Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
How Long Will It Take?
How Long Will It Take?
[...How Long Will It Take?
This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish to be cured
of Impetfeet sight that it seems worth while to devote a little space
to its consideration. It is impossible, of course, to answer the
question definitely. Cure is a question of the mind, and people's
minds are different. While patients who have worn glasses are usually
harder to cure than those who have not, elderly persons who have worn
them for the better part of a lifetime are sometimes cured as quickly
as children under twelve who have never worn them. These cases are
very rare, but they do occur. Some patients can look at the letters on
the test card, or in a paragraph of fine print, and imagine them at
once to be perfectly black, with the result that they immediately
become able to read them. Some patients are able to palm almost
perfectly from the start, and nearly all can do it well enough to
improve their sight; some never become able to do it until their sight
has been improved by other means.
Most patients, when they look from one side of a large letter to
another, or from one side of the card to another, can imagine that the
letter, or the card, is moving in a direction opposite to the movement
of the eye. Others, whose condition may be no worse, take a week, or a
month, or longer, to do the same thing. A patient recently treated was
able to do almost everything I asked her to at the first visit. I
began, as I always do, by directing her to close and rest her eyes,
and, as in the case of most other patients, she was able to improve
her sight materially by this method. Then she went on to do a lot of
other things, some of which very few patients can do at the first
visit, while no one but herself, so far as I can remember, was ever
able to do all of them. She was able to stare at a letter and make her
sight worse, and she was able to look from one side of it to another
and imagine that it was moving in a direction opposite to the movement
of the eye. If the letter was seen perfectly, the movement was short,
rhythmical and easy; if it was seen imperfectly, it was longer, and
irregular. She could not imagine a letter stationary, and if she tried
to imagine it so, it blurred. When she looked at a line of letters
that she could read, she realized at once that one letter was seen
best and the adjoining ones worse; and when she looked at a line that
she could not read, she noted that they were seen all alike. She
demonstrated at once - which was very remarkable, that a perfect
memory is quick and easy, and an imperfect memory slow, difficult and
even impossible; that the first relieves fatigue and the second
induces discomfort. She also demonstrated that while it was easy to
imagine that a letter remembered perfectly was swinging, she either
could not imagine such a swing in the case of an imperfectly
remembered letter, or else the swing was longer and irregular. It is
hardly necessary to say that this patient became able at once to read
the whole card, even in a dim light. It was only when she came to fine
print that she failed. She could not imagine that the letters of
diamond type were swinging. She could imagine the universal swing [1]
when she looked two inches away from the letters, but she could not
imagine it when she looked between the lines.
These peculiarities of the mind cannot be known in advance, and
therefore it is seldom possible, in any given case, to make
predictions as to the length of time that will be required for a cure.
This much can be stated, however: that marked improvement is always
obtained in a few weeks. and that all patients obtain some benefit at
the first visit. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they are so
rare that I do not remember them.
As more facts are accumulated. and better ways of presenting things
learned, it becomes possible to cure people more quickly. I can cure
people more quickly today than I did a year ago, and I expect to cure
them next year more quickly than I do today. In the last three months,
seven or eight patients have been cured in one visit, with a little
additional help over the telephone.
When patients can give considerable time to the treatment they
naturally get on faster than those who cannot or will not do this.
When they follow instructions and do not waste time in discussion, or
in carrying out theories of their own, they also get on faster. One of
the advantages that children have over adults is that there minds are
not so full of erroneous ideas, and that they are accustomed to doing
as they are told.
The chief cause of delay seems to be that people will not believe the
truth after it is demonstrated to them. You can demonstrate to anyone
in a few minutes that rest improves the vision, but the idea that
everything worth while must be gained by effort is so deeply ingrained
in the average mind that you may not in a year be able to get it out,
and so long as the patient believes that his sight can be improved by
effort, he will make little progress.
In most cases it is necessary, in order to retain what has been
gained, to continue the treatment for a few minutes every day. When a
cure is complete it is always permanent. The patient need never think
of the matter again, and may even forget how he was cured. But
complete cures, which mean the attainment, not of what is ordinarily
called normal sight, but of a measure of telescopic and microscopic
vision, are very rare; and even in these cases the treatment may be
continued with benefit, for it is impossible to set limits to the
visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always
possible to improve it
------------------------------------
[1] When the patient becomes able to imagine that the letters on the
test card are swinging, everything else thought of also seems to be
swinging. This is the universal swing...]
- Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
[...How Long Will It Take?
This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish to be cured
of Impetfeet sight that it seems worth while to devote a little space
to its consideration. It is impossible, of course, to answer the
question definitely. Cure is a question of the mind, and people's
minds are different. While patients who have worn glasses are usually
harder to cure than those who have not, elderly persons who have worn
them for the better part of a lifetime are sometimes cured as quickly
as children under twelve who have never worn them. These cases are
very rare, but they do occur. Some patients can look at the letters on
the test card, or in a paragraph of fine print, and imagine them at
once to be perfectly black, with the result that they immediately
become able to read them. Some patients are able to palm almost
perfectly from the start, and nearly all can do it well enough to
improve their sight; some never become able to do it until their sight
has been improved by other means.
