On May 1, 9:58 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:



On 2 May, 05:55, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:51 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:45, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:25 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com
wrote in
news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:

Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
fictional --merely shares my name--

Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me. Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.

consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he
recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?

That question has already been answered.

And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
"Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
outranks FRCS.

Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world! Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.

And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
answer this.

No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.

--
- Nic.

Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.

Wow! You can come visit me! I live in the UK!
Have you decided which Uni you want to apply for?

On 2 May, 05:18, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

O
So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order.
Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal?

With cyclopleged eyes, they give about the same result. Glasses
prescriptions will usually be based on subjective refraction, not SR
or AR.

Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and
ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh,
FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?

You'll have to ask someone locally. I seem to remember that Mr
carries more prestige in England, and that professors of medicine are
called Mr, while mere run of the mill MDs are called Dr.

Judy

Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential
perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than
'Doctor'! But then we have other titles that are really high up, like
'Sir', or 'Lord', or 'Your Highness'. OK, I made the last one up.
Anyway, I doubt there's a lot of difference between here and the US. I
mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't
it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I plan on getting my BSc in Molecular Medicine from Sussex,
maybe a MSc in Genetic Manipulation and Molecular Cell Biology/MPhil
in Biochemistry from Sussex, and my BM BCh from Oxford, doing a
preliminary internship in internal medicine at UCSF, my internal
medicine residency at MGH, passing the ABIM Internal Medicine Board
Certification exam *and* MRCP(UK), and my hematology/medical oncology
fellowship at The Mayo Clinic, passing the ABIM Subspecialty Boards in
hematology and medical oncology *and* new MRCP Part 3 exam in medical
oncology, then a research fellowship, either in the US or UK, where
I'll do research for the Oxford DM dissertation. Then apply for GMC --
they'll accept the ABIM boards!-- registration, and inclusion on the
GMC Specialist Register as a Consultant Physician, Haematologist, and
Medical Oncologist. Then work at Oxford --if I decide to live and work
in the UK-- or UCSF/HMS/The Mayo Clinic as a medical professor/
biomedical scientist/consultant haematologist and medical oncologist.
Maybe my research'll be good enough to someday allow me to supplicate
for an Oxford DSc, or even be nominated for FRS. Maybe I'll also
become a Master of the American College of Physicians --an even higher
honor then FACP, only around 25% of FACPs make it to Mastership--, or
a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe I'll be known as
"Professor Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, DSc, MACP, FRCP"!

It was Columbus or Lief Eriksson. I believe Lief Eriksson *discovered*
it; Columbus ran into it. A Norse or a Spainard.

Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your
honorific is "Prof".

HOLY CRAP! THIS GUY MUST BE EINSTEIN
I mean, good to have a plan for your future and all... but holy crap.
Next thing we know, you'll be inventing the second theory of relativity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any
stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr-
friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary
medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely
hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like
reverse arrogance.

Well, me and Jason are going to do some interesting stuff in our
future like curing the world from eyeglasses. You can join us if you
want. But first you have to read some books. The Cure of Imperfect
Sight Without Glasses is where it all begins. I am going to prove to
all these skeptics someday that the Bates system isn't quackery. Mark
my word!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You go then!!!! I'll practice conventional ophthalmology, and you can
do your system. We could even team up; while I don't believe that the
Bates Method treats myopia, I *do* believe it enhances the brain's
ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs
less power on their lenses, which is cheaper.

And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie
contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc.

On 2 May, 06:05, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:





On May 1, 9:58 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:55, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:51 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:45, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:25 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com
wrote in
news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:

Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
fictional --merely shares my name--

Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me.  Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.

consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM"  that means he
recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?

That question has already been answered.

And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
"Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
outranks FRCS.

Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world!  Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.

And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
answer this.

No.  You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.

--
- Nic.

Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.

Wow! You can come visit me! I live in the UK!
Have you decided which Uni you want to apply for?

On 2 May, 05:18, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

O
So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order.
Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal?

