I am not an OD (far from) but I will try to answer what I think is
your question.

Are you asking: is Dr.Bates case of recovery common? Can the imperfect
sight of myopia be relieved using similar treatment?

So here's the answer.

No, Dr.Bates case of recovery is not 'common'. In that I mean, if you
were to take a look at all the records of the ODs, you would be
unlikely to find presbyopia cures. Perhaps one in every thousand or
so. But, the ODs don't care about n=1. The small cases are always
explained away one way or another. "Oh, that was lag of accomodation.
Oh yeah, that one was pseudomyopia. Oh erm, he never needed glasses in
the first place. It was a mistake."

They don't consider that perhaps, if something triggered a cure in
that n=1 patient, perhaps the same could happen for other patients
too?

However this is remarkably foolish to disregard even the very tiniest
statistical proportion in a set of results. If something works for one
person, who is to say it can't work for another?

The doctors here don't like 'anecdotes'. It's worthless to them. Even
when the anecdotes rise to a scale in the region of thousands, or
hundreds of thousands, as evidenced by Dr.Bates in his clinical
reports and by Emily Lierman. When anecdotes are in the region of
thousands, one should, by scientific reasoning, no longer refer to it
as merely the odd anecdote - because it's a statistical SIGNIFICANCE.

Anyway what I am saying is that, no Dr.Bates recovery of presbyopia is
not common. But that's not to say it is impossible or non-duplicable.

Mike Tyner often argues to me that when miraculous results appear such
as in the experience of Dr.Bates, and no other ophthalmologist or
optometrist has ever, in the last 100 years, seen similar results to
his, it must therefore be not-possible to duplicate the same results.

This kind of logic is entirely WRONG! How can one possibly expect to
duplicate the RESULTS of Dr.Bates, when they have not yet duplicated
the EFFORTS required in the first place.

No single eye-doctor that I ever heard of has worked as hard as
Dr.Bates did in his lifetime. After the 20th century, he devoted his
LIFE to curing imperfect eyesight. So remarkable was his level of
determination. Now tell me, how can you expect to pass an exam with
100% correct answers when you haven't WORKED for it in the first
place?

Thus we are brought back to the main discussion - here we are in the
21st century. And no SINGLE person has EVER duplicated the efforts and
tedious work spent in researchin the problem that Dr.Bates did, as
well as his patients who were successful with the method.

We are truly in a LAZY generation. I've asked the people here 'why
don't you try out and see what happens'. They refuse. What is to be
done? How can progress be made if one is not willing to try something
different from the norm? How can you say 'this fruit tastes horrible',
when you have not yet tried eating it?

--

Your second question being 'can myopia be relieved by the same
treatment' (although correct me if I have misinterpreted). The simple,
blunt answer is, as Jason Sperry put it, YES. The Bates Method just
works. There's nothing magical about it, nothing paranormal, nothing
supernatural - it just works, as nature works to sustain life by
providing it with rain, food, plants, predators, prey, etc. It is just
something that works, by default.

But, there is a slight dispute, unfortunately, which convinces people
that Bates Method is fake and cannot possibly cure myopia. ODs and
other eye doctors here refer to the existence something known as
'pseudomyopia', AKA functional myopia. This is myopia that, according
to them, will indeed respond to rest treatment (Bates, visual
training, eye exercies, pinhole glasses, etc.). Usually, it is in the
lesser degrees of the defect, i.e. -1, -2 dioptres. In Snellen chart
terms this is about 20/200 at the most. (But, FYI there's no precise
measurement you can use to convert dioptres to snellen, since they are
very different in their original mechanical premises).

The ODs say that this variety of myopia can and often does recover,
especially in the sight of children, and teenagers. This type of
myopia is used to distinguish itself from another type, 'axial-length
myopia', AKA organic myopia. This breed, according to the doctors,
cannot under any treatment ever devised today, be cured. This is a
frequent counter argument used to explain away cures of myopia by
those who have undergone the Bates treatment. But the theory fails on
several levels. I will say a few below, although there are many more
counter arguments:

1) What about the people who go suddenly from 20/400+ imperfect sight
all the way back to normal vision - 20/20, in what are described as
'clear flashes'.
2) What about the people, such as Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Evaristo
Recaciti, and the thousands of patients treated under the care of
Bates and his wife Emily? You know - the ones who started out at -10
dioptres of imperfect sight and still got better! Hey, rest assured,
the ODs can magically explain this away too. "Oh, sometimes
pseudomyopia 'extends' itself to 10 dioptres. Yeah, myopia is still
incurable I'm afraid." There are other points but I haven't got time
to write them now.

HOW DO THE ODs EXPLAIN THAT?

... no response, brush it aside, "you are just lying. You didn't cure
your myopia", "you are deceiving yourself", "you're imagining it
mate..." "erm, gotta go."

Anyway, I hope that answered your question.