Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Vertical Facial Dimensions Linked to Abnormal Foot Motion

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by alex catto, May 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alex catto

    alex catto Member

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Bearing in mind the criticisms of Prof. Brian Rothbarts work that regularly appear on this site, it's worth mentioning that this article "Vertical facial dimensions linked to abnormal foot motion"....has just been published in the latest edition
    of The Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

    This is a prestigious publication
    It's peer reviewed
    The article is interesting, and has implications for podiatrists
    It's controversial.
    Go look at it on line
  2. jb

    jb Active Member

    For those of us without JAPMA subscriptions, was this article mentioned on Pod Arena earlier this month with a rather becoming before-and-after photograph?
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    It is an appalling piece of work. I have no idea how it got through the JAPMA review process.

    To start with there is nothing on the reliability of the measuremnts by the author reported - that on its own is enough to not believe the results (This study has even showed that the FPI should not be used as a variable in data analysis).

    Secondly, the data in the tables is presented as categorical, yet the author somehow managed to do a t-test on it ... thats just not possible. It is not close to being possible to work out how the author even did the data analysis based on the information provided. A t-test is done on continuous data, yet there are no means or standard deviations presented for readers to see.

    The FPI only measures static foot posture, yet the author mentions "motion" in the title and "pronation" (which is a motion) throughout the paper...

    There is so much more, but the data presentation and data analysis mean the results have to be considered unbeleivable.
    Last edited: May 19, 2008
  4. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    This funny:
    Why the such disparity in viewpoints? I am not surprised that:
    Has be not bought those criticisms on himself?
  5. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Vertical Facial Dimensions Linked to Abnormal Foot Motion
    Brian A. Rothbart
    Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association; Volume 98 Number 3 189-196 2008
  6. Good question. Perhaps a job for Interviewbot? I'm sure he/she/it could track down somebody on the Japma review board.

    For myself i found it to be (as usual with Brians work) interesting but flawed. Some of the data is interesting, however i don't really see that the conclusions match the data.

    The inclusion criteria also give cause for concern IMO. Of the 163 screened for the study, 47 who were aysmetric pronators were excluded because they did NOT have aysymetric VFD. Surely this group, being larger than the inclusion criteria, support the hypothesis that there is no link between VFD and AFP. After all its 47 for whom there was no correlation!

  7. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    You right on that one Robert --- I was so stuck on trying to work out what he actually did that I did not even look at that.

    He has rigged the inclusion criteria to get the results he wanted.

    I am going to forward this information to the JAPMA editor - I think they need to give serious consideration to withdrawing this paper from publication.
  8. William Fowler

    William Fowler Active Member

    I would like to know from Alex if he did any sort of critical appraisal of this paper before posting it here? Or does a commercial interest in a product associated with Dr Rothbart blind one to doing so?
  9. I think thats a bit harsh. I think this paper is worthy of critism. However questioning alex's integrity is uncalled for. He never actually said that he drew any conclusions from this paper, nor that he supported it. He has merely drawn it to our attention.

    I was aware of this paper pre publication. I was tempted to post the abstract myself for discussion. Work like this SHOULD be examined and exposed to the scrutiny by the "community." All alex has done is hold a paper which he admits is controversial up for examination.

    I think we should examine it with an open mind. Its a long way from proving anything, certainly not proof of an ascending pattern causal link, but there is some interesting data!

    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2008
  10. Further to Craig's observation regarding analyses:
    Multiple t-tests; did they use a bonferroni correction on the alpha level?

    "Background: Twenty-two children from Jiutepec, Mexico, were studied to determine whether a correlation...
    ...and tested using the one-sample t test."

    t-tests to determine correlation.:cool:
  11. pmgagey

    pmgagey Welcome New Poster

    ROTHBART’s paper, which reports astonishing facts in a very condensed style, may shock certain readers ; it does not take into account the fact that many people are unaware of the developments of clinical Posturology in southern Europe. We must apologize for being much more interested in research and discoveries than in handling a language which is not ours; until now publications on clinical Posturology are written mostly in Latin and Slavic languages (see Ref.)... But Philippe VILLENEUVE and I can say that the facts reported by ROTHBART correspond to what we observe regularly in clinical posturology. A regulation of the postural tonic activity exists that it is worth knowing before criticizing articles on clinical Posturology in order to put the right statistical questions to their authors.

