Talk:Bates method/Archive 20

Links to publications
At this point, I think it a safe assumption that and the ip's (at William Bates (physician)) that have been adding links are all the same person. Clarknight has a WP:COI here, and has been notified that WP:COI has changed substantially since the account was created.

COI problems aside, I believe the general consensus on when to link publications has changed as well. The lede already has Wikisource links to Perfect Sight Without Glasses and Better Eyesight Magazine, both of which really don't belong there. (I'm not clear when/if such links belong anywhere but at the end of the article.) Additional links certainly don't. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking closer, the Wikisource links are probably fine. The lede has other problems, length and tangential detail especially. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the lede, Huxley's case could be reduced to part of a sentence, as was done once before without objection, but was apparently undone in a later mass revert. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. Good catch. Seems extremely undue to have so much about Huxley in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Optometrist supports Bates method
It's very sad that we can't even mention a contemporary optometrist who supports the Bates method. Horatio Bates (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias summarise accepted knowledge; one outlying optometrist's view is not that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not the only one. I could give you a link to a list of optometrists who support this (perhaps in varying degrees), but I wouldn't want to be accused of spamming. Horatio Bates (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's notable support (which doesn't require your original research to work up) then it should be easy to find it in a WP:MEDRS. From previous searches, I doubt such a source exists. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, which is a regular problem with this article, along with the WP:COI problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Claim in article NOT substantiated in reference
The second paragraph of the Introduction includes this assertion:

"Despite continued anecdotal reports of successful results, including well-publicised support by Aldous Huxley, Bates' techniques have not been objectively shown to improve eyesight.[2] "

This is NOT what the reference says. In fact, the reference quotes one individual who makes that claim, but he provides no evidence for it.

Whether the Bates Method works or not is a very sensitive question, because if it works, a whole industry could be put out of business.

Eyes use muscles to focus. Claims of the ineffectiveness of the Bates Method are in sharp contrast with the fact that in every other situation, one's control of voluntary muscles can be improved with training.

In fact, the concluding two paragraphs of that reference are as follows:

-- ''The question isn’t "Does natural vision correction work?" says Bethesda ophthalmologist Rachel Bishop, MD. She says the real issue is: Why wouldn’t you wear glasses or contacts if they could help you see better right away?''

''“For somebody to say, ‘Hmm, I want to put off the need for reading glasses, so I’m just going to strain, and not use reading glasses or distance glasses because I want to train my muscle to be as active as possible ...’ If you have enough bandwidth in your life to not have great vision in the meantime ... you’re not hurting yourself," Bishop says.'' --

In other words, this quote says: ''Don't even ask whether the Bates method works. Just use eyeglasses or contact lenses instead, because they work immediately.'' The above two paragraphs constitute over 15% of the article.

This article is basically trying to persuade you not to even wonder about the efficacy of the Bates Method. All the quotes are from people working in the same eye-care industry that would be threatened if the Bates Method were shown to work.

So: This reference cannot be trusted as a source of impartial information.Daqu (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the lede (introduction) to an article summarizes the article as a whole and usually doesn't duplicate sources in the article body?
 * It seems fine per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Cite all the chapter and verse you like. Wikipedia has a very low tolerance for misleading statements.Daqu (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence the need to follow MEDRS and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there have been at least three different versions of that WebMD article, written by different authors: http://web.archive.org/web/20070515000000*/http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/features/natural-vision-correction-does-it-work The reference here credits the earliest one. Horatio Bates (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there anyone present who is interested in making this Wikipedia article the best accurate article possible on this subject? OR is everyone only interested in using this article as a vehicle to promote their own point of view?


