Bates method / eyesight improvement

[Belteshazzar]

Has anyone here tried to improve their eyesight naturally, or know anyone who has? The Bates method has been around for a long time, and according to some Skeptics it has been debunked many times. Quackwatch has a about it, and James Randi that Martin Gardner was very upset that the publisher of Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, which has a chapter addressing the Bates method, also published a pro-Bates method book!

A question which is often asked when this is brought up: If it really works, why does anyone still wear glasses? I would respond by asking a question such as, if it's really possible to quit smoking, then how are cigarette companies still in business? Which is not to say that I am sure the Bates method can work to the extent claimed. But the Skeptics naturally dismiss all "anecdotal" evidence of individual success in improving eyesight.

[really?]

[Arouet]

Never heard of this Bates method. Of course we should reject anecdotal evidence. This would be ridiculously easy to test scientifically. Take a bunch of people with glasses, give them an eye exam. Run this method. Give them another eye exam. See if anyone's eyesight has improved.

This shouldn't even considered controvercial.

[Belteshazzar]

I am reminded of which I read some time ago, and which probably influenced my "quit smoking" analogy. The Bates method would not be "ridiculously easy to test scientifically", at least if the test was fair and objective, because the method is about changing habits. It would be nice to see some testing done, but it should not simply be a matter of giving the subjects some exercises to do and taking "before and after" measurements.

[Arouet]

Do you understand how medical trials work? How do you think they test anything? Or are we not actually talking about improving eyesight? How else are you going to demonstrate whether the person's eyesight has improved? You need to perform an eye exam!

[really?]

[Arouet]

Yeah, I don't get the motivation either. I have absolutely no issues with alternative medicine in principle. I have no issue with taking inspiration from ancient remedies, or developing new remedies which are unconventional. But what I don't get is the unwillingness of proponents of those methods to subject the remedies to proper scientific study or the willingness to accept that it is effective without such studies.

The techniques for testing medical treatments - including eye care - are well establiehed. There is no magic to it. We know how to do it. There is no need to make excuses for it - it can either be demonstrated to work, or it can't. And if it can't, then why would we ever want to do it?

[really?]

The internet is the most democratic thing invented so far. It allows everyone with a crackpot idea a platform upon which to speak of ideas that should have die a quite death long ago.

[Belteshazzar]

[Arouet]

[Belteshazzar]

[Arouet]

I'm not sure how those articles contradict what I said. I have no vested interest in this topic. I wear glasses and would be delighted if there was a natural and safe way to improve my sight without surgery. I simply would want there to be proper, scientific evidence. I have no opinion on those articles (I'll admit I did not read them in detail). It's not for me to figure this out. I'll rely on the scientific community, as I do with getting my glasses in the first place.

[Arouet]

Incidentally: if the natural method is quite onerous, then it may indeed not be worth-it.

[really?]

[Arouet]

It occurred to me earlier this evening as I was driving that even accepting that something like this could work, it could only be acceptable those with only slightly poor vision in the first place. That is: a slow, gradual improvement would mean that my glasses would constantly be too strong! One can't change one's prescription every few months (at least not without being fairly wealthy).

In any event, if staring at the sun is a necessary component of these techniques, then this program should not be considered suitable for full clinical trials anyway. Far too dangerous. Even if there is technically a safe was to stare at the sun that this method endorses, in practice people will screw it up far too often to make the risks worth it.