    See : PubMed
  12. Scientists rarely report facts; they report probabilities. In order to report probabilities accurately and thus, scientifically, accurate and valid analyses of the data and precise methodological design are quintessential. This paper fails to achieve these. Their clinical interpretation may meet with your observations, but since the methods employed are fundamentally flawed, where does that leave your observations? Are they similarly flawed due to the inherent bias you inevitably display toward your own belief system?

    Have a nice day.
    Last edited: May 19, 2008
  13. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    The results reported by author may or may not be correct; its just that we can not determine that from this paper.

    The author, the JAPMA reviewer and the JAPMA editor have to justify:
    1) The reason for the exclusions -- it appears the inclusion criteria rigged the reults toward the hypotheses (Roberts point above)
    2) The failure to conduct reliability on the authors measurements and the lack of reporting of the reliability of the data collection
    3) The failure to report any means and standard deviations
    4) The reporting of the data in the tables as categorical (which means a Chi squared test should have been done), yet the author somehow did a t-test on the data (let aone if the assumptions that underpin a t-test were valid - we have no means and SD's to check that)
    5) If a Bonferroni adjustment was made for the multiple t-tests (Simon's point)
    6) The assumption that the static FPI measures motion.

    Simply, the authors conclusion in the paper can not be supported by the information reported in the paper.
  14. Nigel Brooke

    Nigel Brooke Member

    I have read the Brian Rothbart paper being discussed and am an Osteopath in New Zealand and have not contributed to this forum before. I have used the proprioceptive insoles designed by Prof Rothbart for 4 years and continue to find them a useful tool in a global approach to musculo-skeletal dysfunction.
    I am no researcher, although last year I did do the data collection (video, goniometric and QVAS) for two SSRDs studying the proposed effects of the proprioceptive insoles on posture (Research Author - Rob Moran, editor of the International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine). This was selected for and presented at the Australia New Zealand Osteopathic Research Conference in Auckland last December and is hopefully on its way to publication.
    The pattern to which Prof Rothbart refers and which Prof Gagey supports is also referred to a lot in Osteopathic Medicine but, as far as I know, there is no solid research to support this. Real patients are much more complicated than patterns which is one reason why research in this area is so difficult; they do have difficult births and traumatic dental work, anatomical leg length discrepancies, historical fractures, head injuries, general medical or mental illnesses etc. - hopefully not all at once! Prof Rothbart seems to try to remove many these complicating factors via the inclusion criteria which is normal practice I think.
    If there is a "simple pattern" behind all this and I would suspect there may be, understanding the simple pattern can then guide the clinician to recognise the complex patient. Understanding the hierarchy of influence of mechanical dysfunction in various parts of the body is the key to making the right interventions in the right order and at the right time to be able to help get complex patients out of trouble.
    I don't have the expertise to comment on the criticisms of the statistical analysis but there has to be a way of balancing the facts of experience and the voice of theory.
    "Ma whero, ma pango ka oti te tuhi" A Maori proverb figuratively meaning, by working together we will get the job done.

    Nigel Brooke DO
  15. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    kia ora Nigel
    I do not know if the theory of this is right or wrong, but it does make some sort of intuitive sense and may well be correct. The real issue is the poorly conducted, poorly analysed and poorly reported research. The data can not be used to support the conclusion, let alone the theory. Prof Rothbart has a track record of doing this, which is why he gets the response that he does.

    This has parallels with the discussion on ESWT. Those who believe it works and have a vest financial interest in the product go to extraordinary lengths to discredit research that shows it does not work, yet are not prepared to hold publications that show it does work up to the same standard of evaluation.