With cyclopleged eyes, they give about the same result.  Glasses
prescriptions will usually be based on subjective refraction, not SR
or AR.

Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and
ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh,
FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?

You'll have to ask someone locally.  I seem to remember that Mr
carries more prestige in England, and that professors of medicine are
called Mr, while mere run of the mill MDs are called Dr.

Judy

Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential
perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than
'Doctor'! But then we have other titles that are really high up, like
'Sir', or 'Lord', or 'Your Highness'. OK, I made the last one up.
Anyway, I doubt there's a lot of difference between here and the US. I
mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't
it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I plan on getting my BSc in Molecular Medicine from Sussex,
maybe a MSc in Genetic Manipulation and Molecular Cell Biology/MPhil
in Biochemistry from Sussex, and my BM BCh from Oxford, doing a
preliminary internship in internal medicine at UCSF, my internal
medicine residency at MGH, passing the ABIM Internal Medicine Board
Certification exam *and* MRCP(UK), and my hematology/medical oncology
fellowship at The Mayo Clinic, passing the ABIM Subspecialty Boards in
hematology and medical oncology *and* new MRCP Part 3 exam in medical
oncology, then a research fellowship, either in the US or UK, where
I'll do research for the Oxford DM dissertation. Then apply for GMC --
they'll accept the ABIM boards!-- registration, and inclusion on the
GMC Specialist Register as a Consultant Physician, Haematologist, and
Medical Oncologist. Then work at Oxford --if I decide to live and work
in the UK-- or UCSF/HMS/The Mayo Clinic as a medical professor/
biomedical scientist/consultant haematologist and medical oncologist.
Maybe my research'll be good enough to someday allow me to supplicate
for an Oxford DSc, or even be nominated for FRS. Maybe I'll also
become a Master of the American College of Physicians --an even higher
honor then FACP, only around 25% of FACPs make it to Mastership--, or
a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe I'll be known as
"Professor Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, DSc, MACP, FRCP"!

It was Columbus or Lief Eriksson. I believe Lief Eriksson *discovered*
it; Columbus ran into it. A Norse or a Spainard.

Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your
honorific is "Prof".

HOLY CRAP! THIS GUY MUST BE EINSTEIN
I mean, good to have a plan for your future and all... but holy crap.
Next thing we know, you'll be inventing the second theory of relativity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any
stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr-
friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary
medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely
hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like
reverse arrogance.

Well, me and Jason are going to do some interesting stuff in our
future like curing the world from eyeglasses. You can join us if you
want. But first you have to read some books. The Cure of Imperfect
Sight Without Glasses is where it all begins. I am going to prove to
all these skeptics someday that the Bates system isn't quackery. Mark
my word!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You go then!!!! I'll practice conventional ophthalmology, and you can
do your system. We could even team up; while I don't believe that the
Bates Method treats myopia, I *do* believe it enhances the brain's
ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs
less power on their lenses, which is cheaper.

Well we've had this blur interpretation debate loads of times in the
past. It's been gone over.. Just search the archives, you'll see some
classic threads!

And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie
contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc.

Well, that's exactly the same thing (only worse) than eyeglasses.
Contacts are just having it right up against your eye. Surgery is just
having a correction lasered onto your eyes. They are all Bullshit. OK,
you practice conventional stuff, I'll do my stuff, we'll see who wins!
You don't stand a chance, my friend! I'll be curing the patients you
put specs on before you can even say "Bates" Lol. Btw I had to switch
account because I reached my peak with Google on the other one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 2 May, 06:05, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:





On May 1, 9:58 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:55, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:51 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:45, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:25 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com
wrote in
news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:

Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
fictional --merely shares my name--

Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me.  Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.

consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM"  that means he
recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?

That question has already been answered.

And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
"Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
outranks FRCS.

Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world!  Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.

And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
answer this.

No.  You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.

--
- Nic.

Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.

Wow! You can come visit me! I live in the UK!
Have you decided which Uni you want to apply for?

On 2 May, 05:18, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

O
So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order.
Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal?

With cyclopleged eyes, they give about the same result.  Glasses
prescriptions will usually be based on subjective refraction, not SR
or AR.

Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and
ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh,
FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?

You'll have to ask someone locally.  I seem to remember that Mr
carries more prestige in England, and that professors of medicine are
called Mr, while mere run of the mill MDs are called Dr.

Judy

Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential
perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than
'Doctor'! But then we have other titles that are really high up, like
'Sir', or 'Lord', or 'Your Highness'. OK, I made the last one up.
Anyway, I doubt there's a lot of difference between here and the US. I
mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't
it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I plan on getting my BSc in Molecular Medicine from Sussex,
maybe a MSc in Genetic Manipulation and Molecular Cell Biology/MPhil
in Biochemistry from Sussex, and my BM BCh from Oxford, doing a
preliminary internship in internal medicine at UCSF, my internal
medicine residency at MGH, passing the ABIM Internal Medicine Board
Certification exam *and* MRCP(UK), and my hematology/medical oncology
fellowship at The Mayo Clinic, passing the ABIM Subspecialty Boards in
hematology and medical oncology *and* new MRCP Part 3 exam in medical
oncology, then a research fellowship, either in the US or UK, where
I'll do research for the Oxford DM dissertation. Then apply for GMC --
they'll accept the ABIM boards!-- registration, and inclusion on the
GMC Specialist Register as a Consultant Physician, Haematologist, and
Medical Oncologist. Then work at Oxford --if I decide to live and work
in the UK-- or UCSF/HMS/The Mayo Clinic as a medical professor/
biomedical scientist/consultant haematologist and medical oncologist.
Maybe my research'll be good enough to someday allow me to supplicate
for an Oxford DSc, or even be nominated for FRS. Maybe I'll also
become a Master of the American College of Physicians --an even higher
honor then FACP, only around 25% of FACPs make it to Mastership--, or
a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe I'll be known as
"Professor Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, DSc, MACP, FRCP"!

It was Columbus or Lief Eriksson. I believe Lief Eriksson *discovered*
it; Columbus ran into it. A Norse or a Spainard.

Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your
honorific is "Prof".

HOLY CRAP! THIS GUY MUST BE EINSTEIN
I mean, good to have a plan for your future and all... but holy crap.
Next thing we know, you'll be inventing the second theory of relativity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any
stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr-
friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary
medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely
hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like
reverse arrogance.

Well, me and Jason are going to do some interesting stuff in our
future like curing the world from eyeglasses. You can join us if you
want. But first you have to read some books. The Cure of Imperfect
Sight Without Glasses is where it all begins. I am going to prove to
all these skeptics someday that the Bates system isn't quackery. Mark
my word!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You go then!!!! I'll practice conventional ophthalmology, and you can
do your system. We could even team up; while I don't believe that the
Bates Method treats myopia, I *do* believe it enhances the brain's
ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs
less power on their lenses, which is cheaper.

Well we've had this blur interpretation debate loads of times in the
past. It's been gone over.. Just search the archives, you'll see some
classic threads!

And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie
contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc.

Well, that's exactly the same thing (only worse) than eyeglasses.
Contacts are just having it right up against your eye. Surgery is just
having a correction lasered onto your eyes. They are all Bullshit. OK,
you practice conventional stuff, I'll do my stuff, we'll see who wins!
You don't stand a chance, my friend! I'll be curing the patients you
put specs on before you can even say "Bates" Lol. Btw I had to switch
account because I reached my peak with Google on the other one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:



On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
miserable life!

His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:

It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
messaging'.

His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.

Well, it's a long story.
But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!

Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
arrogant and stupid.

Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).

I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
now what?

On May 1, 10:14 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:



On 2 May, 06:05, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:58 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:55, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:51 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:45, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:25 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com
wrote in
news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:

Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
fictional --merely shares my name--

Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me. Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.

consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he
recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?