Most patients, when they look from one side of a large letter to
another, or from one side of the card to another, can imagine that the
letter, or the card, is moving in a direction opposite to the movement
of the eye. Others, whose condition may be no worse, take a week, or a
month, or longer, to do the same thing. A patient recently treated was
able to do almost everything I asked her to at the first visit. I
began, as I always do, by directing her to close and rest her eyes,
and, as in the case of most other patients, she was able to improve
her sight materially by this method. Then she went on to do a lot of
other things, some of which very few patients can do at the first
visit, while no one but herself, so far as I can remember, was ever
able to do all of them. She was able to stare at a letter and make her
sight worse, and she was able to look from one side of it to another
and imagine that it was moving in a direction opposite to the movement
of the eye. If the letter was seen perfectly, the movement was short,
rhythmical and easy; if it was seen imperfectly, it was longer, and
irregular. She could not imagine a letter stationary, and if she tried
to imagine it so, it blurred. When she looked at a line of letters
that she could read, she realized at once that one letter was seen
best and the adjoining ones worse; and when she looked at a line that
she could not read, she noted that they were seen all alike. She
demonstrated at once - which was very remarkable, that a perfect
memory is quick and easy, and an imperfect memory slow, difficult and
even impossible; that the first relieves fatigue and the second
induces discomfort. She also demonstrated that while it was easy to
imagine that a letter remembered perfectly was swinging, she either
could not imagine such a swing in the case of an imperfectly
remembered letter, or else the swing was longer and irregular. It is
hardly necessary to say that this patient became able at once to read
the whole card, even in a dim light. It was only when she came to fine
print that she failed. She could not imagine that the letters of
diamond type were swinging. She could imagine the universal swing [1]
when she looked two inches away from the letters, but she could not
imagine it when she looked between the lines.
These peculiarities of the mind cannot be known in advance, and
therefore it is seldom possible, in any given case, to make
predictions as to the length of time that will be required for a cure.
This much can be stated, however: that marked improvement is always
obtained in a few weeks. and that all patients obtain some benefit at
the first visit. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they are so
rare that I do not remember them.
As more facts are accumulated. and better ways of presenting things
learned, it becomes possible to cure people more quickly. I can cure
people more quickly today than I did a year ago, and I expect to cure
them next year more quickly than I do today. In the last three months,
seven or eight patients have been cured in one visit, with a little
additional help over the telephone.
When patients can give considerable time to the treatment they
naturally get on faster than those who cannot or will not do this.
When they follow instructions and do not waste time in discussion, or
in carrying out theories of their own, they also get on faster. One of
the advantages that children have over adults is that there minds are
not so full of erroneous ideas, and that they are accustomed to doing
as they are told.
The chief cause of delay seems to be that people will not believe the
truth after it is demonstrated to them. You can demonstrate to anyone
in a few minutes that rest improves the vision, but the idea that
everything worth while must be gained by effort is so deeply ingrained
in the average mind that you may not in a year be able to get it out,
and so long as the patient believes that his sight can be improved by
effort, he will make little progress.
In most cases it is necessary, in order to retain what has been
gained, to continue the treatment for a few minutes every day. When a
cure is complete it is always permanent. The patient need never think
of the matter again, and may even forget how he was cured. But
complete cures, which mean the attainment, not of what is ordinarily
called normal sight, but of a measure of telescopic and microscopic
vision, are very rare; and even in these cases the treatment may be
continued with benefit, for it is impossible to set limits to the
visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always
possible to improve it
------------------------------------
[1] When the patient becomes able to imagine that the letters on the
test card are swinging, everything else thought of also seems to be
swinging. This is the universal swing...]
- Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
Gullible posts another pool turd Re: How Long Will It Take?
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail . com > wrote
> for it is impossible to set limits to the
> visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always
> possible to improve it
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail . com > wrote
> for it is impossible to set limits to the
> visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always
> possible to improve it
Re: How Long Will It Take?
On Apr 22, 2:24 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> [...How Long Will It Take?
>
> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish..........
>
> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
Right, how long will it take to get rid of the constant flooding of
shoes spam, clothes spam, Bates spam and zetsu/otis?
On Apr 22, 2:24 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> [...How Long Will It Take?
>
> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish..........
>
> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
Right, how long will it take to get rid of the constant flooding of
shoes spam, clothes spam, Bates spam and zetsu/otis?
Re: How Long Will It Take?
Ms.Brainy wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:24 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>> [...How Long Will It Take?
>>
>> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish..........
>>
>> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
>
> Right, how long will it take to get rid of the constant flooding of
> shoes spam, clothes spam, Bates spam and zetsu/otis?
Blocking anything coming out of China would help...for a while. So
would blocking anything coming from people who use googlegroups at the
website. One day Thunderbird will have good filters...
BTW, does anybody really want me to keep posting the 'Welcome to s.m.v'
post? Would somebody else like to do it?
--
Cheers, Bev
=================================================================
"In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has
had to worry about where the next meal would come from."
-- Peter S. Drucker, who invented management
Ms.Brainy wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:24 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>> [...How Long Will It Take?
>>
>> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish..........
>>
>> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
>
> Right, how long will it take to get rid of the constant flooding of
> shoes spam, clothes spam, Bates spam and zetsu/otis?
Blocking anything coming out of China would help...for a while. So
would blocking anything coming from people who use googlegroups at the
website. One day Thunderbird will have good filters...
BTW, does anybody really want me to keep posting the 'Welcome to s.m.v'
post? Would somebody else like to do it?
