http://ift.tt/1lDp39v
I recently learned of this fellow, Meir Schneider, who supposedly cured himself of blindness by intensive use of the Bates Method, a regimen of eye exercises popularized by the supposed quack William H. Bates in the late 1800's. Bates authored several books touting his method, one entitled Better Eyesight Without Glasses.
Here is a critique of Bates by Doctor of Optometry Phillip Pollack:
http://ift.tt/1g6JSTU
By all accounts Bates was a quack, who, although an M.D, believed that the eye focused when exterior muscles changed the shape of the eyeball even though it had been known since the days of Helmholtz in the mid 1800's, that the chief factor in the focusing function was the flexing/extending of the ciliary muscles, changing the curvature of the eye's lens.
Given Bates' reputation I can't believe that Schneider's employment of the Bates method cured his blindness but its tantalizing to think it might have.
Can anyone throw light on this paradox?
I recently learned of this fellow, Meir Schneider, who supposedly cured himself of blindness by intensive use of the Bates Method, a regimen of eye exercises popularized by the supposed quack William H. Bates in the late 1800's. Bates authored several books touting his method, one entitled Better Eyesight Without Glasses.
Here is a critique of Bates by Doctor of Optometry Phillip Pollack:
http://ift.tt/1g6JSTU
By all accounts Bates was a quack, who, although an M.D, believed that the eye focused when exterior muscles changed the shape of the eyeball even though it had been known since the days of Helmholtz in the mid 1800's, that the chief factor in the focusing function was the flexing/extending of the ciliary muscles, changing the curvature of the eye's lens.
Given Bates' reputation I can't believe that Schneider's employment of the Bates method cured his blindness but its tantalizing to think it might have.
Can anyone throw light on this paradox?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1lDp39x
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire