Gardner can only suggest that the case records were exaggerated. The
inferences are clearly drawn out.

As for anatomical ignorance... In 1885 Bates graduated with a medical
degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at the prestigious
Columbia University in New York. In 1886 he introduced a new operation
for persistent deafness, consisting of puncturing or incising the ear
drum membrane. In that same year, he discovered the stringent and
hemostatic properties of the aqueous extract of the suprarenal
capsule, later commercialized as adrenalin. From 1886-1888 he was
clinical assistant at the Manhattan Eye and Ear hospital and attending
physician at Bellevue hospital. From 1886-1891 he was instructor in
ophthalmology at the New York Post Graduate Hospital and Medical
School. From 1886-1898 he was attending physician at the New York Eye
Infirmary, Northern Dispensary, Northeastern dispensary, Northwestern
Dispensary, and Harlem Hospital. In 1894 he invented the astigmatic
keratotomy operation. There is no dispute that during this time period
he was an ophthalmologist of high standing who was well respected by
his peers.

With all this, how is it possible that Dr. Bates was anything less
than extremely proficient with the facts and accepted theories of
anatomy? That Dr. Bates with this background, plus years of
experimentation beginning in 1896, challenged the accepted theories of
ophthalmology makes his statements all that more powerful. As noted
above, he was well respected by his peers, yet when he began making
statements about the cure of myopia and other vision problems, he was
ostracized and ignored.

He published several articles on his cure of defective eyesight in
well-known, reputable medical journals of his day. Any such journal
would carefully verify the claims of every contributor in order to
ensure its own respectable standing as a journal of accurate
information, especially when those articles blatantly and accusingly
disputed the very core accepted principles of medical science. For a
doctor to make it into the medical journals is a high accomplishment.
Dr. Bates was challenging up-front the theories on which practically
every eye doctor in the country based his practice on, in doing so
making significant enemies. With the editors of the medical journals
knowing full well the controversy surrounding Bates's statements and
how the reputation of the journal would be ruined should they provide
inaccurate information, how could there be any chance that the editors
would not put all the resources necessary into verifying the accuracy
of the information Bates was submitting, before publishing it? That
says a lot.

-Kiesling (www.iblindness.org)