Pulse en una miniatura para ir a Google Books.
Cargando... Relearning to See: Improve Your Eyesight -- Naturally!por Thomas R. Quackenbush
Ninguno Cargando...
Inscríbete en LibraryThing para averiguar si este libro te gustará. Actualmente no hay Conversaciones sobre este libro. sin reseñas | añadir una reseña
In this accessible presentation of the famous Bates method, Thomas R. Quackenbush (who teaches the Bates method in California and Oregon) describes how eyesight can improve naturally, at any age and regardless of heredity. This book is a wonderful tribute to the genius of Dr. Bates, who was a pioneer in discovering how vision becomes blurred and how it restores itself naturally to clarity and acuity. Now 80 years later, his findings and teachings remain light years ahead of our contemporaries. His approach to treating vision problems was truly holistic and the theme throughout this book is very much an extension of that holistic approach. Dr. Quackenbush is to be commended for his dedication in getting the truth out and keeping the torch burning in this "bible" on vision improvement. No se han encontrado descripciones de biblioteca. |
Debates activosNinguno
Google Books — Cargando... GénerosSistema Decimal Melvil (DDC)617.7Technology Medicine and health Surgery, regional medicine, dentistry, ophthalmology, otology, audiology OphthalmologyClasificación de la Biblioteca del CongresoValoraciónPromedio:
¿Eres tú?Conviértete en un Autor de LibraryThing. |
* Movement: eyes should always be in motion, never fixed on anything
* Centralization: keep looking at only one thing at a time
* Relaxation: don’t strain
The book includes suggestions for better shifting (sketch lines with your eyes), breathing (he likes yawning), blinking (do it more).
There is a section on nutrition (standard advice for real, low-processed foods. He also suggests no dairy or wheat).
http://www.seeing.org/ seems to be the main online site.
Wikipedia is highly critical of the method, pointing out that it’s never been scientifically validated, and that some of Bates’ assumptions about the eye are provable wrong.
( )