under the mistaken impression that I am the same person as User:AED. His justification for this is that we both seem to know a bit about ophthalmology/vision and AED seems to have stopped contributing around the same time that I joined Misplaced Pages. Having had many of his edits reverted by myself and others, Seeyou has now taken to accusing me of sockpuppetry rather than trying to be constructive. I took this to mediation, but alas, it was ignored. Nobody seems interested. I suspect that what I did to provoke this recent cyber-stalker outburst from Seeyou, was to redirect the See Clearly Method page to the Bates page. I did this because the See clearly method page was "orphaned" and I thought it would be relevant here. Seeyou clearly disagrees. Fine. I will not redirect this page again and instead, I'm sure that some editor will soon delete it because it is ORPHANED. Seeyou will no doubt then accuse me of having the page deleted or deleting it myself under another guise... and so on and so forth... Famousdog 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fake argument removal

Find a Bates Method teacher worldwide

• Bates Method Teachers listed by country/area

This is not spam. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Spam. Seeyou 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a list of Bates practitioners advertising their services. How is it not spam? However, I will wait for somebody else delete it in order to keep you happy. Famousdog 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A list is a list. It provides information. It does not fit any definition of spam I managed to find in a few minutes of Internet searches. Maybe the problem is more one of pseudosceptic prejudice. (RichardKingCEng 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

It is borderline spam, and definitely unencyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of potentially "useful" information - it's an encyclopedia, and this link is not encyclopedic. MastCell 22:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is false that "A list is a list." On Misplaced Pages, lists of commercial providers are not mere "lists", they constitute advertising. Some commerical sites provide enough valid information to justify their inclusion in some people's eyes, but a mere directory does not. Also a site that has no information not available from non-commercial sources would not qualify. At the very least, Bates practitioners will have to develop a "cut-out" site that has actual unique and encyclopedic information or provide a link to such a page in the existing site. Tackiness doesn't help either. DCDuring 22:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/Volkswagen and the external link. I do not see much difference. In my opinion and I am very sure the interested public will be very happy with the teacher link.Seeyou 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense for an article about Volkswagon, the car manufacturer, to have links to the company's website, because the article is about the company. I would not consider this spam. What you are advocating is to add links to every car manufacturer into the article Automobile. A quick glance at this article shows that this behaviour is not viewed lightly! I would accept a link to the See Clearly Method website on the See Clearly Method page, because the article is specific to that company (except they don't exist anymore, so there's no point). You are making a category error, mixing up fruit with apples. Famousdog 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fake-arguments my dear friend look a these articles.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Yoga
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Shiatsu
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Tai_chi

By the way I added the link Seeyou 16:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. The Yoga page has no links to corporate sites (good), the Shiatsu page has several and is therefore poorly monitored and unencyclopedic (bad), and the Tai Chi article has links to some organisations and videos (possibly spam). So what? I reiterate: Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links it is an encyclopedia. Take the Encyclopedia Brittanica - does it have lists of all snake oil salesmen under the article Snake Oil? No. Famousdog 13:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course; this is Misplaced Pages; amateur defintions and pseudosceptisism rules. (RichardKingCEng 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

See Clearly Method Article Corrections Deleted

As the CEO of the American Vision Institute, Inc. and one of the creators of the See Clearly Method, I am deeply concerned that the article on the See Clearly Method misrepresents the American Vision Institute, the See Clearly Method, the doctors who created the See Clearly Method, and the State of Iowa lawsuit. Today, I posted a rewrite of the article stating the facts about these matters. Much to my dismay, the rewrite was promptly deleted and replaced by the previous inaccurate article. For the record, my rewrite is given below. It is my sincere wish that if Misplaced Pages considers my rewrite to be a conflict of interest, that a responsible person will render the material into a form that is compatible with Misplaced Pages's policies so that the article on the See Clearly Method is accurate and truthful. SMBeresford 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Steven M. Beresford, Ph.D. CEO, American Vision Institute

REWRITE POSTED 10/4/2007 AND DELETED SAME DAY

The See Clearly Method (SCM) was a program of eye exercises developed by a team of doctors from the American Vision Institute including Merrill J. Allen, O.D., Steven M. Beresford, Ph.D., David W. Muris, O.D., and Francis A. Young, Ph.D. The SCM was designed to reduce or eliminate dependency on corrective lenses and was sold to the public by a marketing company called Vision Improvement Technologies from 1999 through 2006.

