Talk:Bates method

Risks of sunning and palming

The recently updated AllAboutVision article now mentions a risk of sunning even on closed eyelids, and also a possible risk of palming. An old version of that article is cited here. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In the light of this (and other references in the article to risks), I propose amending "ineffective" in the lede to "ineffective and potentially dangerous". -- Jmc (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't argue with "potentially dangerous". The only question is whether it is necessary to state that in the first sentence when the intro already mentions possible risks. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nemine contradicente, I'll make my proposed change. While it's true that possible risks are mentioned later in the lede, the addition of "potentially dangerous" serves to signal a significant issue right up front. -- Jmc (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The article should probably also mention the specific risks discussed in the AllAboutVision article. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Possibly in a separate section under General criticisms headed 'Risks'? Certainly the increased risk from palming of glaucoma is mentioned nowhere else and is concerning. -- Jmc (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that the point about palming and glaucoma could be in the Palming section, and the point about sunning on closed eyelids could be in the Sunning section. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley

Here's a fairly new source regarding Aldous Huxley and the Bates method: [1] Anything worth noting here or in related articles? Belteshazzar (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, should Huxley be mentioned in the intro? He was previously, and this was removed in a larger deletion. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Pollack and Quackwatch

[2] See the bottom of this page: "This article was originally published as Chapter 3 in Dr. Pollack’s book The Truth about Eye Exercises, published in 1956 by the Chilton Co of Philadelphia." "This page was posted on July 8, 2000." Looking at the early article history, it appears that the Quackwatch page was the original link for this source, and at some point it was replaced by the Hathitrust link, which contains the full book. But it is definitely the same source as the one which follows, whether we link to Quackwatch or Hathitrust. And the reference should make clear that it is from 1956, not 2000. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem was that the existing 'pollack' ref ("Chapter 3: Fallacies of the Bates System") linked not to Chapter 3 ('seq=41') but to the title page ('seq=7'). I've corrected it. -- Jmc (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Here is a photograph from Bates's own book. You can find it reproduced, without any disclaimer, on modern websites promoting the Bates Method. ApLundell (talk)

Absolutely nothing in the Bates methods are dangerous. This claim at the very forefront if this page is indicative of deceitful attempts to invoke fear in favor of Hemholtz doctrine in allopathic medicine. Dr. Bates’ methods are natural, yet time consuming, but not even remotely as dangerous as the allopathic modalities that cause permanent vision loss. Bates methods are the polar opposite, healing and well documented. To give a specific example, palming involves cupped hands so that the eyes are free to move about under the cover of the hands. There is NO pressure involved, this no risk for glaucoma. Any suggestions that Bates method techniques are dangerous are of a shallow and oppositional nature, focusing on the writer’s own confirmation bias; perhaps an allopathic eye surgeon who stands to gain job security by instilling fear in what is a most natural and effective approach to eye health. 173.174.196.79 (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

To give a specific example, palming involves cupped hands so that the eyes are free to move about under the cover of the hands. There's no need to speculate like that on which techniques are dangerous. The lead says so: they might damage their eyes through overexposure to sunlight, not wear their corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop. There is also a picture of sunning in the article. Any suggestions that Bates method techniques are dangerous are of a shallow and oppositional nature. Well, what about Even on closed eyes, direct sunlight exposure poses a risk of damage to the eyelids, including skin cancer.[16]? Leijurv (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No, possible sockpuppet of topic-banned user. We are not going to promote pseudoscience in this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to leave this page alone, but due to your insinuation, I will point out that I'm the one who added the possible risks of palming, and sunning on closed eyelids. [3] Belteshazzar (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)