What is Neoteric Biomechanics!?

Actually, it was my high school and UC Davis physics courses and my reading of Benno Nigg's original papers, rather than Root's book, that informed my theories on the importance of subtalar joint axis location. However, that is not the point. The point is that, like nearly all other scientists, the theories, techniques and tests I have proposed and invented were not trademarked or patented in order so that they could be freely used by others for the benefit of their patients.

Therefore, Robert, I really don't see your point in making such a comment.

 

My point was merely that its not unusual nor bad form to take somebody elses work and expand on and add to it. Which, as I see it, is what Dennis did. I don't think much was added in terms of the grid, but there was plenty of new stuff in terms of the foot centering, vault etc (I don't like much of it, but its not in Scherers work and thus is new to that foot typing model). Thus I feel its a little unfair to offer the two grids as a means for readers to decide how similar Dr Shavelsons foot typing is to Dr Scherers because they don't really represent the totality of either model. A yacht and a clipper both carry a sail, but one cannot merely compare sails to decide how alike the boats are.

And I agree with you on the patents... to a point. I think the differences is that the academic work you cited was just that, academic work. For the good of mankind. Dennis' model is more akin to the intellectual property of a certain marketable orthotic device and those CAN be protected, and often are. If I were to scan a vasyli device and send the 3d image to china to be injection moulded and start knocking them out at a third the price I imagine I'd soon have an expensive letter to answer. That, I think, is what Dennis was trying to protect. The dissonance, for me, is caused when Dennis offers his product as if its an academic breakthrough, which it isn't.

 

Only if you do not acknowledge the original author. Dennis may mention the original work but has never made a point of acknowledging that his grid is nearly identical, the work expanded upon etc. Only here on PA does Dennis acknowledge the link and only when called on it, lending the impression that it is indeed original work. Colin is absolutely correct; it is repackaged (and without crediting its origins).

Robert I find this a poor example, the foundations of the original work and Dennis’ are more akin to the actual boats themselves. Whereas a boat maker can describe the boat, displacement, and speed etc, Dennis cannot describe his boats function or how he would alter the boat under differing usage or purpose. His sails are the only difference and he cannot quantify how those sails differ from others.

My previous comments support your assertions, I agree. Dennis’ intransigence in revealing how he alters prescriptions based on foot typing, explaining how FT is “new” etc are obfuscation for an incomplete idea.

I’ve said many times Dennis has shape shifted and updated his work based on his interaction with all of you and he cannot field simple questions because he has no answers.

:sinking:

 

In your humble opinion.

 

Dennis your provisional patent contains a reference to Dr. Scherer (without specific discussion of the work in question) that was obviated in the final patent filing.

Merely referencing his work is a cover your a** technique; no other mention is made of Dr. Scherer’s original work in the provisional patent. This is omitted from the final patent filing:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20080167582?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is the most complete filing that I can find online, other searches revealed the same. Download the .pdf and read it for yourselves if you wish, No Paul Scherer mentioned. If I am incorrect please, show us the final patent application where you credit and discuss Dr. Scherer’s original work and how yours differs? It is too similar to just slough off Dennis and since you have opened the door, an explanation is warranted.

Then there’s Daryl Phillips comments on Podiatry.com in which he very delicately points out that some of the elements of your work contain a very similar theme to lectures that he had given:

https://www.podiatry.com/etalk/index.php?topicid=3932&commentAnchor=4879#4879

Also of interest when you reference those before you on “whose shoulders you stand”, such as Dr. Scherer in your provisional patent, why would you drop Dr. Scherer’s name from that list. Why would you exclude Dr. Scherer’s work if it was important enough to reference in the provisional patent when the others were not?

https://www.podiatry.com/etalk/index.php?topicid=3932&commentAnchor=4879#4879

And you then reprimand Dr. Scherer:

.

The inconsistencies and omissions mount and we have covered them numerous times prior. Yours is not a work in progress, you’re making it all up as you go along. You have borrowed here, added there, renamed standard lexicon and all to make your regurgitated “work” appear just different enough to patent but it is still not “neoteric”, original or useful and you cannot explain it to the satisfaction of anyone of discernment.

You mention libel when I am merely stating an opinion (and based on facts freely available on the internet and in the DVD’s that you sent me (no mention of Dr. Scherer there either btw?). Dennis, quit with the naughty veiled threats, they’re old and tired. Keep in mind that a staff member listened in on our phone calls. Threaten all that you want but it just confirms that you’re an internet bully without teeth and I am merely stating opinion and supported fact, neither of which is actionable in court.