--
Cheers, Bev
=================================================================
"In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has
had to worry about where the next meal would come from."
-- Peter S. Drucker, who invented management
Re: How Long Will It Take?
In article <d8xPj.229$xb.61@newsfe06.lga>,
The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail . com > wrote:
> BTW, does anybody really want me to keep posting the 'Welcome to s.m.v'
> post?
Yes. I see periodic references to it in different postings.
> Would somebody else like to do it?
I'm not volunteering.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic . net
In article <d8xPj.229$xb.61@newsfe06.lga>,
The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail . com > wrote:
> BTW, does anybody really want me to keep posting the 'Welcome to s.m.v'
> post?
Yes. I see periodic references to it in different postings.
> Would somebody else like to do it?
I'm not volunteering.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic . net
Re: How Long Will It Take?
On 23 Apr, 03:25, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail . com > wrote:
> Ms.Brainy wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 2:24 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> >> [...How Long Will It Take?
>
> >> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish..........
>
> >> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
>
> > Right, how long will it take to get rid of the constant flooding of
> > shoes spam, clothes spam, Bates spam and zetsu/otis?
>
> Blocking anything coming out of China would help...for a while. So
> would blocking anything coming from people who use googlegroups at the
> website. One day Thunderbird will have good filters...
Hi Mr. Real Bev. I was actually wondering if you would help me with
this. What with the recent slurge of advertising and all, recently I
tried to switch from Google Groups to using Mozilla Thunderbird (it
looked good and since I already have Firefox, I thought 'why not
complete the package?') but it was really confusing and I don't know
how all this NNTP newsserver stuff works. I tried signing in with my
hotmail account, but it didn't work (it was asking me for all these
weird stuff like Port Link or something) then I tried with my
googlemail account and it worked but it only let me access my mail and
didn't let me access newsgroups such as sci.med.vision which was the
whole point of me switching in the first place. So I was wondering if
you could show me how? I went to the options and I haven't got a clue
what to do now. What should I set as the newsserver URL? I searched on
google but everything was so difficult to understand, and I am rather
a n00b to the newsgroup world so I felt very overwhelmed and daunted.
Please help! Or if you know of any other free and simple newsreaders
that you can suggest to me, please do so! It's mainly so that I can
block out all of the advertisements, but for other reasons too (I
quite enjoy the newsreader interfaces).
On 23 Apr, 03:25, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail . com > wrote:
> Ms.Brainy wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 2:24 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> >> [...How Long Will It Take?
>
> >> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish..........
>
> >> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
>
> > Right, how long will it take to get rid of the constant flooding of
> > shoes spam, clothes spam, Bates spam and zetsu/otis?
>
> Blocking anything coming out of China would help...for a while. So
> would blocking anything coming from people who use googlegroups at the
> website. One day Thunderbird will have good filters...
Hi Mr. Real Bev. I was actually wondering if you would help me with
this. What with the recent slurge of advertising and all, recently I
tried to switch from Google Groups to using Mozilla Thunderbird (it
looked good and since I already have Firefox, I thought 'why not
complete the package?') but it was really confusing and I don't know
how all this NNTP newsserver stuff works. I tried signing in with my
hotmail account, but it didn't work (it was asking me for all these
weird stuff like Port Link or something) then I tried with my
googlemail account and it worked but it only let me access my mail and
didn't let me access newsgroups such as sci.med.vision which was the
whole point of me switching in the first place. So I was wondering if
you could show me how? I went to the options and I haven't got a clue
what to do now. What should I set as the newsserver URL? I searched on
google but everything was so difficult to understand, and I am rather
a n00b to the newsgroup world so I felt very overwhelmed and daunted.
Please help! Or if you know of any other free and simple newsreaders
that you can suggest to me, please do so! It's mainly so that I can
block out all of the advertisements, but for other reasons too (I
quite enjoy the newsreader interfaces).
Re: How Long Will It Take?
"... Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case
records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance."
Marten Gardner
"Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science"
1957
Zetsu wrote:
> [...How Long Will It Take?
>
> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish to be cured
> of Impetfeet sight that it seems worth while to devote a little space
> to its consideration. It is impossible, of course, to answer the
> question definitely. Cure is a question of the mind, and people's
> minds are different. While patients who have worn glasses are usually
> harder to cure than those who have not, elderly persons who have worn
> them for the better part of a lifetime are sometimes cured as quickly
> as children under twelve who have never worn them. These cases are
> very rare, but they do occur. Some patients can look at the letters on
> the test card, or in a paragraph of fine print, and imagine them at
> once to be perfectly black, with the result that they immediately
> become able to read them. Some patients are able to palm almost
> perfectly from the start, and nearly all can do it well enough to
> improve their sight; some never become able to do it until their sight
> has been improved by other means.
