trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Natural interventions can improve visual acuity.
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 1 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

The available source indicates that alternative therapy methods like the Bates method are ineffective and potentially dangerous.

Evidence against · 1
cited by 0
the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises" to improve visual acuity, and concluded that "their use therefore remains controversial." The Bates method is an ineffective and potentially dangerous alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight. Eye-care physician William Horatio Bates (1860–1931) held the erroneous belief that the extraocular muscles produced changes in focus and that "mental strain" caused abnormal action of these muscles; hence he believed that relieving such "strain" would cure defective vision. In 1952, opto In 2004 the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) published a review of various research regarding "visual training", which consisted of "eye exercises, muscle relaxation techniques, biofeedback, eye patches, or eye massages", "alone or in combinations". No evidence was found that such techniques could objectively benefit eyesight, though some studies noted changes, both positive and negative, in the visual acuity of nearsighted subjects as measured by a Snellen chart. In some cases noted improvements were maintained at subsequent…
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:refuted:single_source:for=0+0p:against=1+0p | v55:sufficiency | v55:coherence_repaired:what=summary

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Bates methodreferenceno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt