Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

I've been trying SO hard not to rant. I fail.

Just read the latest ramblefrom "Dr Nick":hammer:

So having splurged tea all over my keyboard at the sheer wanton abuse of "science" and mopped it up, I decided what the hell. If they're going to indulge in "before and after photos" Why don't I?

For starters, here is the picture clearly showing that the arch was higher in 2012



Wow, this is easy!

But why stop there? I've been slightly more skyentifick than Dr nick and drawn on base planes where the foot meets the floor, and slice lines at the beginning, the middle, the MPJ and the end of the foot. Then I simply took a slice from 2012 and imposed it onto 2014 so we can clearly see the difference.


Haaaaaaalayleuigh brothers and sisters, the 2014 arch is a shade higher!!!! Can I get a HAYmen? HAYMEN!!

But oopsie frippin daisy, if we treat the 1st MPJ to the same Scrutiny we see that the 1st MPJ has become significantly enlarged! In fact the difference between the size of the MPJs is much greater than the difference between the arches.

So IF these pictures mean anything at all, they mean that going barefoot causes enlargement of the 1st MPJ by about double the amount that the arch gets higher.

Or perhaps they mean exactly dick. One or t'other.:hammer:

 

The problems of paralax and focal length not withstanding. Father Ted might help here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0&feature=kp

Moreover, we then run into the argument that: higher arch = good, lower arch = bad

 

....that 1st MPJ exostosis is foreshadowing a problem that is developing!

You only have to read some of Dr Nick's blogs on Podiatry Today and elsewhere to see his track record. He uses the full trope of logical fallacies from the wishful thinking fallacy (ie just make stuff up and wish it was true) to cherry picking (ie always ignores references they contradict what he is claiming) etc etc. There are plenty oif other threads discussing his claims .... the fan boys love it!

 

Even more eneraining is the poserior tibial tendon is obviously contracting in both pictures, but more easily seen in 2014 picture. People may think they are relaxed, but muscles may still be contracting. So, in addition to the drawing, parallax problems we have another variable not controlled. for. Of course, other than muscle contraction, how would the arch raise. If you are barefoot running your muscles should be bigger and that would make the arch lower.
Eric

 

In the 2014 pic the 1st MTPJ is not engaged on the ground - look at the soft tissue displacement. Of course the 1st MTPJ is dorsiflexed in this pic because the person is supinating their foot and trying to lift" their arch for the picture! Its utter BS and not worth the discussion really.

 

You could be right! The first ray looks to be slightly elevated --> gives the impression of the exostosis and the higher arch --> the photo is faked.

The fan boys are lapping this up .... go figure their gullibility!

 

Robert Isaacs at his ranting best. We've missed you buddy - welcome back!

 

I suggest that the 2014 tootsie displays a greater amount of intrinsic tension than the 2012 tootsie. I hope that such tension has not yet exhibited itself in the patient's mental and emotional profile!

 

So the next question is, if the manufacture can be sued for false and misleading product information/claims, are these bloggers next?

 

Interesting point. Who should be held accountable for bad advice online - those giving it or those receiving it for not doing due diligence. There has been some interesting discussion recently with some legal opinion re the bad advice being given online re the vaccine lies and who should be held accountable for that. (see this eg)

Also, in soical media I am governed by my registration with AHPRA which quite clearly state that I must:

If I step outside those bounds, a complaint can be made and I can potentially face sanctions (worst case --> loose the right to practice). Its a shame others are not held accountable to the same standard.

 

l would think that if Joe Blow gave advice he would not be liable for anything, but Dr Joe Blow giving advice would be a completely different case.

And Dr Nick, does he not fall into the same category as you then:confused:

 

Look at the short heel measure as well - tib ant is clearly contracting on the 2014 where on the 2012 it is not.
Charlatan