 

Good post. Well said. I think Dennis is working on the premise that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. If I am not mistaken, a favourite quote of one Adolph Hitler.

 

So you admit that I referenced it once proving you a liar.
Are you saying now that I didn't reference it often enough?

The facts are that Paul wrote nine pages in a chapter of Valmassey's book on foot typing and nothing more before or after.
Paul's nine and my 16 grid systems are night and day and Paul's work on foot typing should be sloughed off.

Darryl is a good guy with strong personal opinions about biomechanics. I believe that he has more than once called Dr. Kirby and others to task about pieces of their biomechanics that he felt needed to be opposed.
Why don't you let Dr. Phillips voice his own opinions as to me and my work overall?

Paul is a great educator, lab director, entrepreneur, marketeer, professor of biomechanics, etc. and deserves a place in biomechanics history.
I excluded Dr. Scherer from the list of whose shoulders I stand upon when it comes to Wellness Biomechanics appropriately, because he had very little to do with my work.
Perhaps, to satisfy your need to know where Dr. Scherer lives on my list of influential colleagues, I could form a secondary list using a different postural location and state that I am standing on Dr. Scherer's 5th toe nail when it comes to foot typing. [wink/]

This is a very biased, opinionated and personally offensive paragraph which has no place on this thread IMHO.

 

Dennis you are misquoting me (as you did with Colin). What I asked was:

You reference Dr. Scherer in your provisional patent and then exclude the reference in the final patent, do we have that correct? You can’t answer a simple question (without getting personal) can you?

Again, did you credit Dr. Scherer in the final patent, Yes or no? Why not?

It shows a pattern of yours, specifically that you shape shift, borrow, add, delete. If the reference was important enough (or convenient enough to lend weight to your application), why is it removed from the final patent? The irony is that it was important enough to mention initially when it served you, now its blah, blah, blah…

Apparently Dr. Scherer knows when to abandon certain ideas and move on. Take note.

Lies can also be formed by omission, so thank you for acknowledging Dr. Scherer’s work.

He has and they’re not glowing endorsements. Dr. Phillips is held in very high esteem by your colleagues, you’re not in his league.

Yet you reference his work in your provisional patent and once you get the patent you poo poo him? Nice.

I’m here anytime you’d like another taste of humble pie.

I'm good with that

 

Mark Russell, your posting and David's Thanks of it reflect an unjustified level of anger, bias and, dare I say it hate that you have for me personally as you tautologically opine me to ADOLPH HITLER!

The Arena is an academic and educational site that should not tolerate this posting and I am calling for it to be edited out.

I assume, that if you had a strong objective, academic and evidence based case against my work, you would present it.

Instead, you continue to make a subjective, irrelevant and now hateful case against me personally that has gone beyond patenting, trademarking, profiting and not answering questions to your satisfaction.

My work, its possible value and my reputation and place in biomechanics should not be discussed in the same breath as ADOLPH HITLER!

Shame on you both.

Dennis

 

Dennis I don't hate you, I would have to care about you personally and I do not.

Mine is not an angry and biased post; I know full well what you are about already. What it is about is your 4 year long, tireless rant that you're right & we're all wrong. That you deserve a current place on the pedestal of pedal biomechanics luminaries , which you do not. That you have something new, which you do not etc., etc.

We have Dennis, ad nauseum. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

I urge Admin not edit this post because it illustrates succinctly what many of us have been saying about you for years and it is relevant.

You won't answer the question because the truth is an inconvenience.

:sinking:

 

And I don't hate you either, Dennis - far from it. I occassionally still smile at your posts - but just like most other people, I suspect you're all out of answers to the questions you have posed for yourself. The Foot Typing is your idea after all!

As I read this thread - just like many before - I was struck by the repetitiveness of your argument - hence the suggestion that if you tell a big lie often enough, the hope is that others may believe it. The only difference between you and Hitler is that the latter was move to exterminate anyone who didn't believe. That is where the similarity ends.

All the best
Mark

 

Mark:

Please refer to Godwin"s Law of Hitler and Nazi's to begin to understand the level of your unapologetic anger and my reaction to try my best not to respond directly to your posts again.

Dennis

 

Nonsense.

 

I believe a post littered with poor grammar is by far more professional than a post that compares an individual to Hitler. It is bad form for respected professionals to take the low road.

My wish is for this thread to be terminated as bashing Dennis only serves to bring the Podiatry Arena down. I also wish that Dennis will find the wisdom to stop posting and expend his energy elsewhere as he will never find nor deserve the validation that he is seeking.

I contribute little to the arena but wish to remain an avid reader of the innumerable and informative posts on biomechanics.

Steven