The 'See clearly Method' - does it work?(Advertise a lot on Clear Channel)

[The Straight Story]

The See Clearly Method:
Do Eye Exercises Improve Vision?


To some it may seem like madness, yet there is a method to this home-based program of eye exercises to improve your vision. Whether that method works is anything but clear.

By Rob Murphy

The first thing you want to know about a self-help program is whether it works. Before you spend time and money on a program of eye exercises such as the See Clearly Method, currently advertised on radio stations and the Internet, you want to find out the likelihood that it might "eliminate or reduce your need for glasses and contacts."

But on the See Clearly Method's website (seeclearlymethod.com), you search in vain for any statement that the program actually works. No word promoting the product — a regimen developed by four doctors calling themselves the American Vision Institute and marketed by a Fairfield, Iowa, agency called Sentient Global Marketing — promises anything.

Yet, the website also tells you that the do-it-yourself vision-improvement plan is a "safe, healthy alternative to glasses, contacts and even laser surgery." But then a disclaimer on the site notes, "The rate at which your eyesight improves as a result of the See Clearly Method and the extent of that improvement, if any, will vary among individuals." This is the most definite statement you will find on the site.

With no way of knowing whether it works, you buy the product on faith. But even the most fervent of the faithful is well-advised to learn what you can about the See Clearly Method.

.... snip .....
News Alert

Iowa Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
Against Marketer of See Clearly Method

DES MOINES, Iowa, August 15, 2005 — Vision Improvement Technologies, Inc., based in Fairfield, Iowa, is the subject of a consumer fraud lawsuit filed by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.

"We allege that the company made dramatic claims for its product that it could not substantiate, including representations that consumers who used the method could quickly and easily free themselves of having to wear glasses or contact lenses," said Miller in a press release.

Miller added that the suit alleges that the company "uses a combination of misleading and unfair marketing tactics to sell their kits," including "exaggerated claims of effectiveness, false implications of scientific validity, and misleading consumer testimonials in advertising." The lawsuit also charges that the 30-day trial period is deceptively presented and results in people paying hundreds of dollars each, even though the program didn't improve their vision.

"Our suit asks the court to halt the unfair and deceptive practices, assess civil penalties, and provide appropriate reimbursement for consumers," said Miller. — L.S.

http://www.allaboutvision.com/buysmart/see_clearly.htm

A lot more at link, including how it is supposed to work, etc.

[3waygeek]

1. Note that Fairfield, IA

is also home to the Maharishi University of Management (formerly Maharishi International University); I'd bet these guys are somehow connected to TM.

[newscott]

2. Who was the celebrity in the radio ads?

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Mariette Hartley

Spelling?

[newscott]

7. Thanks! Brain cramp on my part.

[Nikki Stone 1]

9. Don't ask my WHY I remember this person.

It's one of those Jeopardy trivia bits that will never do me a damned bit of good.

[tammywammy]

4. Interesting

I've always wondered if this really did work. Not that I was going to try it myself (my eyesight is severly-nearsighted and I figured it wouldn't work on me anyways).

[Synnical]

5. "If it sounds to good to be true . . ." n/t

[KharmaTrain]

6. Meanwhile They've Headed Across The County Line

Reminds me of the age-old radio scam...goes back to when Dr. Brinkley sold a painful operation involving bull testicles and "sexual virility" back in the 1930s and almost was elected Governor of Nebraska. Snake oil salesmen then and now...just the wagon looks different.

By the time the FTC or other Federal agency clamps down on this scam, the money's been long collected, cashed and spent. The onus of proving fraud is real difficult and my bets are the "company" here is probably very "paper thin" and the "principals" have long since vanished from the land of the living.

Several years ago I saw a group of promoters come into a town, bought a vacant bar. Over the next month they bought advertising and held some of the biggest parties the town ever had seen. Thousands of people showed and the new bar was a hit. Well that was until it was revealed the "owners" never had secured a liquor license or even had purchased the property...they just set up shop and went to town. By the time the local police decided to clamp down on the illegal bar, the place was deserted, the "owners" had blown town. They left behind a large unpaid contract with the local beer distributor and surely were off to the next town to do the scam all over again.

[0rganism]

8. The problem with it, even if it does work...

Let's hypothesize that the method improves your vision continuously and exponentially, by 7% per month. In 10 months, your vision is half as defective as it used to be, in 20 months it's 1/4, in 30 months it's 1/8, and after 5 years, most people can see pretty well without glasses by using their techniques.

For a person with poor vision, that could mean several intermediate prescriptions along the way. An astigmatic like myself, with 20-200/20-120, could probably go through at least 8 pairs of eyeglasses on the way back to "seeing clearly." And what do we do while we're in these intermediate stages where our vision correction device is out of step with our eyesight? We can't drive, that's for damn sure; it'd be a drag trying to hold down any job which requires vision.

[SeattleVet]

10. This sounds a lot like the old "Bates" method.

Yep...pretty much the same - there's a good article about these methods over at QuackWatch:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html