The efficacy of the SCM was demonstrated in a clinical study that was submitted as a research paper for publication to the Journal of the American Optometric Association in 2005. Although the research paper was peer reviewed, the Journal declined to publish it. The American Vision Institute subsequently submitted the research paper to the Journal of Behavioral Optometry, which also declined to publish it. Finally, the American Vision Institute decided to publish the entire research paper on its website at www.visiontherapy.net. The main findings of the clinical study are summarized below:

30 subjects with common visual problems including asthenopia, myopia, presbyopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism were recruited from a public seminar and 21 completed a 6 week course of training using the SCM at home and in weekly group sessions. 19 subjects obtained improvements in unaided visual acuity, 19 obtained improvements in refractive error, and 16 reduced their dependency on corrective lenses so they no longer needed them or only wore them part of the time. 20 subjects expressed satisfaction with the materials provided and the improvement obtained.

In 2006, the Attorney General of the State of Iowa filed a complaint against Vision Improvement Technologies on the grounds that some customers were not getting prompt refunds. This complaint later expanded into a challenge of the SCM’s effectiveness, which bankrupted cost VIT more than $600,000 in legal fees and forced it to go out of business at the end of 2006.

The American Vision Institute alleges that the lawsuit was politically motivated and part of a concerted attack by the eye care establishment to suppress the SCM, and that the Attorney General may have perverted the course of justice by ignoring critical evidence supporting the SCM’s effectiveness. To clarify misunderstandings about the matter, the American Vision Institute issued the following Position Statement on its website at www.visiontherapy.net.:

Position Statement On The See Clearly Method

The American Vision Institute (AVI) was founded in 1979 with the goal of creating a program of therapeutic eye exercises that the average person could use to eliminate or reduce their dependency on corrective lenses. A team of world class optometrists and research scientists was formed and our work led to what became known as the AVI Program.

Optometrists and scientists who were publicly named as coauthors of the AVI Program included Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Dr. Steven M. Beresford, Dr. Mark S. Flora, Dr. Paul A. Harris, Dr. Robert M. Kaplan, Dr. Burton E. Worrell, and Dr. Francis A. Young. Advisory support was provided by Dr. W. Keith Wilson and Dr. Homer H. Hendrickson. We were deeply concerned that important information on eye exercises was being suppressed and were determined to discover how the techniques worked and make them more effective.

Regrettably, the eye care establishment bitterly opposed our work because it threatened to undermine the sale of corrective lenses. Over the years, we were subjected to threats, harassment, smear campaigns and other “dirty tricks”, which forced several members of the AVI team to resign.

In 1991, Dr. David W. Muris joined the AVI team and played an important role in taking the AVI Program to a higher level where most users could realistically expect to see the first signs of improvement within a week or so. Dr. Muris held the position of President of the American Vision Institute from 1996 to 2006, when he too was threatened with loss of license and forced to resign.

In 1999, the American Vision Institute created a product known as the See Clearly Method (SCM), which a company known as Vision Improvement Technologies (VIT) marketed from 1999 to 2006. During that time, VIT received hundreds of unsolicited testimonials from satisfied customers who eliminated or reduced their dependency on corrective lenses. In many cases, these customers expressed a very high level of satisfaction with the SCM and stated that they were glad to find a natural alternative to the deterioration they experienced with corrective lenses.

In 2006, the Attorney General of the State of Iowa filed a complaint against VIT on the grounds that some customers were not getting prompt refunds. This complaint later expanded into a challenge of the SCM’s effectiveness,which cost VIT more than $600,000 in legal fees and forced it to go out of business at the end of 2006.

AVI has concluded that the eye care establishment may have paid officials of the State of Iowa, by means of bribes or campaign contributions, to carry out a proxy attack on VIT. Our conclusion is based on the following facts:

1) The goals of the SCM were diametrically opposed to the goals of the eye care establishment, which is to prescribe and sell corrective lenses and keep patients dependent on these products.

2) We understand that fewer than a dozen Iowa residents had any difficulty obtaining a refund (due to VIT’s staffing problems) and these cases were quickly resolved when VIT was made aware of the situation. There were several other minor administrative problems and these too were quickly resolved.

3) In 2005, AVI wrote up an in-depth clinical evaluation of the SCM that proved its efficacy and submitted it to the Journal of the American Optometric Association for publication. Regrettably, the Journal refused to publish it. In our opinion, the Journal’s decision not to publish was made in order to avoid giving credibility to the SCM and to suppress the research findings.

4) AVI then provided the Attorney General with a copy of the evaluation but the Attorney General – who has no scientific credentials – simply ignored it and declared the SCM to be ineffective on the grounds that it did not comply with the Iowa law that health care products must be scientifically proven to be effective. He also ignored hundreds of unsolicited testimonials from satisfied customers.

5) Thousands of health care products that fail to comply with this law are routinely sold in supermarkets, drug stores, health food stores, and pharmacies throughout the State of Iowa. We fail to understand why the Attorney General singled out the SCM, unless of course he was paid to do so. It should be noted that corrective lenses also fail to comply with this law.

6) At the time, the Attorney General was running for re-election and the Governor of the State of Iowa was running for President of the United States.

