That depends on what you consider proof.
If you consider anecdotal 'evidence' to be proof of effect, then you could answer 'yes'.
Anecdotal 'evidence' is not supported in science since it fails to allow for other, confounding variables. To show an effect
as a result of some action typically requires a controlled, randomised, double blind study (no pun intended).
This sort of study provides a control group to compare treatment inputs vs. changes that occur, a means of preventing subjective bias by both the person receiving treatment and the person giving it, a means of accounting for statistical variability etc etc.
A general principle is that the results must be repeatable &/or supported by alternative studies.
The general scientific consensus is that a beneficial effect of interventions such as the Bate's Method is not supported in evidence.
The following website's article might help you with coming to your own conclusion. The article has a number of references that are worth following up.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery.../eyequack.html