Well, I am the author of this “study”. Don’t worry too much. It was simply a 2nd year practice research thing and so of course there was only one study. I cannot imagine getting any volunteers to palm +1 hour each day for any meaningful amount of time.

The Bates method is the most popular method so naturally I used this. if it works, it should work for everyone as it is supposedly affecting muscles inside the eye.

As for there being insufficient studies? This kind of study requires no special equipment, skills or knowledge. I have detailed my experiment procedures in that document and the flaws I found (in hindsight). Nothing is stopping anyone from doing this again. It seems many people here are actually quite dedicated to this so if it work, please do a study yourself. Have an eye specialist (or 2-3) asses your eye sight at the beginning and end (and possibly in between) and see if everything you try works.

I am personally a skeptic of all alternative therapies and think many who encourage those that have been essentially disproved should be punished. However, it seems that the Bates method has not been properly tested and the claimed improvements can’t really be a placebo effect. Hence, despite being skeptical at the moment, I have a relatively open mind with this and would love someone to do a proper study and prove me wrong.

If I recall correctly, I think that the way eye muscles work when focusing may be compatible with a successful study’s results.

This university project is a laudable effort. It’s an introspective study of one subject, using the main technique Palming of the Bates method.

Would you feel differently about the methodology if the results have been positive?

What I do not understand is why even publish a lousy study like this? What are you trying to prove? Please leave work like this in the trash!