    Nigel, I hope you stay around to contribute to other discussions. All our discussions on Rothbarts work are littered with single posts from users of Rothbarts products, who at his urging come and post a supportive measure and never come back to post anything else .... kinda does not look good and we all smell a rat!
  16. mandible 7

    mandible 7 Welcome New Poster

    I am a dentist with many years research into successfully treating TMD and facial asymmetries not in every case of course but can see the relationship between functional short leg and deviation of the jaw to the pronated side as if the stress of the posture maintaining the structure is compromised.I must add that faulty jaw architecture also plays a part and there is a descending pattern especially if there is snoring or sleep apnea or sleep disordered breathing. Often Fixing the descending pattern will stop at the hip level due to the pronated foot and unless this is corrected there is no resolution in the finer issues or level of comfort in the jaws ,cranial structures neck and spine.
    As for rothbart's paper he has done podiatry a big favor and given you a door to integrating other disclipines like dentistry and pain management in the big picture especially Hospital medicine.
  17. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Welcome mandible
    So are you actually saying that the way the data was collected, analysed and presented actually supports the theory being tested? No one in this thread has disputed the theory.

    I repeat what I said above:
  18. Watch out Craig!!!! Rothbart's Raiders are out to get you!!!:craig::cool::eek:
  19. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    It is kind of amusing as its the same pattern as to what has happened in other related threads.

    No one is disputing the criticisms directed at the research.

    I would hold any publication up to the same standard of evaluation. Its just this one is one of the worse and will be added to the pool of papers we use with the students to teach critical appraisal (interesting almost all the papers in the pool are from JAPMA).
  20. Nigel Brooke

    Nigel Brooke Member

    Thanks Craig for your reply.
    I have never used eau de rodent aftershave and understand your concern about single posters. Like Alex Catto I became the distributor for the PCIs in to make them available in NZ. If I get criticism for that as being a vested interest so be it, but my concern in practice has always been to get people off the treatment treadmill, whatever the modality.
    That was the reason for the SSRDs as a first step to try to confirm if what I was seeing over 3 years in practice actually stood up under a more critical spotlight. It did, and the results cannot define cause certainly warrant further investigation. The question is who is going to do that?
    I do not have the training many of you have in being able to critically appraise research articles at a high level and appreciate your expertise in this area. It also seems a shame that you have one journal that you say is publishing material that does not meet your exacting standards. That needs addressing with the Journal as has been stated but care needs to be taken not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    I am merely a pragmatic osteopathic clinician but I am happy to contribute if that is useful. I am not happy though, having read the terms of the forum, to be referred to as a Rothbart Raider, that is simply unprofessional.

    Nigel Brooke DO
  21. Pierre, Nigel & Mandible

    As an unfortunately regular recipient of Rothbart's 'newsletters' can I ask who encouraged or suggested posting your supportive comments in regard to this paper - was it Brian himself? Seems very coincidental that three new contributors post comments within 24 hours - and as Craig has remarked, this follows Brian's recent strategy of having the monkeys do the shouting. Where is the organ-grinder these days?? Has he lost his tongue?

    You may care to read some of the other threads Brian has contributed to in the past - in particular, those relating to fertility and diabetic feet and the relationship with his rubber insoles. Do you support his assertions that these devices improve fertility in women and reduce the risk of amputations in diabetic foot syndromme - if so can you explain how?

    'Rothbart's Raiders' is certainly an interesting (and fairly accurate) sobriquet in my opinion, for this has been the pattern in recent months - an abstract or claim is published online in a professional forum followed by several, hitherto unknown disciples with a distribution contract shouting in support. Seems more of a cult really and begs the question - is Brian the new L Ron Hubbard?


    Mark Russell
  22. Not Co-incidental at all. I received an Email from brian saying that his work and he personally were being attacked on the arena and asking me to go defend it if i thought it had value. I suspect i was not alone. Does that mean i'm a Raider?;)

    To be fair to Brian i think that the reason he does not come do his own arguing is that we do tend to get a bit personal in our attacks. That may be appropriate, as a relative minnow in the global podiatric pond i would not presume to say, however it seems to me that the work should stand or fall based on its own merits rather than the background of the author.

    Perhaps Brian should grow a thicker skin, Perhaps we should limit ourselves to discussing the paper rather than the author and supporters thereof. But there it is.

  23. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Nigel, you need to appreciate that this is the way Rothbart works - just look at all the other threads we have had. He has done a poorly designed, analysed and written up piece of research that has quite rightly been bagged and he has asked others to come here to do his bidding!:
    That is very very funny. :dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

    I do notice that this thread is about a bad peice of research that not one of the Rothbart cronies has yet been able to defend. Since when did this become about proprioceptive insoles? :deadhorse:

    I think CP summed it nicely with this comment:
    I smell a rat too. Why can't those purported to support Rothbart stick to the topic of this research project and not parrot on about how wonderful the proprioceptive placebos are.
  24. Nigel Brooke

    Nigel Brooke Member

    Dear Mark
    If I shouted I apologise although I don't think I did.
    I accept the observation "when did this become about proprioceptive insoles" but as I have been directly asked questions by you I shall respond.
    I saw the article pre-publication and Brian made me aware of the thread as he has done in the past when I have just observed. This is the first time I have felt moved to comment.
    I have seen most of his work and I use the insoles designed by him to assist with postural change when the PMS foot type is present. I have objectively measured lumbo-sacral, dorsi-lumbar, and cervico-dorsal angles in response to this intervention for four years. I have been more interested in functional movement and pain related to posture than any of the claims you refer to. As I said before they are a useful tool, they are not the be all and end all.

    As regards fertility many Osteopaths and other bodyworkers specialise in Obs/gyn and there have been many claims made over the years for adjustments in pelvic position affecting position and tonicity of the reproductive organs thereby allowing passage of sperm to allow fertilisation. Suffice to say, as far as I am aware, I have not made any of my patients pregnant!!!

    The diabetic foot is something that could relatively easily be studied and maybe it should be rather than just poopooing it as an outrageous claim. Suggestions that exercise may be useful in the treatment of heart disease were considered outlandish, if not malpractice, in the 1930s.

    I stand by my previous comment that calling people names is unprofessional and so far I have been called a Rothbart Raider, a monkey, a disciple and possibly a member of a cult. I have a reasonably thick skin, don't care for defending anyone's reputation or anyone's product, and if this forum is serious about discussing issues and not people with a mix of research input and clinical input then just do it.

    Nigel Brooke
  25. Bumshka

    Bumshka Welcome New Poster

    Regarding the level of peer review by the JPMA, Mr Craig Payne must realise, that he is also discreditng his professions journal.

    Global posturology has been on the frontier in Europe and now across the world, both in the orthopaedic profession (McGee) and both in musculoskletal work along with holistic dentists.

    It seems that Mr Craig is solely a lecturer who sits and writes and critises other people's hypothesis (especially people like Rothbat from his own profession), instead of offering real clinically assistance to people in need (like private practitioners).

    For years cranio-orthodentists and chriopractic and sacral occiptal practitioners along with holistic dentsist know the importance of the proprioceptive ipact via mechanorcptors of deep antigravitational muscles via exorecpetors and intero-recptors (TMJ, EYES, FEEt, vestibular appararus and strect receptors).

    It seems MR Craig is more keen in critising than exploring the field of global posturology.

    As a professiona health practitioner and international lecturer, it seems you have a personal ambition against a member of your community. How many famous inventors and scientists of our time were discredited and thus then prasied from their own profession.

  26. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Of course I am. Are you suggesting that just because a journal comes from ones own profession it not be held up to scrutiny? In your profession do you beleive everything that is published in your professional journals (if you do, then I pity you). Are you expecting me (or anyone else) to not criticise research that is published in ones own professional journal?
    You are really making a fool of yourself with that claim....perhaps you should have done a bit of looking around before stating that.
    What an absolute load of rubbish you are talking. All I have done in this thread is do a critical appraisal of the design and analysis of a piece of research. Not once in this thread have I said anything about what you are claiming (have you actually bothered to read the thread before commenting?
    Wrong again. I am only holding his research up to the standard I would hold anyones research up to. The issue is that his research does not stack up and this particular publication is one of the worse.

    Perhaps you could explain to me how the design of the study in question, the method the data was present as, the analysis done as was presented in the study actually supports the theory?, which is the actual topic of this thread!

    If you read what was is written above, I have not once criticised the theory (I even suggested that it might be right!). All I have done is show that the methods and data analysis do not support the conclusions.

