On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:03:53 AM UTC-8, Mike wrote:
On 11/20/2013 9:02 AM, RobertMacy wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:21:10 -0700, Moe DeLoughan wrote:



...snip... all the personal experience/information

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:



...snip...excellent writing and to keep Aioe happyThe article is a

good read. It includes quite a list of quack eye-exercise promoters

and the legal action taken against them.





Yes, it is a good read, thank you for sharing. However, to make solid

scientific progress, just as one MUST question assertions, one must also

NOT ignore observations. At least the Germans [when they debunked 'water

witching'] added the caveat of, words to the effect, 'there may be more

involved than we controlled in our experiments' allowing all the

'observed' experiences to remain in tact without referring to those

experiences as 'bull****'.



Mankind will not make any progress in controlling life on earth with a

constant attitude of "that doesn't work" and "you can't do that"



That may be, but it is no more damaging than the OP assertion that

glasses are totally unnecessary and all you need are exercises.



I am extremely near sighted. I've done the exercises and worn the patch

to no avail. If the OP thinks it worked for him, then it did. I know

it didn't work for me.

What you're describing is called "determination bias".

HB