Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
You can't beat Bates
You can't beat Bates
Subject: His opinion on the "cause" of myopia.
http :// www .i-see.org/early bates/bates myopia1912a.html
As always,
Enjoy,
Subject: His opinion on the "cause" of myopia.
http :// www .i-see.org/early bates/bates myopia1912a.html
As always,
Enjoy,
Re: You can't beat Bates for fraud
On Apr 9, 6:29 pm, spammer <sereb...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Sad thing is you're old enough to know better.
One might wonder why Otis hasn't used all this wisdom and lore to ...
um ... do anything about his six diopters of myopia.
Hmmmm.
Instead he leans toward prevention.
Ask Mike Tyner about shark repellent. It's a far more compelling case
than anything Otis ever put forward.
On Apr 9, 6:29 pm, spammer <sereb...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Sad thing is you're old enough to know better.
One might wonder why Otis hasn't used all this wisdom and lore to ...
um ... do anything about his six diopters of myopia.
Hmmmm.
Instead he leans toward prevention.
Ask Mike Tyner about shark repellent. It's a far more compelling case
than anything Otis ever put forward.
Re: BATES IS NOT A FRAUD!
Dear spammer,
Dr. Bates is not a fraud.
If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York
Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would
want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates'
claims before publishing it?
Do you think Dr. Bates was some kind of evil genius? That he could
fool the most intelligent, high class scientists of his time? That the
publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every
single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man!
Dear spammer,
Dr. Bates is not a fraud.
If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York
Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would
want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates'
claims before publishing it?
Do you think Dr. Bates was some kind of evil genius? That he could
fool the most intelligent, high class scientists of his time? That the
publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every
single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man!
Re: BATES IS NOT A FRAUD!
Dear Zetsu,
Subject: How a second-opinion develops.
No, Dr. Bates was not a "fraud".
He expresses the concept that the over-prescribed minus is dangerous,
or has a serious "secondary" problem.
Some of his concepts are correct -- like this one. Other concepts
perhaps need further review and evaluation.
But he was a very vocal critic of that minus -- and we can
agree that OBJECTION to that minus is indeed
the second-opinion.
Enjoy,
On Apr 10, 4:11 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Dear spammer,
>
> Dr. Bates is not a fraud.
>
> If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York
> Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would
> want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates'
> claims before publishing it?
>
> Do you think Dr. Bates was some kind of evil genius? That he could
> fool the most intelligent, high class scientists of his time? That the
> publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every
> single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man!
Dear Zetsu,
Subject: How a second-opinion develops.
No, Dr. Bates was not a "fraud".
He expresses the concept that the over-prescribed minus is dangerous,
or has a serious "secondary" problem.
Some of his concepts are correct -- like this one. Other concepts
perhaps need further review and evaluation.
But he was a very vocal critic of that minus -- and we can
agree that OBJECTION to that minus is indeed
the second-opinion.
Enjoy,
On Apr 10, 4:11 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Dear spammer,
>
> Dr. Bates is not a fraud.
>
> If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York
> Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would
> want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates'
> claims before publishing it?
>
> Do you think Dr. Bates was some kind of evil genius? That he could
> fool the most intelligent, high class scientists of his time? That the
> publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every
> single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man!
Re: BATES IS A FRAUD!
On Apr 10, 4:11 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Dear spammer,
>
> Dr. Bates is not a fraud.
>
> If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York
> Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would
> want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates'
> claims before publishing it?
His theories have proven invalid, anything after becomes a fraud.
>
> Do you think Dr. Bates was some kind of evil genius? That he could
> fool the most intelligent, high class scientists of his time? That the
> publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every
> single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man!
Evil, no. I'll take my reality over yours any day.
On Apr 10, 4:11 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Dear spammer,
>
> Dr. Bates is not a fraud.
>
> If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York
> Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would
> want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates'
> claims before publishing it?
His theories have proven invalid, anything after becomes a fraud.
>
> Do you think Dr. Bates was some kind of evil genius? That he could
> fool the most intelligent, high class scientists of his time? That the
> publishers of the journal would not check to verify each and every
> single observation? I think you should get a reality check, man!
Evil, no. I'll take my reality over yours any day.
Re: BATES IS A FRAUD!
On 11 Apr, 03:40, spammer <sereb...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:11 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > Dear spammer,
>
> > Dr. Bates is not a fraud.
>
> > If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York
> > Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would
> > want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates'
> > claims before publishing it?
>
> His theories have proven invalid, anything after becomes a fraud.
How? If I cry 'wolf', 'wolf' on one occasion, when there really is no
wolf, then that makes me a fraud on that occasion. If on a later
occasion I cry 'WOLF, WOLF!' and there really is a wolf, then I am not
a fraud. Basically I am saying, even if one theory has been proven
invalid, you can't say EVERYTHING else was invalid. You have to
investigate first.
On 11 Apr, 03:40, spammer <sereb...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:11 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > Dear spammer,
>
> > Dr. Bates is not a fraud.
>
> > If he was, then how did he get his stuff published in the New York
> > Medical Journal? Don't you think a journal of such high standard would
> > want to maintain their reputation by thoroughly validating Dr. Bates'
> > claims before publishing it?
>
> His theories have proven invalid, anything after becomes a fraud.
How? If I cry 'wolf', 'wolf' on one occasion, when there really is no
wolf, then that makes me a fraud on that occasion. If on a later
occasion I cry 'WOLF, WOLF!' and there really is a wolf, then I am not
a fraud. Basically I am saying, even if one theory has been proven
invalid, you can't say EVERYTHING else was invalid. You have to
investigate first.