7) We understand that the American Optometric Association spent more than $1.2 million on lobbying and campaign contributions in 2006.

In our opinion, the circumstantial evidence suggests that the Attorney General carried out a proxy attack against VIT on behalf of the eye care establishment. What really happened will probably never be made public. The fact remains, politics is a dirty business and politicians are notorious for trading favors for bribes, kick-backs and campaign contributions. Of course, we do not accuse the Attorney General or the American Optometric Association of engaging in such deplorable tactics. However, the motive and opportunity were present, so we suggest you read the research and draw your own conclusions.

Your statement contains essentially an attack and allegation of significant wrongdoing against the Attorney General. As such it is wholly inappropriate for inclusion anywhere on Misplaced Pages (including the talk page) unless backed by verifiable, reliable sources. Please see our policy on biography of living people, for example. If such sources exist, the information can be added to the article. However, Misplaced Pages is not a forum to advance your spin on the issue or refight it. MastCell 03:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For the ones unaware AED, famousdog, Mastcel & SMBeresford might be one person.

For the ones unaware of the total history of this article and discussion about this article. It is off course speculation, but there is a very big chance AED ( a eye doctor ), famousdog, Mastcel and SMBeresford in reality is one person. It is also possible AED is being paid by regular opthalmology. See for example how many edits AED has made in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/AED Seeyou 12:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Always refreshing to see a single-purpose account pushing a very distinct POV accuse others of a conflict of interest. However, if you feel that one or more editors are using multiple accounts abusively (as detailed in the sockpuppetry policy), you can open a case at the suspected sockpuppetry board. You will probably want evidence first, though. MastCell 04:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, are you me? I was quite surprised to find out that I was user AED! Now apparently I'm SMBeresford, which is strange since his posts have been very pro-SeeClearlyMethod, whereas I am a sceptic on that point. Frankly, I'm more of the opinion that SMBeresford is either Steven Beresford or Seeyou her/himself. Nice to see that Seeyou can't even get your name right Mastcel (sic)! People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and I strongly suspect that Seeyou is indulging in a little sockpuppetry her/himself - since s/he can't make any useful edits. Famousdog 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

So, according to WP:EL, the DA's court order goes too as it appears in a citation. But my point about the DMOZ list of vision links (not specific to this topic) is still relevant and I-See should be clearly labelled as promoting the bates method or NVI to avoid conflicts of interest. Famousdog 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys

I removed this section:

Additional evidence that the genetic theory is wrong comes from research where scientists deliberately created strabismus in normal monkeys by surgically reattaching an extraocular muscle to the wrong place. They found it difficult to create a permanent state of strabismus and all the monkeys spontaneously straightened their eyes within a few weeks.

Because it has been tagged for months (anything that simply refers to "scientists" without telling us who they are is to be mistrusted), it doesn't seem to be relevant to the preceding paragraphs (what "genetic theory"?) and its also a complete lie. Animal researchers routinely create strabismus in monkeys to investigate amblyopia. For example, there are several papers on strabismus and amblyopia published in the last decade by Kiorpes and Movshon in which they artifically induce strabismus in macaque monkeys. Famousdog 13:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent unusual activity

Just thought I'd flag some unusual activity on this page. Between 24-29th November 2007, there were several rather pro-Bates edits made by anonymous users whose ISPs are registered in Germany, Austria, Russia, France and the Netherlands. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but the fact that all users were anonymous, the edits were made within a short time period and they all seemed roughly in agreement with each other all made it seem quite 'coordinated'. Somebody may have requested help on an international mailing list (in which case this counts as Meatpuppetry and is frowned upon), or perhaps the one person acting alone has managed to fake their IP address. Either way, a little odd I think. Famousdog (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For the objective reader

Some examples of famousdog contributions to the bates method article.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=99329620&oldid=99107773

( famousdog saying the mind is the brain ?! )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bates_method&diff=174433324&oldid=174431966

( great contribution but \martin Garder was not an Optometrists or ophthalmologists but a popular American mathematics and science writer )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bates_method&diff=167207674&oldid=167019914

( The genetic theory is the suggestion of the orthodox vision problems are genetic, but scientists still have not found any proof in our DNA )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bates_method&diff=109306766&oldid=109306034

( famosudog editing published information )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=124083867&oldid=124052301

( famousdog showing no respect to an editor )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AED

( When you can make this amount of edits you are being paid. Does wikipedia really give objective information ?! )

Seeyou (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Steven M. Beresford, David W. Muris, Merril J. Allen, Francis A. Young. Improve Your Vision Without Glasses Or Contact Lenses : A New Program Of Therapeutic Eye Exercises. Fireside, Inc; 1996. ISBN 0-684-81438-2.
2. http://www.naturalvisioncenter.com/books.html#RTS%20anchor 'Books paragraph 4'

• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles