While connected with the New York Post Graduate Medical School and Hospital, Dr. Bates improved myopia with many people in the clinic. Those who improved their sight included student doctors. The May 1921 Journal of the Allied Medical Associations states:

“These facts came to the knowledge of the head of the institution (Dr. St. John D. B. Roosa), one of the most prominent ophthalmologists of the day, and were regarded as highly discreditable, since Donders and the other masters of ophthalmology had declared that myopia was [irreversible]. Dr. Bates was accordingly expelled from the faculty, even the privilege of resignation being denied to him.”

Mary Dudderidge writes in the January 12, 1918, issue of Scientific American: “New Light Upon Our Eyes: An Investigation Which May Result in Normal Vision for All, Without Glasses,” pp 53 and 61.

“…It is therefore not a little surprising to find one eye specialist who has actually been [reversing] errors of refraction without glasses for 30 years, and who as the result of a remarkable series of experiments has been able to present evidence which appears to invalidate most of the theories on which the present practice of ophthalmology is based. Dr. William H. Bates of New York is already well known as the discoverer of the properties of adrenaline, an extract from the suprarenal gland of the sheep which is now used all over the world as an astringent and haemostatic; but his remarkable experiments on the eyes of animals and the startling conclusions that he has drawn from them have, as yet, attracted comparatively little attention. Reported only in a few isolated articles, they have not yet found their way into the general literature of the subject and have scarcely been heard of by the lay public. Yet they promise to revolutionize the practice of ophthalmology and are at the present moment of tremendous import to the country.”

Another reason Bates’ research has been ignored and rejected is because few people have studied his work deeply enough to understand it. Some of the principles involved are very subtle, and, on first encounter, even appear incorrect. Optometrist Harris Gruman wrote in his book New Ways to Better Sight:

"Whether it was the result of such investigations that Dr. Bates hit upon his system of [improvement] or whether it was the other way around seems immaterial. In spite of his hypotheses and theories he did hit upon some worthwhile methods of aiding human sight. Time has proved their worth, and for this the world should be grateful ."

Harris Gruman, New Ways to Better Sight

(New York: Hermitage House, 1950. pp. 176-177.

Aldous Huxley, after discussing the possible role of the external and internal muscles in accommodation, writes:

“My own guess, after reading the evidence, would be that both the extrinsic muscles and the lens play their part in accommodation. This guess may be correct; or it may be incorrect. I do not greatly care. For my concern is not with the anatomical mechanism of accommodation, but with the art of seeing – and the art of seeing does not stand or fall with any particularly physiological hypothesis. Believing that Bates’ theory of accommodation was untrue, the orthodox has concluded that his technique of visual education must be unsound. Once again this is an unwarranted conclusion, due to a failure to understand the nature of an art, or psycho-physical skill....’ The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the first and most convincing test of the system is that it works.”

Aldus Huxley, The Art of Seeing

(New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1943), pp. 33-34