That question has already been answered.

And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
"Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
outranks FRCS.

Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world! Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.

And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
answer this.

No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.

--
- Nic.

Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.

Wow! You can come visit me! I live in the UK!
Have you decided which Uni you want to apply for?

On 2 May, 05:18, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

O
So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order.
Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal?

With cyclopleged eyes, they give about the same result. Glasses
prescriptions will usually be based on subjective refraction, not SR
or AR.

Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and
ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh,
FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?

You'll have to ask someone locally. I seem to remember that Mr
carries more prestige in England, and that professors of medicine are
called Mr, while mere run of the mill MDs are called Dr.

Judy

Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential
perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than
'Doctor'! But then we have other titles that are really high up, like
'Sir', or 'Lord', or 'Your Highness'. OK, I made the last one up.
Anyway, I doubt there's a lot of difference between here and the US. I
mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't
it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I plan on getting my BSc in Molecular Medicine from Sussex,
maybe a MSc in Genetic Manipulation and Molecular Cell Biology/MPhil
in Biochemistry from Sussex, and my BM BCh from Oxford, doing a
preliminary internship in internal medicine at UCSF, my internal
medicine residency at MGH, passing the ABIM Internal Medicine Board
Certification exam *and* MRCP(UK), and my hematology/medical oncology
fellowship at The Mayo Clinic, passing the ABIM Subspecialty Boards in
hematology and medical oncology *and* new MRCP Part 3 exam in medical
oncology, then a research fellowship, either in the US or UK, where
I'll do research for the Oxford DM dissertation. Then apply for GMC --
they'll accept the ABIM boards!-- registration, and inclusion on the
GMC Specialist Register as a Consultant Physician, Haematologist, and
Medical Oncologist. Then work at Oxford --if I decide to live and work
in the UK-- or UCSF/HMS/The Mayo Clinic as a medical professor/
biomedical scientist/consultant haematologist and medical oncologist.
Maybe my research'll be good enough to someday allow me to supplicate
for an Oxford DSc, or even be nominated for FRS. Maybe I'll also
become a Master of the American College of Physicians --an even higher
honor then FACP, only around 25% of FACPs make it to Mastership--, or
a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe I'll be known as
"Professor Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, DSc, MACP, FRCP"!

It was Columbus or Lief Eriksson. I believe Lief Eriksson *discovered*
it; Columbus ran into it. A Norse or a Spainard.

Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your
honorific is "Prof".

HOLY CRAP! THIS GUY MUST BE EINSTEIN
I mean, good to have a plan for your future and all... but holy crap.
Next thing we know, you'll be inventing the second theory of relativity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any
stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr-
friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary
medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely
hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like
reverse arrogance.

Well, me and Jason are going to do some interesting stuff in our
future like curing the world from eyeglasses. You can join us if you
want. But first you have to read some books. The Cure of Imperfect
Sight Without Glasses is where it all begins. I am going to prove to
all these skeptics someday that the Bates system isn't quackery. Mark
my word!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You go then!!!! I'll practice conventional ophthalmology, and you can
do your system. We could even team up; while I don't believe that the
Bates Method treats myopia, I *do* believe it enhances the brain's
ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs
less power on their lenses, which is cheaper.

Well we've had this blur interpretation debate loads of times in the
past. It's been gone over.. Just search the archives, you'll see some
classic threads!

And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie
contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc.

Well, that's exactly the same thing (only worse) than eyeglasses.
Contacts are just having it right up against your eye. Surgery is just
having a correction lasered onto your eyes. They are all Bullshit. OK,
you practice conventional stuff, I'll do my stuff, we'll see who wins!
You don't stand a chance, my friend! I'll be curing the patients you
put specs on before you can even say "Bates" Lol. Btw I had to switch
account because I reached my peak with Google on the other one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But you don't believe specs at least *look* cool; some people look
horrid w/o their glasses. And mine, according to my friend Joseph N.
Mastron, make me look like I'm from West Hollywood, though I'm not so
sure he meant that as a compliment.

On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:





On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
miserable life!

His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:

It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
messaging'.

His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.

Well, it's a long story.
But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!

Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
arrogant and stupid.

Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).

I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
now what?

Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
remember that blurriness for later on.

Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
minutes. Then open your eyes.

Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
clearer doesn't it?

YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
until your cured!
Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 2 May, 06:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:





On May 1, 10:14 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 06:05, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:58 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:55, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:51 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:45, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:25 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com
wrote in
news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm..googlegroups.com>:

Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
fictional --merely shares my name--

Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me.  Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.

consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM"  that means he
recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?

That question has already been answered.

And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
"Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
outranks FRCS.

Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world!  Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.

And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
answer this.

No.  You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.

--
- Nic.

Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.

Wow! You can come visit me! I live in the UK!
Have you decided which Uni you want to apply for?

On 2 May, 05:18, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

O
So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order.
Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal?

With cyclopleged eyes, they give about the same result.  Glasses
prescriptions will usually be based on subjective refraction, not SR
or AR.

Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and
ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh,
FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?

You'll have to ask someone locally.  I seem to remember that Mr
carries more prestige in England, and that professors of medicine are
called Mr, while mere run of the mill MDs are called Dr.

Judy

Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential
perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than
'Doctor'! But then we have other titles that are really high up, like
'Sir', or 'Lord', or 'Your Highness'. OK, I made the last one up.
Anyway, I doubt there's a lot of difference between here and the US. I
mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't
it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I plan on getting my BSc in Molecular Medicine from Sussex,
maybe a MSc in Genetic Manipulation and Molecular Cell Biology/MPhil
in Biochemistry from Sussex, and my BM BCh from Oxford, doing a
preliminary internship in internal medicine at UCSF, my internal
medicine residency at MGH, passing the ABIM Internal Medicine Board
Certification exam *and* MRCP(UK), and my hematology/medical oncology
fellowship at The Mayo Clinic, passing the ABIM Subspecialty Boards in
hematology and medical oncology *and* new MRCP Part 3 exam in medical
oncology, then a research fellowship, either in the US or UK, where
I'll do research for the Oxford DM dissertation. Then apply for GMC --
they'll accept the ABIM boards!-- registration, and inclusion on the
GMC Specialist Register as a Consultant Physician, Haematologist, and
Medical Oncologist. Then work at Oxford --if I decide to live and work
in the UK-- or UCSF/HMS/The Mayo Clinic as a medical professor/
biomedical scientist/consultant haematologist and medical oncologist.
Maybe my research'll be good enough to someday allow me to supplicate
for an Oxford DSc, or even be nominated for FRS. Maybe I'll also
become a Master of the American College of Physicians --an even higher
honor then FACP, only around 25% of FACPs make it to Mastership--, or
a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe I'll be known as
"Professor Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, DSc, MACP, FRCP"!

It was Columbus or Lief Eriksson. I believe Lief Eriksson *discovered*
it; Columbus ran into it. A Norse or a Spainard.

Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your
honorific is "Prof".

HOLY CRAP! THIS GUY MUST BE EINSTEIN
I mean, good to have a plan for your future and all... but holy crap.
Next thing we know, you'll be inventing the second theory of relativity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any
stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr-
friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary
medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely
hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like
reverse arrogance.

Well, me and Jason are going to do some interesting stuff in our
future like curing the world from eyeglasses. You can join us if you
want. But first you have to read some books. The Cure of Imperfect
Sight Without Glasses is where it all begins. I am going to prove to
all these skeptics someday that the Bates system isn't quackery. Mark
my word!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You go then!!!! I'll practice conventional ophthalmology, and you can
do your system. We could even team up; while I don't believe that the
Bates Method treats myopia, I *do* believe it enhances the brain's
ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs
less power on their lenses, which is cheaper.

Well we've had this blur interpretation debate loads of times in the
past. It's been gone over.. Just search the archives, you'll see some
classic threads!