>
> Most patients, when they look from one side of a large letter to
> another, or from one side of the card to another, can imagine that the
> letter, or the card, is moving in a direction opposite to the movement
> of the eye. Others, whose condition may be no worse, take a week, or a
> month, or longer, to do the same thing. A patient recently treated was
> able to do almost everything I asked her to at the first visit. I
> began, as I always do, by directing her to close and rest her eyes,
> and, as in the case of most other patients, she was able to improve
> her sight materially by this method. Then she went on to do a lot of
> other things, some of which very few patients can do at the first
> visit, while no one but herself, so far as I can remember, was ever
> able to do all of them. She was able to stare at a letter and make her
> sight worse, and she was able to look from one side of it to another
> and imagine that it was moving in a direction opposite to the movement
> of the eye. If the letter was seen perfectly, the movement was short,
> rhythmical and easy; if it was seen imperfectly, it was longer, and
> irregular. She could not imagine a letter stationary, and if she tried
> to imagine it so, it blurred. When she looked at a line of letters
> that she could read, she realized at once that one letter was seen
> best and the adjoining ones worse; and when she looked at a line that
> she could not read, she noted that they were seen all alike. She
> demonstrated at once - which was very remarkable, that a perfect
> memory is quick and easy, and an imperfect memory slow, difficult and
> even impossible; that the first relieves fatigue and the second
> induces discomfort. She also demonstrated that while it was easy to
> imagine that a letter remembered perfectly was swinging, she either
> could not imagine such a swing in the case of an imperfectly
> remembered letter, or else the swing was longer and irregular. It is
> hardly necessary to say that this patient became able at once to read
> the whole card, even in a dim light. It was only when she came to fine
> print that she failed. She could not imagine that the letters of
> diamond type were swinging. She could imagine the universal swing [1]
> when she looked two inches away from the letters, but she could not
> imagine it when she looked between the lines.
>
> These peculiarities of the mind cannot be known in advance, and
> therefore it is seldom possible, in any given case, to make
> predictions as to the length of time that will be required for a cure.
> This much can be stated, however: that marked improvement is always
> obtained in a few weeks. and that all patients obtain some benefit at
> the first visit. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they are so
> rare that I do not remember them.
>
> As more facts are accumulated. and better ways of presenting things
> learned, it becomes possible to cure people more quickly. I can cure
> people more quickly today than I did a year ago, and I expect to cure
> them next year more quickly than I do today. In the last three months,
> seven or eight patients have been cured in one visit, with a little
> additional help over the telephone.
>
> When patients can give considerable time to the treatment they
> naturally get on faster than those who cannot or will not do this.
> When they follow instructions and do not waste time in discussion, or
> in carrying out theories of their own, they also get on faster. One of
> the advantages that children have over adults is that there minds are
> not so full of erroneous ideas, and that they are accustomed to doing
> as they are told.
>
> The chief cause of delay seems to be that people will not believe the
> truth after it is demonstrated to them. You can demonstrate to anyone
> in a few minutes that rest improves the vision, but the idea that
> everything worth while must be gained by effort is so deeply ingrained
> in the average mind that you may not in a year be able to get it out,
> and so long as the patient believes that his sight can be improved by
> effort, he will make little progress.
>
> In most cases it is necessary, in order to retain what has been
> gained, to continue the treatment for a few minutes every day. When a
> cure is complete it is always permanent. The patient need never think
> of the matter again, and may even forget how he was cured. But
> complete cures, which mean the attainment, not of what is ordinarily
> called normal sight, but of a measure of telescopic and microscopic
> vision, are very rare; and even in these cases the treatment may be
> continued with benefit, for it is impossible to set limits to the
> visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always
> possible to improve it
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> [1] When the patient becomes able to imagine that the letters on the
> test card are swinging, everything else thought of also seems to be
> swinging. This is the universal swing...]
>
> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
"... Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case
records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance."
Marten Gardner
"Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science"
1957
Zetsu wrote:
> [...How Long Will It Take?
>
> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish to be cured
> of Impetfeet sight that it seems worth while to devote a little space
> to its consideration. It is impossible, of course, to answer the
> question definitely. Cure is a question of the mind, and people's
> minds are different. While patients who have worn glasses are usually
> harder to cure than those who have not, elderly persons who have worn
> them for the better part of a lifetime are sometimes cured as quickly
> as children under twelve who have never worn them. These cases are
> very rare, but they do occur. Some patients can look at the letters on
> the test card, or in a paragraph of fine print, and imagine them at
> once to be perfectly black, with the result that they immediately
> become able to read them. Some patients are able to palm almost
> perfectly from the start, and nearly all can do it well enough to
> improve their sight; some never become able to do it until their sight
> has been improved by other means.
>
> Most patients, when they look from one side of a large letter to
> another, or from one side of the card to another, can imagine that the
> letter, or the card, is moving in a direction opposite to the movement
> of the eye. Others, whose condition may be no worse, take a week, or a
> month, or longer, to do the same thing. A patient recently treated was
> able to do almost everything I asked her to at the first visit. I
> began, as I always do, by directing her to close and rest her eyes,
> and, as in the case of most other patients, she was able to improve
> her sight materially by this method. Then she went on to do a lot of
> other things, some of which very few patients can do at the first
> visit, while no one but herself, so far as I can remember, was ever
> able to do all of them. She was able to stare at a letter and make her
> sight worse, and she was able to look from one side of it to another
> and imagine that it was moving in a direction opposite to the movement
> of the eye. If the letter was seen perfectly, the movement was short,
> rhythmical and easy; if it was seen imperfectly, it was longer, and
> irregular. She could not imagine a letter stationary, and if she tried
> to imagine it so, it blurred. When she looked at a line of letters
> that she could read, she realized at once that one letter was seen
> best and the adjoining ones worse; and when she looked at a line that
> she could not read, she noted that they were seen all alike. She
> demonstrated at once - which was very remarkable, that a perfect
> memory is quick and easy, and an imperfect memory slow, difficult and
> even impossible; that the first relieves fatigue and the second
> induces discomfort. She also demonstrated that while it was easy to
> imagine that a letter remembered perfectly was swinging, she either
> could not imagine such a swing in the case of an imperfectly
> remembered letter, or else the swing was longer and irregular. It is
> hardly necessary to say that this patient became able at once to read
> the whole card, even in a dim light. It was only when she came to fine
> print that she failed. She could not imagine that the letters of
> diamond type were swinging. She could imagine the universal swing [1]
> when she looked two inches away from the letters, but she could not
> imagine it when she looked between the lines.
>
> These peculiarities of the mind cannot be known in advance, and
> therefore it is seldom possible, in any given case, to make
> predictions as to the length of time that will be required for a cure.
> This much can be stated, however: that marked improvement is always
> obtained in a few weeks. and that all patients obtain some benefit at
> the first visit. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they are so
> rare that I do not remember them.
>
> As more facts are accumulated. and better ways of presenting things
> learned, it becomes possible to cure people more quickly. I can cure
> people more quickly today than I did a year ago, and I expect to cure
> them next year more quickly than I do today. In the last three months,
> seven or eight patients have been cured in one visit, with a little
> additional help over the telephone.
>
> When patients can give considerable time to the treatment they
> naturally get on faster than those who cannot or will not do this.
> When they follow instructions and do not waste time in discussion, or
> in carrying out theories of their own, they also get on faster. One of
> the advantages that children have over adults is that there minds are
> not so full of erroneous ideas, and that they are accustomed to doing
> as they are told.
>
> The chief cause of delay seems to be that people will not believe the
> truth after it is demonstrated to them. You can demonstrate to anyone
> in a few minutes that rest improves the vision, but the idea that
> everything worth while must be gained by effort is so deeply ingrained
> in the average mind that you may not in a year be able to get it out,
> and so long as the patient believes that his sight can be improved by
> effort, he will make little progress.
>
> In most cases it is necessary, in order to retain what has been
> gained, to continue the treatment for a few minutes every day. When a
> cure is complete it is always permanent. The patient need never think
> of the matter again, and may even forget how he was cured. But
> complete cures, which mean the attainment, not of what is ordinarily
> called normal sight, but of a measure of telescopic and microscopic
> vision, are very rare; and even in these cases the treatment may be
> continued with benefit, for it is impossible to set limits to the
> visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always
> possible to improve it
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> [1] When the patient becomes able to imagine that the letters on the
> test card are swinging, everything else thought of also seems to be
> swinging. This is the universal swing...]
>
> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
Re: How Long Will It Take?
"...Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case
records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance."
Martin Gardner
"Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science"
1957, Dover, p.231
Zetsu wrote:
> [...How Long Will It Take?
>
> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish to be cured
> of Impetfeet sight that it seems worth while to devote a little space
> to its consideration. It is impossible, of course, to answer the
> question definitely. Cure is a question of the mind, and people's
> minds are different. While patients who have worn glasses are usually
> harder to cure than those who have not, elderly persons who have worn
> them for the better part of a lifetime are sometimes cured as quickly
> as children under twelve who have never worn them. These cases are
> very rare, but they do occur. Some patients can look at the letters on
> the test card, or in a paragraph of fine print, and imagine them at
> once to be perfectly black, with the result that they immediately
> become able to read them. Some patients are able to palm almost
> perfectly from the start, and nearly all can do it well enough to
> improve their sight; some never become able to do it until their sight
> has been improved by other means.
>
> Most patients, when they look from one side of a large letter to
> another, or from one side of the card to another, can imagine that the
> letter, or the card, is moving in a direction opposite to the movement
> of the eye. Others, whose condition may be no worse, take a week, or a
> month, or longer, to do the same thing. A patient recently treated was
> able to do almost everything I asked her to at the first visit. I
> began, as I always do, by directing her to close and rest her eyes,
> and, as in the case of most other patients, she was able to improve
> her sight materially by this method. Then she went on to do a lot of
> other things, some of which very few patients can do at the first
> visit, while no one but herself, so far as I can remember, was ever
> able to do all of them. She was able to stare at a letter and make her
> sight worse, and she was able to look from one side of it to another
> and imagine that it was moving in a direction opposite to the movement
> of the eye. If the letter was seen perfectly, the movement was short,
> rhythmical and easy; if it was seen imperfectly, it was longer, and
> irregular. She could not imagine a letter stationary, and if she tried
> to imagine it so, it blurred. When she looked at a line of letters
> that she could read, she realized at once that one letter was seen
> best and the adjoining ones worse; and when she looked at a line that
> she could not read, she noted that they were seen all alike. She
> demonstrated at once - which was very remarkable, that a perfect
> memory is quick and easy, and an imperfect memory slow, difficult and
> even impossible; that the first relieves fatigue and the second
> induces discomfort. She also demonstrated that while it was easy to
> imagine that a letter remembered perfectly was swinging, she either
> could not imagine such a swing in the case of an imperfectly
> remembered letter, or else the swing was longer and irregular. It is
> hardly necessary to say that this patient became able at once to read
> the whole card, even in a dim light. It was only when she came to fine
> print that she failed. She could not imagine that the letters of
> diamond type were swinging. She could imagine the universal swing [1]
> when she looked two inches away from the letters, but she could not
> imagine it when she looked between the lines.