 * Because the reasoning used by the Bethesda optometrist in that reference "Why would you use a natural method if you can improve your vision immediately with corrective lenses?" (words are approximate) can be used to explain why it's better for everyone to use a wheelchair instead of exercising their legs.Daqu (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to avoid a WP:PROFRINGE problem and this Bates nonsense needs to be clear for what it is, per our suitable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You also seem to be suggesting that this is all a Big Pharma conspiracy theory. I know many optometrists and the idea that they, for financial or ideological reasons, wouldn't recommend the Bates method or vision therapy if there was any solid evidence that it could help their patients is offensive. It is also an argument that cuts both ways. If there was evidence of efficacy, then optometrists would offer vision therapy and charge their patients for it - thereby replacing the lost revenue from glasses with extended consultations and repeat visits. Similarly, Bates proponents financially benefit from people believing it works - should we distrust all of them (and their research) for exactly the same reasons you distrust optometrists? No. You look at the evidence, and unfortunately for Bates, it's pretty weak. Famous  dog   (c) 10:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That Bethesda optometrist's quote is quite telling, and if possible this article should reference it. If glasses/contacts work against natural improvement, then most people who would be strongly motivated to try such methods, have their hands tied. That alone could explain the lack of "solid evidence" for this. Horatio Bates (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors may want to review WP:FRINGE more closely.
 * Myself, I find the repeated appeals to nature telling. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Strange uncited promotion presumably from 1952 article
The article currently contains the following uncited sentence from a 1952 article: "Observation has suggested that both the quality and duration of such flashes can be increased with practice, with some subjects holding a substantial improvement for several minutes." I'm guessing this statement is somewhere in the 1952 article cited around the statement, although I hunted around the article and couldn't find anything to support the statement. Has this ever been replicated since 1952? It's a weird statement, and exactly the type that should be cited to recent, high-quality sources. It suggests that I can practice the "Bates method" and improve my ability to get flashes of clear vision. I tried to tone this down but I was reverted by (who oddly marked it as a minor edit). II | (t - c) 04:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I rolled back ImperfectlyInformed's edit because it was even more "weird" (II's term) than what was replaced:
 * "A 1952 study Tests of such suggested temporary improvement in visual acuity ...". -- Jmc (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response! There was a small typo,, but I think the overall gist of the edit was pretty clear. Doesn't seem like removing the entire edit was the most productive way forward. I re-added the substance of the change. If it seems weird, please let me know before reverting it. II  | (t - c) 02:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A bit more than a small typo! The edit was nonsense ("A 1952 study Tests of such suggested temporary improvement in visual acuity ...")! Anyway, I'm happy to leave the latest edit, though the second clause reads awkwardly ("but per retinoscopy is not due to any change in refractive error"). However, I'll go through the linked article myself and see for myself exactly what it says. -- Jmc (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now gone through the paper cited and can confirm that there's absolutely no basis in it anywhere to support the claim previously made and quoted above ("Observation has suggested ...").
 * I propose to modify the sentence now beginning "According to a 1952 article ..." to read:"A 1952 study involving 100 subjects claiming to experience such 'flashes' found only one subject who 'demonstrated unusually good transient acuity (a flash) but she was unable to maintain it or repeat it for measurement of refraction' and concluded that 'this experiment indicated that 'flashers' (those who can obtain remarkably large transient increases in visual acuity) are uncommon'."I also don't think that this claim merits a sub-section of its own and propose to incorporate it as a bullet point under 'Anecdotal support'. -- Jmc (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nemine dissentiente, I've made the proposed change. Thanks to ImperfectlyInformed for identifying this gross misrepresentation of the source. -- Jmc (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bates method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016205458/http://randi.org:80/jr/2006-11/111706rampa.html to http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-11/111706rampa.html#i3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I spent some time looking through http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php, but could not find the material. Their archive may be incomplete. It should be on http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php?start=2035 unless I'm making a mistake. No link from http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/46-swift-june-29-2007.html . --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Bates method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224053114/http://www.strong-eyes.com:80/RESEARCH%20MASTER.pdf to http://www.strong-eyes.com/RESEARCH%20MASTER.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603051744/http://www.praguepost.com:80/archivescontent/38282-blind-faith.html to http://www.praguepost.com/archivescontent/38282-blind-faith.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419104601/http://www.annals.edu.sg:80/PDF/36VolNo10SupplOct2007/V36N10(S1)pS65.pdf to http://www.annals.edu.sg/PDF/36VolNo10SupplOct2007/V36N10(S1)pS65.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he was on to something...
It might be possible the Bates method is a case of "right treatment, wrong diagnosis"

