Jako że mi się trochę dostało za szarlatana;) to podczytałem nieco. Nie mam własnego zdania, więc odpowiem cytatami:
byl lekarzem I jego teoria naukowa jest w pelni uzasadniona.
"The efficacy of the method is questionable, and his theory that the eye does not focus by changing the power of the lens, but rather by elongating the eyeball, through use of the extraocular oblique muscles, was contradicted by mainstream ophthalmology and optometry of his day and still is today."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bates_(physician)Skutecznosc 90%.
"n 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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method#General_researchCalosc teorii opiera sie o nierownowage napiecia miesni galki ocznej w wyniku czego pogarsza sie wzrok. To tak naturalny proces jak ogeaniczenie wydolnosci oddechowej przy wadach postawy I patologicznym napieciu mm kregoslupa.
"Bates adhered to a different explanation of accommodation which had already been generally disregarded by the medical community of his time. This model had the muscles surrounding the eyeball controlling its focus.(...) Commenting on this hypothesis in an interview with WebMD, ophthalmologist Richard E. Bensinger stated "When we put drops in the eye to dilate the pupil, they paralyze the focusing muscles. The evidence of the anatomical fallacy is that you can't focus, but your eye can move up and down, left and right. The notion that external muscles affect focusing is totally wrong."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method#Accommodation