>
> These peculiarities of the mind cannot be known in advance, and
> therefore it is seldom possible, in any given case, to make
> predictions as to the length of time that will be required for a cure.
> This much can be stated, however: that marked improvement is always
> obtained in a few weeks. and that all patients obtain some benefit at
> the first visit. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they are so
> rare that I do not remember them.
>
> As more facts are accumulated. and better ways of presenting things
> learned, it becomes possible to cure people more quickly. I can cure
> people more quickly today than I did a year ago, and I expect to cure
> them next year more quickly than I do today. In the last three months,
> seven or eight patients have been cured in one visit, with a little
> additional help over the telephone.
>
> When patients can give considerable time to the treatment they
> naturally get on faster than those who cannot or will not do this.
> When they follow instructions and do not waste time in discussion, or
> in carrying out theories of their own, they also get on faster. One of
> the advantages that children have over adults is that there minds are
> not so full of erroneous ideas, and that they are accustomed to doing
> as they are told.
>
> The chief cause of delay seems to be that people will not believe the
> truth after it is demonstrated to them. You can demonstrate to anyone
> in a few minutes that rest improves the vision, but the idea that
> everything worth while must be gained by effort is so deeply ingrained
> in the average mind that you may not in a year be able to get it out,
> and so long as the patient believes that his sight can be improved by
> effort, he will make little progress.
>
> In most cases it is necessary, in order to retain what has been
> gained, to continue the treatment for a few minutes every day. When a
> cure is complete it is always permanent. The patient need never think
> of the matter again, and may even forget how he was cured. But
> complete cures, which mean the attainment, not of what is ordinarily
> called normal sight, but of a measure of telescopic and microscopic
> vision, are very rare; and even in these cases the treatment may be
> continued with benefit, for it is impossible to set limits to the
> visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always
> possible to improve it
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> [1] When the patient becomes able to imagine that the letters on the
> test card are swinging, everything else thought of also seems to be
> swinging. This is the universal swing...]
>
> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
"...Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case
records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance."
Martin Gardner
"Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science"
1957, Dover, p.231
Zetsu wrote:
> [...How Long Will It Take?
>
> This question is asked so constantly by persons who wish to be cured
> of Impetfeet sight that it seems worth while to devote a little space
> to its consideration. It is impossible, of course, to answer the
> question definitely. Cure is a question of the mind, and people's
> minds are different. While patients who have worn glasses are usually
> harder to cure than those who have not, elderly persons who have worn
> them for the better part of a lifetime are sometimes cured as quickly
> as children under twelve who have never worn them. These cases are
> very rare, but they do occur. Some patients can look at the letters on
> the test card, or in a paragraph of fine print, and imagine them at
> once to be perfectly black, with the result that they immediately
> become able to read them. Some patients are able to palm almost
> perfectly from the start, and nearly all can do it well enough to
> improve their sight; some never become able to do it until their sight
> has been improved by other means.
>
> Most patients, when they look from one side of a large letter to
> another, or from one side of the card to another, can imagine that the
> letter, or the card, is moving in a direction opposite to the movement
> of the eye. Others, whose condition may be no worse, take a week, or a
> month, or longer, to do the same thing. A patient recently treated was
> able to do almost everything I asked her to at the first visit. I
> began, as I always do, by directing her to close and rest her eyes,
> and, as in the case of most other patients, she was able to improve
> her sight materially by this method. Then she went on to do a lot of
> other things, some of which very few patients can do at the first
> visit, while no one but herself, so far as I can remember, was ever
> able to do all of them. She was able to stare at a letter and make her
> sight worse, and she was able to look from one side of it to another
> and imagine that it was moving in a direction opposite to the movement
> of the eye. If the letter was seen perfectly, the movement was short,
> rhythmical and easy; if it was seen imperfectly, it was longer, and
> irregular. She could not imagine a letter stationary, and if she tried
> to imagine it so, it blurred. When she looked at a line of letters
> that she could read, she realized at once that one letter was seen
> best and the adjoining ones worse; and when she looked at a line that
> she could not read, she noted that they were seen all alike. She
> demonstrated at once - which was very remarkable, that a perfect
> memory is quick and easy, and an imperfect memory slow, difficult and
> even impossible; that the first relieves fatigue and the second
> induces discomfort. She also demonstrated that while it was easy to
> imagine that a letter remembered perfectly was swinging, she either
> could not imagine such a swing in the case of an imperfectly
> remembered letter, or else the swing was longer and irregular. It is
> hardly necessary to say that this patient became able at once to read
> the whole card, even in a dim light. It was only when she came to fine
> print that she failed. She could not imagine that the letters of
> diamond type were swinging. She could imagine the universal swing [1]
> when she looked two inches away from the letters, but she could not
> imagine it when she looked between the lines.
>
> These peculiarities of the mind cannot be known in advance, and
> therefore it is seldom possible, in any given case, to make
> predictions as to the length of time that will be required for a cure.
> This much can be stated, however: that marked improvement is always
> obtained in a few weeks. and that all patients obtain some benefit at
> the first visit. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they are so
> rare that I do not remember them.
