Bates method / eyesight improvement

[Belteshazzar]

[really?]

[Belteshazzar]

[Arouet]

No: it simply means that it is annecdotal and not yet ready for prime time. This is how science works. Researchers come up with hypotheses, they do some preliminary testing, then more detailed testing. Sometimes early positive results turn out to be less positive upon further testing.

I'm really not sure what we're arguing about here Belteshazzar? We're saying proposed medical treatments should undergo proper scientific testing before being prescribed to patients. Do you really disagree? Especially when there can be dangerous aspects to it: such as in this case?

[Belteshazzar]

[Arouet]

I disagree completely. Parents should be presented the option by trained professionals only AFTER proper testing has been done. You have no idea what precautions should be given. Why? Because studies have not been done. What we do know is that trained eye experts have said this technique is dangerous. Parents are not qualified to properly analyse whether it is safe for their kids. That's what scientists and researchers are for.

Frankly, your approach is dangerous. I get the appeal of an apparent way to fix for vision. It appeals to me too. But there's no way I'm going to mess with my eyes without being absolutely certain that the risk is very low. I remember when lazer surgery first came out. There was no way I'd have even considered it in the early stages. People were having many troubles post surgery. Nowadays the surgery is much safer, and the risks much lower.

You don't want to mess with your eyes. Wearing glasses is not a great inconvenience for most people - but the bad side effects of doing unsafe things to your eyes can be devastating. Anyhow, while not cheap, lazer surgery is available these days and it can work. You might want to see if you are a candidate.

[Belteshazzar]

[Arouet]

I read the wiki entry. I was also talking about the sun. What precautions do you really think could be put in place? People can't be trusted to follow directions properly. If the method can't work without the sun aspect, it should be squashed.

[really?]

[Belteshazzar]

I don't seriously expect that it will become the norm for eye doctors to tell patients that there is a possible alternative which they might want to try on their own before getting glasses. I do wonder though what would happen if a natural treatment for nearsightedness were proven effective. I imagine that many people in my position would feel entitled to free or very low cost help, after having unnecessarily paid for many pairs of glasses/contacts and the exams which were used to prescribe them. Especially considering that the natural cure would have been out there all along, but they weren't told about it when it would have been easiest to apply.

[Arouet]

Ahh, the whole profit conspiracy thing. They are just trumping up that staring at the sun can cause irreversible damage!

Not to mention that this technique apparently takes quite some time and could easily be overseen by these same doctors, having you come several times a year to see that your technique is right rather than the once every 2 years that I currently go. But yes, its just a conspiracy...

[Belteshazzar]

I'm not quite sure how you thought I was implying that. I was not arguing that anything is being deliberately supressed so the eye-care industry can continue to make money selling glasses. I was simply speculating about the reaction of glasses-wearers if a natural cure were proven. Many would feel that they had really been screwed, and would expect free help in recovering their eyesight, feeling that they had already paid for it in the money spent on eye exams and glasses. If they couldn't get what they wanted, some might try to sue to get the costs covered. The defense of the eye-care industry would be that it had been unproven, and thus they couldn't tell people anything about it.

[Arouet]

Ahh, sorry for the confusion. Thought you were expressing some common anti-conventional medicine conspiracy theories that we see a lot of!

I don't think anyone needs to worry from the legal side yet. The Bates method is currently not safe so it is not malpractice not to recommend it. If a safe method is developed and demonstrated to work, then I would think it would have to be included in recommendations for appropriate clients.

As it stand, though, it doesn't seem to be a viable method. Maybe some enterprising young PHD study will dig it back up and see if they can get it to work in a safe manner. For now, we're stuck with lasers or glasses.

[Belteshazzar]

[Arouet]

This method appears to have been investigated, and rejected as being dangerous. As a member of the general public, I'm happy about that. if there is a safer method, then someone has to come up with it. But that hasn't happened yet. I think people are pretty comfortable with the fact that medical breakthroughs take time. I mean, you could make the same argument about pretty well any kind of new medical technique, right? Many new discoveries could have been developed sooner had things gone a bit differently. Do you seem people getting angry about any of those? I don't think this is a grave concern.