And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie
contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc.

Well, that's exactly the same thing (only worse) than eyeglasses.
Contacts are just having it right up against your eye. Surgery is just
having a correction lasered onto your eyes. They are all Bullshit. OK,
you practice conventional stuff, I'll do my stuff, we'll see who wins!
You don't stand a chance, my friend! I'll be curing the patients you
put specs on before you can even say "Bates" Lol. Btw I had to switch
account because I reached my peak with Google on the other one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But you don't believe specs at least *look* cool; some people look
horrid w/o their glasses. And mine, according to my friend Joseph N.
Mastron, make me look like I'm from West Hollywood, though I'm not so
sure he meant that as a compliment.

I think glasses look disgusting and ugly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 1, 10:19 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:



On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
miserable life!

His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:

It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
messaging'.

His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.

Well, it's a long story.
But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!

Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
arrogant and stupid.

Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).

I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
now what?

Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
remember that blurriness for later on.

Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
minutes. Then open your eyes.

Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
clearer doesn't it?

YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
until your cured!
Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things
alot better, doesn't it.

because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--,

thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope --
-3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o
them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole.

On May 1, 10:20 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 06:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 10:14 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 06:05, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:58 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:55, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:51 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:45, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:25 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com
wrote in
news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:

Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
fictional --merely shares my name--

Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me. Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.

consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he
recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?

That question has already been answered.

And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
"Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
outranks FRCS.

Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world! Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.

And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
answer this.

No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.

--
- Nic.

Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.

Wow! You can come visit me! I live in the UK!
Have you decided which Uni you want to apply for?

On 2 May, 05:18, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

O
So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order.
Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal?

With cyclopleged eyes, they give about the same result. Glasses
prescriptions will usually be based on subjective refraction, not SR
or AR.

Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and
ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh,
FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?

You'll have to ask someone locally. I seem to remember that Mr
carries more prestige in England, and that professors of medicine are
called Mr, while mere run of the mill MDs are called Dr.

Judy

Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential
perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than
'Doctor'! But then we have other titles that are really high up, like
'Sir', or 'Lord', or 'Your Highness'. OK, I made the last one up.
Anyway, I doubt there's a lot of difference between here and the US. I
mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't
it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I plan on getting my BSc in Molecular Medicine from Sussex,
maybe a MSc in Genetic Manipulation and Molecular Cell Biology/MPhil
in Biochemistry from Sussex, and my BM BCh from Oxford, doing a
preliminary internship in internal medicine at UCSF, my internal
medicine residency at MGH, passing the ABIM Internal Medicine Board
Certification exam *and* MRCP(UK), and my hematology/medical oncology
fellowship at The Mayo Clinic, passing the ABIM Subspecialty Boards in
hematology and medical oncology *and* new MRCP Part 3 exam in medical
oncology, then a research fellowship, either in the US or UK, where
I'll do research for the Oxford DM dissertation. Then apply for GMC --
they'll accept the ABIM boards!-- registration, and inclusion on the
GMC Specialist Register as a Consultant Physician, Haematologist, and
Medical Oncologist. Then work at Oxford --if I decide to live and work
in the UK-- or UCSF/HMS/The Mayo Clinic as a medical professor/
biomedical scientist/consultant haematologist and medical oncologist.
Maybe my research'll be good enough to someday allow me to supplicate
for an Oxford DSc, or even be nominated for FRS. Maybe I'll also
become a Master of the American College of Physicians --an even higher
honor then FACP, only around 25% of FACPs make it to Mastership--, or
a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe I'll be known as
"Professor Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, DSc, MACP, FRCP"!

It was Columbus or Lief Eriksson. I believe Lief Eriksson *discovered*
it; Columbus ran into it. A Norse or a Spainard.

Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your
honorific is "Prof".

HOLY CRAP! THIS GUY MUST BE EINSTEIN
I mean, good to have a plan for your future and all... but holy crap.
Next thing we know, you'll be inventing the second theory of relativity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any
stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr-
friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary
medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely
hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like
reverse arrogance.