>
> As more facts are accumulated. and better ways of presenting things
> learned, it becomes possible to cure people more quickly. I can cure
> people more quickly today than I did a year ago, and I expect to cure
> them next year more quickly than I do today. In the last three months,
> seven or eight patients have been cured in one visit, with a little
> additional help over the telephone.
>
> When patients can give considerable time to the treatment they
> naturally get on faster than those who cannot or will not do this.
> When they follow instructions and do not waste time in discussion, or
> in carrying out theories of their own, they also get on faster. One of
> the advantages that children have over adults is that there minds are
> not so full of erroneous ideas, and that they are accustomed to doing
> as they are told.
>
> The chief cause of delay seems to be that people will not believe the
> truth after it is demonstrated to them. You can demonstrate to anyone
> in a few minutes that rest improves the vision, but the idea that
> everything worth while must be gained by effort is so deeply ingrained
> in the average mind that you may not in a year be able to get it out,
> and so long as the patient believes that his sight can be improved by
> effort, he will make little progress.
>
> In most cases it is necessary, in order to retain what has been
> gained, to continue the treatment for a few minutes every day. When a
> cure is complete it is always permanent. The patient need never think
> of the matter again, and may even forget how he was cured. But
> complete cures, which mean the attainment, not of what is ordinarily
> called normal sight, but of a measure of telescopic and microscopic
> vision, are very rare; and even in these cases the treatment may be
> continued with benefit, for it is impossible to set limits to the
> visual powers of man, and no matter how good the sight, it is always
> possible to improve it
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> [1] When the patient becomes able to imagine that the letters on the
> test card are swinging, everything else thought of also seems to be
> swinging. This is the universal swing...]
>
> - Dr. W.H. Bates, January 1920
Re: How Long Will It Take?
On 23 Apr, 02:03, riserman <riser...@optonline . net > wrote:
> "...Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case
> records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance."
>
> Martin Gardner
> "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science"
> 1957, Dover, p.231
[Gardiner] can only suggest that the case records were exaggerated.
The inferences are clearly drawn out.
As for anatomical ignorance... In 1885 Bates graduated with a medical
degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at the prestigious
Columbia University in New York. In 1886 he introduced a new operation
for persistent deafness, consisting of puncturing or incising the ear
drum membrane. In that same year, he discovered the stringent and
hemostatic properties of the aqueous extract of the suprarenal
capsule, later commercialized as adrenalin. From 1886-1888 he was
clinical assistant at the Manhattan Eye and Ear hospital and attending
physician at Bellevue hospital. From 1886-1891 he was instructor in
ophthalmology at the New York Post Graduate Hospital and Medical
School. From 1886-1898 he was attending physician at the New York Eye
Infirmary, Northern Dispensary, Northeastern dispensary, Northwestern
Dispensary, and Harlem Hospital. In 1894 he invented the astigmatic
keratotomy operation. There is no dispute that during this time period
he was an ophthalmologist of high standing who was well respected by
his peers.
With all this, how is it possible that Dr. Bates was anything less
than extremely proficient with the facts and accepted theories of
anatomy? That Dr. Bates with this background, plus years of
experimentation beginning in 1896, challenged the accepted theories of
ophthalmology makes his statements all that more powerful. As noted
above, he was well respected by his peers, yet when he began making
statements about the cure of myopia and other vision problems, he was
ostracized and ignored.
He published several articles on his cure of defective eyesight in
well-known, reputable medical journals of his day. Any such journal
would carefully verify the claims of every contributor in order to
ensure its own respectable standing as a journal of accurate
information, especially when those articles blatantly and accusingly
disputed the very core accepted principles of medical science. For a
doctor to make it into the medical journals is a high accomplishment.
Dr. Bates was challenging up-front the theories on which practically
every eye doctor in the country based his practice on, in doing so
making significant enemies. With the editors of the medical journals
knowing full well the controversy surrounding Bates's statements and
how the reputation of the journal would be ruined should they provide
inaccurate information, how could there be any chance that the editors
would not put all the resources necessary into verifying the accuracy
of the information Bates was submitting, before publishing it? That
says a lot. -Kiesling
On 23 Apr, 02:03, riserman <riser...@optonline . net > wrote:
> "...Bate's work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case
> records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance."
>
> Martin Gardner
> "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science"
> 1957, Dover, p.231
[Gardiner] can only suggest that the case records were exaggerated.
The inferences are clearly drawn out.
As for anatomical ignorance... In 1885 Bates graduated with a medical
degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at the prestigious
Columbia University in New York. In 1886 he introduced a new operation
for persistent deafness, consisting of puncturing or incising the ear
drum membrane. In that same year, he discovered the stringent and
hemostatic properties of the aqueous extract of the suprarenal
capsule, later commercialized as adrenalin. From 1886-1888 he was
clinical assistant at the Manhattan Eye and Ear hospital and attending
physician at Bellevue hospital. From 1886-1891 he was instructor in
ophthalmology at the New York Post Graduate Hospital and Medical
School. From 1886-1898 he was attending physician at the New York Eye
Infirmary, Northern Dispensary, Northeastern dispensary, Northwestern
Dispensary, and Harlem Hospital. In 1894 he invented the astigmatic
keratotomy operation. There is no dispute that during this time period
he was an ophthalmologist of high standing who was well respected by
his peers.
