Bates method
(
Ophthalmology
)
The Bates method is an ineffective and potentially dangerous alternative therapy aimed at improving visual acuity. Eye-care physician William Horatio Bates (1860–1931) held the erroneous belief that the extraocular muscles produced changes in focus and that "mental strain" caused abnormal action of these muscles; hence he believed that relieving such "strain" would cure defective vision. In 1952, optometry professor Elwin Marg wrote of Bates, "Most of his claims and almost all of his theories have been considered false by practically all visual scientists."
No type of training has been shown to change the Optical power of the eye. Moreover, certain aspects of the Bates method can put its followers at risk: They may damage their eyes through overexposure to sunlight, not wear their corrective lenses when they need them (e.g., while driving), or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop.
Early history
In 1917, Bates teamed up with "'physical culture' faddist" Bernarr Macfadden on a "New Course of Eye Training" which was heavily advertised in the Physical Culture magazine. Bates' name was later dropped from the advertising, but Macfadden continued to market this correspondence course, which was renamed "Strengthening the Eyes". This course was criticized by the American Medical Association's Bureau of Investigation as dangerous quackery. In July 1919, Bates began publishing , "A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Prevention and Cure of Imperfect Sight Without Glasses". This was also criticized "as it were the product of a psychopathic ward".
In 1920, Bates self-published a book, (or Perfect Sight Without Glasses). In 1926, articles by his assistant Emily Lierman were re-printed in a book titled Stories From the Clinic; some of these stories claimed that such methods had cured glaucoma and cataracts as well as refractive errors. In 1929, the Federal Trade Commission lodged a complaint against Bates for advertising "falsely or misleadingly".
Bates adhered to a different explanation of accommodation that had already been generally disregarded by the medical community of his time. Bates' model had the muscles surrounding the eyeball controlling its focus. In addition to their known function of turning the eye, Bates maintained, they also affect its shape, elongating the eyeball to focus at the near-point or shortening it to focus at a distance. Science author John Grant writes that many animals, such as fishes, accommodate by elongation of the eyeball, "it's just that humans aren't one of those animals."
Laboratory tests have shown that the human eyeball is far too rigid to spontaneously change shape to a degree that would be necessary to accomplish what Bates described. Exceedingly small changes in axial length of the eyeball (18.6–19.2 micrometre) are caused by the action of the ciliary muscle during accommodation. However, these changes are far too small to account for the necessary changes in focus, producing changes of only −0.036 .
Bates felt that corrective lenses, which he characterized as "eye crutches", are an impediment to curing poor vision. In his view, "strain" would increase as the eyes adjust to the correction in front of them. He thus recommended that glasses be discarded by anyone applying his method.
If while palming one ends up applying pressure to the eyes, this may increase the risk of glaucoma.
While Bates preferred to have patients imagine something black, he also reported that some found objects of other colors easiest to visualize, thus were benefited most by remembering those, because, he asserted, "the memory can never be perfect unless it is easy." Skeptics reason that the only benefit to eyesight gained from such techniques is itself imagined, and point out that familiar objects, including letters on an eye chart, can be recognized even when they appear less than clear.
Perhaps finding Bates' concepts of "shifting" and "swinging" too complicated, Bernarr Macfadden suggested simply moving the eyes up and down, from side to side, and shifting one's gaze between a near-point and a far-point.
In his magazine, Bates later suggested exposing only the white part of the eyeball to direct sunlight, and only for seconds at a time, after allowing the sun to shine on closed eyelids for a longer period. Posthumous publications of Bates' book omitted mention of the supposed benefits from direct sunlight shining on open eyes. Even on closed eyes, direct sunlight exposure poses a risk of damage to the eyelids, including skin cancer.
In late 1940, Corbett and her assistant were charged with violations of the Medical Practice Act of California for treating eyes without a license. At the trial, many of her students testified on her behalf, describing in detail how she had enabled them to discard their glasses. One witness testified that he had been almost blind from cataracts, but that after working with Corbett, his vision had improved to such an extent that for the first time he could read for eight hours at a stretch without glasses. Corbett explained in court that she was practicing neither optometry nor ophthalmology and represented herself not as a doctor, but only as an "instructor of eye training". Describing her method, she said, "We turn vision on by teaching the eyes to shift. We want the sense of motion to relieve staring, to end the fixed look. We use light to relax the eyes and to accustom them to the sun."