Well, me and Jason are going to do some interesting stuff in our
future like curing the world from eyeglasses. You can join us if you
want. But first you have to read some books. The Cure of Imperfect
Sight Without Glasses is where it all begins. I am going to prove to
all these skeptics someday that the Bates system isn't quackery. Mark
my word!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You go then!!!! I'll practice conventional ophthalmology, and you can
do your system. We could even team up; while I don't believe that the
Bates Method treats myopia, I *do* believe it enhances the brain's
ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs
less power on their lenses, which is cheaper.

Well we've had this blur interpretation debate loads of times in the
past. It's been gone over.. Just search the archives, you'll see some
classic threads!

And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie
contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc.

Well, that's exactly the same thing (only worse) than eyeglasses.
Contacts are just having it right up against your eye. Surgery is just
having a correction lasered onto your eyes. They are all Bullshit. OK,
you practice conventional stuff, I'll do my stuff, we'll see who wins!
You don't stand a chance, my friend! I'll be curing the patients you
put specs on before you can even say "Bates" Lol. Btw I had to switch
account because I reached my peak with Google on the other one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But you don't believe specs at least *look* cool; some people look
horrid w/o their glasses. And mine, according to my friend Joseph N.
Mastron, make me look like I'm from West Hollywood, though I'm not so
sure he meant that as a compliment.

I think glasses look disgusting and ugly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Um, that's your opinion. And what of my friend saying I look like I'm
from West Hollywood?

BTW, we sem to have gotten a *long* way off from retinoscopy.

On 2 May, 06:28, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:





On May 1, 10:19 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
miserable life!

His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:

It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
messaging'.

His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.

Well, it's a long story.
But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!

Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
arrogant and stupid.

Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).

I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
now what?

Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
remember that blurriness for later on.

Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
minutes. Then open your eyes.

Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
clearer doesn't it?

YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
until your cured!
Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things
alot better, doesn't it.

EXACTLY! BANG ON! SIMPLE!

And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses,

because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--,

'Rest' isn't the same thing as 'accomodation'. Don't associate the
word rest with 'focus' or accomodating or diverging or converging or
optical infinty or whatever. They are completely different in
totality!

thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope --
-3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o
them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole.

Hmm, well it's hard at first I can tell you. But you'll be surprised
how much easier it gets once you are accustomed to seeing without
glasses. And that will automatically bring about improvement (without
any action on your part). Then when you start to practice Bates, and
the magic of a mind at rest starts to kick in, you'll see double
improvements!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 2 May, 06:29, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 10:20 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 06:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 10:14 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 06:05, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:58 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:55, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:51 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:45, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 9:25 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com
wrote in
news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:

Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
fictional --merely shares my name--

Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me.  Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.

consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM"  that means he
recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?

That question has already been answered.

And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
"Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
outranks FRCS.

Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world!  Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.

And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
answer this.

No.  You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.

--
- Nic.

Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.

Wow! You can come visit me! I live in the UK!
Have you decided which Uni you want to apply for?

On 2 May, 05:18, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:

On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

O
So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order.
Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal?

With cyclopleged eyes, they give about the same result.  Glasses
prescriptions will usually be based on subjective refraction, not SR
or AR.

Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and
ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh,
FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?

You'll have to ask someone locally.  I seem to remember that Mr
carries more prestige in England, and that professors of medicine are
called Mr, while mere run of the mill MDs are called Dr.