Recent studies have begun to show that the ongoing massive increase in cases of nearsightedness worldwide may be as simple as the massive increase in time spent indoors. https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

There are new treatments being developed for conditions such as corneal ectatic disorders that incorporate exposure to UV-A radiation. My own optometrist recommended I be treated with corneal collagen cross-linking for my keratoconus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneal_ectatic_disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneal_collagen_cross-linking

Just another reason to make kids play outside, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7665:1800:4936:C64B:A534:903A (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note under the heading of the Talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." -- Jmc (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Bates' book
This article does not adequately nor accurately cover the important points and rationale in Bates' book. I'm not sure where the idea that his book is definite "pseudoscience" came from, but such a statement is not neutral and sides with publications against his book. His book itself provides arguments against all of what the other sources are saying, and many experiments and their findings that were conducted by the doctor.

Do understand that this subject contains inherent bias and conflict of interest between conventional opthamologists and his novel research. As of the current state of the article, it seems that it is composed of all sources except Bates' book. What is the reason for excluding his research or paraphrasing it inaccurately from the article that is ultimately about his research?

Keysandbridges (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bates' book is not useful for the purpose of constructing an encyclopedia. We are meant to be engaged in accurately summarizing accepted knowledge about this topic as published in high-quality reliable sources (preferably independent, secondary ones). Basically, his ideas are rejected and Wikipedia will report that. Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is titled "Bates method", while excluding a lot of the important details of Bates' research and experiments, instead presenting the topic through reviews? None of the secondary sources will ever accept his research (not ideas), and as far as concerns the article, those have nothing to do with "Bates method" itself, but rather should at most be put into a criticisms section. If this article should be on "accepted knowledge", then it might as well not exist or be renamed. His book is the most comprehensive source there is that explains the most about "Bates method".
 * Keysandbridges (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Bates method is completely discredited Keysandbridges. Have you read Phillip Pollack's book? Chapter 3 can be found here, or you can read the entire book online. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I have read it, along with several other sources, and Bates' book itself. They have very little scientific value, and a lot of retorts. Those are at best only criticisms of Bates method, and should be presented as such, rather than as concrete facts. There's nothing about what those authors have to say that makes them the definitive source of truth, nor do they make the items presented in Bates' book more right or wrong. So what is the reason for underincluding Bates' point of view in this article? The edits I have made either adds or revises content that cites his book, or rephrased biased sentences:
 * * Line 15: There is no justification for starting the article by saying that it is "ineffective". Sources against the methods will say that it is, Bates will say that it is not. In such a conflict this word is largely jugdmental and best omitted like past edits.
 * * Line 15: I did add the paragraph on Bates' own review of how others received his methods These were part of the last chapter of his book "reason and authority" and are as relevant to the reception of the method as what any other opthalmologist's has to say. Are we just going to include one way criticisms?
 * * Line 69: The sentence "He thought that the manner of eye movement affected the sight" is incomplete. He says that "perfect sight is impossible without continual shifting". The following sentence is also incomplete. He suggested shifting to "imitate consciously the unconscious shifting of normal vision and to realize the apparent motion produced by such shifting".
 * * Line 77: How do we reckon with this sentence "The techniques advocated by Bates are based on fallacious assumptions about the eye and have no effect on improving eyesight"? Throughout his book he explains how each technique is based on a discovery of the eye.
 * Are these aspects of Bates' work not relevant in an article about his work? Yes I understand that the external sources discredit his work
 * Keysandbridges (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bates was wrong per reliable sources and that's what we use. Our views on the matter are irrelevant. If you can get your view accepted in academia and published in a top-tier medical journal than we can think again. Until then the article remains NPOV per the sources we have. Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)