The trial attracted widespread interest, as did the "not guilty" verdict. The case spurred a bill in the Californian State Legislature that would have then made such vision "education" illegal without an optometric or medical license. After a lively campaign in the media, the bill was rejected.
In 1939, at the age of 45 and with eyesight that continued to deteriorate, he happened to hear of the Bates method and sought the help of Margaret Corbett, who gave him regular lessons. Three years later, he wrote The Art of Seeing, in which he related: "Within a couple of months, I was reading without spectacles, and what was better still, without strain and fatigue.... At the present time, my vision, though very far from normal, is about twice as good as it used to be when I wore spectacles." Describing the process, Huxley wrote, "Vision is not won by making an effort to get it: it comes to those who have learned to put their minds and eyes into a state of alert passivity, of dynamic relaxation." He expressed indifference regarding the veracity of Bates' explanation of how the eye focuses, stating, "my concern is not with the anatomical mechanism of accommodation, but with the art of seeing."
His case generated wide publicity, as well as scrutiny. Ophthalmologist Walter B. Lancaster, for example, suggested in 1944 that Huxley had "learned how to use what he has to better advantage" by training the "cerebral part of seeing", rather than actually improving the quality of the image on the retina.
In 1952, 10 years after writing The Art of Seeing, Huxley spoke at a Hollywood banquet, wearing no glasses, and according to Bennett Cerf, apparently reading his paper from the lectern without difficulty. In Cerf's words:
In response to this, Huxley wrote, "I often do use magnifying glasses where conditions of light are bad, and have never claimed to be able to read except under very good conditions." This underscored that he had not regained anything close to normal vision, and in fact never claimed that he had.
The heavily advertised "See Clearly Method" (of which sales were halted by a court order in November 2006, in response to what were found to be dishonest marketing practices) included "palming" and "light therapy", both adapted from Bates. The creators of the program, however, emphasized that they did not endorse Bates' approach overall.
In his 1992 book The Bates Method, A Complete Guide to Improving Eyesight—Naturally, "Bates method teacher" Peter Mansfield was very critical of eye care professionals for prescribing corrective lenses. The book included accounts of 12 "real cases", but did not report any information about refractive error.
Czech native John Slavicek claims to have created an "eye cure" that improves eyesight in three days, borrowing from ancient yogic eye exercises, visualizations from the Seth Material, and the Bates method. Although he has testimonials from his neighbor and others, several of his students indicate that he has greatly exaggerated their cases. Slavicek's self-published manual, Yoga for the Eyes, was rejected by an ophthalmologist who evaluated it, and evinced no interest from the World Health Organization and St. Erik's Eye Foundation in Sweden, as he had not conducted double-blind tests.
When corrective lenses are removed, vision can adapt to lessen the initial perceived blur, sometimes by more than two lines on an eye chart. This phenomenon is known as blur adaptation. Some studies have suggested that a learned ability to interpret blurred images may also account for perceived improvements in eyesight.
In 2005 the Ophthalmology Department of New Zealand's Christchurch Hospital published a review of forty-three studies regarding the use of eye exercises. They found that "As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises" to improve visual acuity, and concluded that "their use therefore remains controversial."
Philosopher Frank J. Leavitt has argued that the method Bates described would be Testability scientifically due to his emphasis on relaxation and visualization. Leavitt asked, "How can we tell whether someone has relaxed or imagined something, or just thinks that he or she has imagined it?" Regarding the possibility of a placebo trial, Leavitt commented, "I cannot conceive of how we could put someone in a situation where he thinks he has imagined something while we know that he has not."
Underlying concepts
Accommodation
Causes of sight problems
Treatments
Palming
Visualization
Movement
Sunning
After Bates
Margaret Darst Corbett
Aldous Huxley
Then suddenly he faltered—and the disturbing truth became obvious. He wasn't reading his address at all. He had learned it by heart. To refresh his memory, he brought the paper closer and closer to his eyes. When it was only an inch or so away, he still couldn't read it, and had to fish for a magnifying glass in his pocket to make the typing visible to him. It was an agonizing moment.
Modern variants
Possible reasons for claimed improvements
General research
General criticisms
Dead-end
Corrective lenses and safety
Avoidance of conventional treatment
See also
Further reading
External links
|
|