Judy

Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential
perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than
'Doctor'! But then we have other titles that are really high up, like
'Sir', or 'Lord', or 'Your Highness'. OK, I made the last one up.
Anyway, I doubt there's a lot of difference between here and the US. I
mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't
it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I plan on getting my BSc in Molecular Medicine from Sussex,
maybe a MSc in Genetic Manipulation and Molecular Cell Biology/MPhil
in Biochemistry from Sussex, and my BM BCh from Oxford, doing a
preliminary internship in internal medicine at UCSF, my internal
medicine residency at MGH, passing the ABIM Internal Medicine Board
Certification exam *and* MRCP(UK), and my hematology/medical oncology
fellowship at The Mayo Clinic, passing the ABIM Subspecialty Boards in
hematology and medical oncology *and* new MRCP Part 3 exam in medical
oncology, then a research fellowship, either in the US or UK, where
I'll do research for the Oxford DM dissertation. Then apply for GMC --
they'll accept the ABIM boards!-- registration, and inclusion on the
GMC Specialist Register as a Consultant Physician, Haematologist, and
Medical Oncologist. Then work at Oxford --if I decide to live and work
in the UK-- or UCSF/HMS/The Mayo Clinic as a medical professor/
biomedical scientist/consultant haematologist and medical oncologist.
Maybe my research'll be good enough to someday allow me to supplicate
for an Oxford DSc, or even be nominated for FRS. Maybe I'll also
become a Master of the American College of Physicians --an even higher
honor then FACP, only around 25% of FACPs make it to Mastership--, or
a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe I'll be known as
"Professor Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, DSc, MACP, FRCP"!

It was Columbus or Lief Eriksson. I believe Lief Eriksson *discovered*
it; Columbus ran into it. A Norse or a Spainard.

Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your
honorific is "Prof".

HOLY CRAP! THIS GUY MUST BE EINSTEIN
I mean, good to have a plan for your future and all... but holy crap.
Next thing we know, you'll be inventing the second theory of relativity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any
stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr-
friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary
medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely
hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like
reverse arrogance.

Well, me and Jason are going to do some interesting stuff in our
future like curing the world from eyeglasses. You can join us if you
want. But first you have to read some books. The Cure of Imperfect
Sight Without Glasses is where it all begins. I am going to prove to
all these skeptics someday that the Bates system isn't quackery. Mark
my word!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You go then!!!! I'll practice conventional ophthalmology, and you can
do your system. We could even team up; while I don't believe that the
Bates Method treats myopia, I *do* believe it enhances the brain's
ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs
less power on their lenses, which is cheaper.

Well we've had this blur interpretation debate loads of times in the
past. It's been gone over.. Just search the archives, you'll see some
classic threads!

And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie
contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc.

Well, that's exactly the same thing (only worse) than eyeglasses.
Contacts are just having it right up against your eye. Surgery is just
having a correction lasered onto your eyes. They are all Bullshit. OK,
you practice conventional stuff, I'll do my stuff, we'll see who wins!
You don't stand a chance, my friend! I'll be curing the patients you
put specs on before you can even say "Bates" Lol. Btw I had to switch
account because I reached my peak with Google on the other one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But you don't believe specs at least *look* cool; some people look
horrid w/o their glasses. And mine, according to my friend Joseph N.
Mastron, make me look like I'm from West Hollywood, though I'm not so
sure he meant that as a compliment.

I think glasses look disgusting and ugly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Um, that's your opinion. And what of my friend saying I look like I'm
from West Hollywood?

BTW, we sem to have gotten a *long* way off from retinoscopy.

Well, everyone likes to think they look 'cool' with their glasses. No
one likes to accept that they are reliant on a crutch. But I think
anyone who finds glasses 'cool' is totally nuts. It completely
distorts the natural beauty of the face, and creates big edemas
underneath the eyes, and shrinks the eyes to a little pulp, or vice
versa magnifies them into massive staring fish-eyes! YUCK

On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and
ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh,
FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?

An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor first. With further
training he qualifies for his title. He and all medical doctors
are call "Doctors" -- if the subject is medical.

If a man has a Ph.D., he also can be called a "Doctor".

In the U.S.A., a optometrist is called a "Doctor"

but in other countries that is not legal, so he is called a
"Refractionist" -- to separate him from a medical doctor. So their
title is "Mister".

Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
fictional --merely shares my name--

consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he
recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?

And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
"Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
outranks FRCS.

And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
answer this.