    Maybe in your profession you like being blindly led and worship false prophets, but fortuantly we hold things up to critical appraisal (both positive and negative).
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
  27. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    I too would really like one of the above posters who have just joined to post in this thread, answer that question, after all that is the actual topic of this thread!
  28. William Fowler

    William Fowler Active Member

    I will add to the chorus:
    Me too! Come up all you "Welcome New Posters", tell us how the design, conduct, analysis (and all those other big words) of the study actually support the theory. From what I have read, the study is fatally flawed (that does not necessarily mean the theory is wrong). Come on and convince me otherwise.
  29. jb

    jb Active Member

    Where's Donna when you need her? ;)
  30. Nigel

    And as we have read from Robert, this is how Brian operates. On the few occasions he has been persuaded to answer directly, his replies have been evasive, obsfuscative and nonsensical.
    I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the exploitative tactics and outlandish claims that his "invention" cures all ills from infertility to toothache - whilst the supporting evidence is usually no more than a series of before and after photographs on a website. Claiming that a medial forefoot wedge on a simple insole is Rothbart's groundbreaking technology is simply stupid - podiatrists have been using this and many other insole modifications for decades - but this seems to be the mainstay of his followers. Personally I give more credence to thetans, but hey, what do I know!
    Neither have I and that has nowt to do with them not wearing Rothbart's Insoles. Just as an aside, when do you suppose the infertile patient should wear the insoles if she wishes to conceive - before, during or after intercourse - and if during, should she be standing to have any chance of success?
    I think you have just made a fool out of yourself for that comment on this site. What really hacks me off about Brian is his suggestion that these insoles might prevent diabetic amputation. To give false hope to those vulnerable unfortunate patients who may be facing the loss of a limb is quite despicable, in my opinion. By should we really expect anything else from a convicted fraudster and charlatan?
    I suggest you read all the other topics regarding Rothbart - perhaps Admin can list them for you - and maybe you will begin to understand why the overwhelming majority of the podiatric profession regard him as a conman and a potential disaster for podiatry. It may be that there is less professional rigour in osteopathy and more focus on sales and marketing using ambiguous anecdotal "research" - but please remember that not all professions are the same. Thankfully.
  31. Nigel:

    I didn't refer to you directly as a Rothbart Raider, but I'm glad you got the hint. Also, I am not happy to be called unprofessional, especially if you are comparing my professionalism to the professionalism of the man you worship, Brian Rothbart. Brian brings all this commentary on himself with his snake oil website and outlandish claims of curing anything from infertility to improvement of intestinal and bowel function with his "proprioceptive insoles".

    I hope you are not so unprofessional to suggest to your patients that treatment of their feet with varus wedged insoles will improve their intestinal and bowel function, reduce their menstrual pain, or allow them to get pregnant. For you to call me unprofessional, while supporting people like Brian Rothbart who sells his insole products to the unsuspecting public that are desparate for a medical cure with no hope of that product working, makes no sense to me. If I am unprofessional, then what do you think of the professionalism of Brian Rothbart?
  32. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member



    Simon, I hate statistics but have an interest in their applicability to research. Some statisticians say look at the results data and make up your own mind, statistics can warp the view. Ufortunately data sets are rarely published in journal papers. It is my belief that some researchers grab a statistical software package, put in their numbers and hey presto here's the statistics - stick crap in and get crap out.

    I think I'm right in saying that - First the theory must be testable / falsifiable, second if the experimental methodology renders the theory unfalsifiable as appears to be the case in this research then the statistical analysis is invalid. Thirdly if the wrong statistical methodolgy is applied the the statistical results are meaningless.

    As you say research is about the scale of probability with true and false being the limits of the scale. Without the limits there can be no scale.

    I'm reading Karl Popper at the moment can you give me any pointers about inductive and deductive reasoning and logic, I'm finding it difficult to keep up with.

    Cheers Dave
  33. David Simons

    David Simons Welcome New Poster

    Professor/Dr. Brian A. Rothbart is a pioneer in the field of foot problems impacting dental problems.

    Dr. Janet Travell often called dentists attention to how often foot problems like Morton's toe impacted dental problems. She emphasized the importance of facial asymmetry. The association between your observations is no surprise to me. What is not clear is their chicken and egg relationship. Are they both the result of a common cause or does the foot influence facial proportions. It need to be made clear there is no evidence for or against that interpretation.

    David G. Simons, M.D.
    Co-author of the Travell & Simons' "Myofascial Pain and Dysfunction: The Trigger Point Manual" Volumes 1 &2.
    Pioneer in the research of Myofascial Pain.
    Reviewer of articles on myofascial pain for the Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain
  34. David:

    Thanks for logging on to Podiatry Arena and giving us your opinions of Brian Rothbart, the self-proclaimed "Father of Chronic Pain Elimination".

    May I ask, for the record, how did you find out about Podiatry Arena and our discussion of Brian's paper just published in JAPMA? Did Brian contact you or did you just happen onto this discussion on your own?

    Secondly, are you aware of Brian's many claims of the effects of his proprioceptive insoles on multiple organ systems which can be viewed at his website? Are you in agreement that a varus wedged insole, such as the proprioceptive insole, can positively affect all these organ systems, and cure, such things as infertility and intestinal problems?

    I look forward to your reply.
  35. Gosh what a LOT of new posters this week. Craig, you must be thrilled the arena is expanding so fast.

    There was a contest a while back on who could get most people to join! At this rate that person is going to have to send their IPOD to Brian! :D;).

    There seems little chance of actually GETTING a meaningful debate on the actual paper. Those stalwarts who have turned up to defend posturology at Brian's behest ve bids you velcome.

    Here's fun. Rather than all this name calling and bad mouthing (both ways) how about you READ the research which i presume brian sent you with the email and we talk about that. As long as we just bat "posturology is great", "oh no it isn't" "oh yes it is" etc we will get nowhere!:craig:

    In other news (and it is a pain in the hole doing it like this):hammer: The answer to the question about inclusion criteria from the man himself in person is this.

    The answer to "why does'nt Brian defend his own work is this
    I offer these in the hope we can actually address the thread OP rather than discussing the discussion itself.

  36. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Prof Brian Rothbart is a liar. He is NOT banned from here. He has NEVER been banned from here. He has NEVER been told be was banned. In fact, he has two user accounts (which however, is against the forum rules, he agreed to when joining). Anyone can check them both to see he is not banned: Brian A Rothbart & Brian A. Rothbart . Banned users are listed here (he is not listed there).

    This was mentioned in a previous thread (which I can not find at the moment) when a poster was suggested than he was banned. It was pointed out then that its not true, so I do not know why Prof Rothbart still claims to be banned.
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
  37. Never read Popper, so can't really help. Philosophical theory is not my bag- sorry.
  38. Chrysochloridae

    Chrysochloridae Welcome New Poster

    this is all a bit dubious.
    I must admit that i am a big believer in the Rothbart principal for treating postural problems. I myself have found Postural Control Insoles of great benefit and i find it frustrating that so many people refuse to embrace the concept.
    however, i think that alot more research is needed to support this concept - especially when it comes to this facial mechanics business.... What really needs to happen is that someone other than Rothbart needs to produce a paper(s) to support or discredit Rothbarts findings. As i see it at the moment, Rothbart has written a paper on Vertical Facial Dimensions Linked to Abnormal Foot Motion, and he has some evidence to support it - if anyone strongly disagrees then they should produce there own piece of work with a larger sample size to offer something to the contrary.

    As a new member, i hope to find other peoples views on the Rothbart concept as a whole. There are definitely some big claims out there, some of which i strongly agree with and others that i strongly disagree with.
    Wild claims aside, what does everyone think of the basic principal for treating the foot?
  39. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    David - could you please expalin to me what "Professor/Dr. Brian A. Rothbart is a pioneer in the field of foot problems impacting dental problems" has to do with:
    Are you like all the others coming here for the first time blindly accepting Prof Rothbarts work without any critical appriasal?
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
  40. I tell you what, I've been fairly restrained recently but this is taking the piss! How many new posters does it take to make an author feel their work has merit? Answers on the back of the pay-check? The paper under discussion is crap- get it? If the manuscript had been sent to me for review it would not have been published with such glaring holes in the methodology. Tell me why the methodology is adequate and we can begin the discussion.

    ****e, ****e, double ****e, as well you all know. Grow up and learn about research new posters. I wouldn't wipe my arse with this "paper", nor would I trust that these "new posters" are genuine, any more than I would trust them to sit the right way around on a toilet seat.

    Have a nice day.
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page