With all this, how is it possible that Dr. Bates was anything less
than extremely proficient with the facts and accepted theories of
anatomy? That Dr. Bates with this background, plus years of
experimentation beginning in 1896, challenged the accepted theories of
ophthalmology makes his statements all that more powerful. As noted
above, he was well respected by his peers, yet when he began making
statements about the cure of myopia and other vision problems, he was
ostracized and ignored.
He published several articles on his cure of defective eyesight in
well-known, reputable medical journals of his day. Any such journal
would carefully verify the claims of every contributor in order to
ensure its own respectable standing as a journal of accurate
information, especially when those articles blatantly and accusingly
disputed the very core accepted principles of medical science. For a
doctor to make it into the medical journals is a high accomplishment.
Dr. Bates was challenging up-front the theories on which practically
every eye doctor in the country based his practice on, in doing so
making significant enemies. With the editors of the medical journals
knowing full well the controversy surrounding Bates's statements and
how the reputation of the journal would be ruined should they provide
inaccurate information, how could there be any chance that the editors
would not put all the resources necessary into verifying the accuracy
of the information Bates was submitting, before publishing it? That
says a lot. -Kiesling
Re: How Long Will It Take?
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail . com > wrote
> [Gardiner] can only suggest that the case records were exaggerated.
> The inferences are clearly drawn out.
Never mind that cases such as Bates describes have NEVER BEEN DUPLICATED BY
ANY PRACTITIONER BESIDES BATES.
> As for anatomical ignorance... In 1885 Bates graduated with a medical
> degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at the prestigious
> Columbia University in New York.
Yes but YOU could qualify for the degree offered in 1885. That hardly makes
YOU an expert.
> In 1886 he introduced a new operation
> for persistent deafness, consisting of puncturing or incising the ear
> drum membrane.
Nature introduced that operation hundreds of thousands of years earlier.
Bates took credit for it, but tympanectomy with a sharp instrument is only
slightly better than letting the eardrum burst on its own.
> With all this, how is it possible that Dr. Bates was anything less
> than extremely proficient with the facts and accepted theories of
> anatomy?
Hmm.. microscopic staining, electron microscopy, nucleotide uptake,
evolutionary and molecular biology, CAT/MRI, finite element analysis... 100
years of science that are MISSING FROM YOUR DICTIONARY.
> That Dr. Bates with this background, plus years of
> experimentation beginning in 1896, challenged the accepted theories of
> ophthalmology makes his statements all that more powerful.
Problem is, the accepted theories proved more reliable. The oblique muscles
do not control accommodation. Imagination does not cure myopia. Astigmatism
does not disappear throughout the day.
> above, he was well respected by his peers, yet when he began making
> statements about the cure of myopia and other vision problems, he was
> ostracized and ignored.
Because his peers COULD NOT MAKE HIS CURES WORK. NOR CAN YOU.
> inaccurate information, how could there be any chance that the editors
> would not put all the resources necessary into verifying the accuracy
> of the information Bates was submitting, before publishing it? That
> says a lot.
Except the CURES STILL DON'T WORK.
IF YOU CAN'T DEMONSTRATE STATISTICAL EFFICACY, YOU ARE A FRAUD.
-MT
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail . com > wrote
> [Gardiner] can only suggest that the case records were exaggerated.
> The inferences are clearly drawn out.
Never mind that cases such as Bates describes have NEVER BEEN DUPLICATED BY
ANY PRACTITIONER BESIDES BATES.
> As for anatomical ignorance... In 1885 Bates graduated with a medical
> degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at the prestigious
> Columbia University in New York.
Yes but YOU could qualify for the degree offered in 1885. That hardly makes
YOU an expert.
> In 1886 he introduced a new operation
> for persistent deafness, consisting of puncturing or incising the ear
> drum membrane.
Nature introduced that operation hundreds of thousands of years earlier.
Bates took credit for it, but tympanectomy with a sharp instrument is only
slightly better than letting the eardrum burst on its own.
> With all this, how is it possible that Dr. Bates was anything less
> than extremely proficient with the facts and accepted theories of
> anatomy?
Hmm.. microscopic staining, electron microscopy, nucleotide uptake,
evolutionary and molecular biology, CAT/MRI, finite element analysis... 100
years of science that are MISSING FROM YOUR DICTIONARY.
> That Dr. Bates with this background, plus years of
> experimentation beginning in 1896, challenged the accepted theories of
> ophthalmology makes his statements all that more powerful.
Problem is, the accepted theories proved more reliable. The oblique muscles
do not control accommodation. Imagination does not cure myopia. Astigmatism
does not disappear throughout the day.
> above, he was well respected by his peers, yet when he began making
> statements about the cure of myopia and other vision problems, he was
> ostracized and ignored.
Because his peers COULD NOT MAKE HIS CURES WORK. NOR CAN YOU.
> inaccurate information, how could there be any chance that the editors
> would not put all the resources necessary into verifying the accuracy
> of the information Bates was submitting, before publishing it? That
> says a lot.
Except the CURES STILL DON'T WORK.
IF YOU CAN'T DEMONSTRATE STATISTICAL EFFICACY, YOU ARE A FRAUD.
-MT
Next: Calling All Retailers - We are Seeking Sellers for A Unique Multivitamin & Minerals...
Previous: Seiko Succeed lenses and coating?
