Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Posted by Pauline on 5/23/03 at 19:28 (119774)
Here is a description of a treatment for heel pain that suggests a 92%
success rate. How does this compare to ESWT and how often is it used? I don't think we've seen to much posted about this before, but it sure suggest a high success rate. How useful is this treatment?
Stereotactic RadioFrequency Thermal Lesioning
This procedure is reserved for only severe and resistant cases of heel pain that will not respond to all conservative treatment. The procedure can be performed on resistant cases of Plantar Fascitiis, Achilles Tendonitis, Neuroma/Neuritis and Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome.
RadioFrequency Lesioning is a minimally invasive procedure. RadioFrequency does not require stitches, skin incisions or bandages. RadioFrequency doesn't disable you and it does not involve an extensive period of healing. It is not associated with the many complications and risks that are associated with surgery. The procedure is done an out patient basis and you can return to shoe gear and work the next day.
Prior to the procedure, the heel is examined and we locate all the very sensitive areas of pain around the heel. There are usually 5-6 areas that are very tender and we call them the 'hot spots'. We treat only those painful areas with RadioFrequency. The RadioFrequency probe, approximately the size of a needle, is placed through the skin into your heel in the area of pain. Wile under IV sedation, the tip of the probe heats up to 87 degrees Celsius. It is kept in the area for 90 seconds. This in essence decrease the deep pain sensation in that area, the size of the probe's tip. The nerve endings are desensitized in these specific locations, thus eliminating the pain. This procedure is then performed on all the painful areas that were identified. Following the procedure, local anesthesia is injected into the treatment sites. Band-Aids are placed over the multiple puncture sites and you are able to return to shoe gear immediately following the procedure.
In most instances, complete resolution of your pain is achieved within 2 weeks following the procedure. In the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Vol. 86, No. 3 in 1997, a 92% success rate was demonstrated, treating heel pain with RadioFrequency.
Posted to Category: Foot Surgery
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.monte on 5/23/03 at 20:43 (119781)
I am waiting for my treatment date for RFL by Dr Cozz. I went for the full evaluation and consultation. Basically, th eneedle burns or cortorizes the tiny nerve pain receptors (something like that) and then the pain is less or gone.
The problem is not cured, so you still must continue the conservative treatments. It is pain management. I have pain over alot of my sole including the arches. But I do have hot spots on my heels too. So, while I am sure I won't be 100% painfree....I may get some relief other than that from an oral pain killer. He can always retreat if we miss spots.
The needle is guided with ultrasound and there are 4 people who must watch your foot for any relexes. If the foot twitches, then the needle is backed out because it is not in the right spot. When the foot does not react, then the correct position has been achieved. I am a lay person and cannot explain it like a doctor...sorry.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Dr. Z on 5/23/03 at 21:17 (119783)
Use the search engine on this site. I believe you will find alot of discussion about this procedure
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Pauline on 5/24/03 at 09:49 (119807)
After you have the treatment could you please up date us? It sounds involved and I wonder how much pain there is from the treatment. Did your doctor say your foot will be numbed at all?
I think we all would be interested in knowing how much pain relief there might be. From the article it does sound promising. 92% is right up there with ESWT and if there is insurance coverage that's good.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.john h on 5/24/03 at 10:07 (119811)
I had radio frequency lesionion on my low back and unfortunately no help. This is a standard pain management protocol for low back pain. As the area was numbed it was painless and I could watech the needle on the monitor.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Dr. Z on 5/24/03 at 11:23 (119814)
Have you found anything or anyone treated with this procedure from the search engine
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Pauline on 5/24/03 at 11:46 (119815)
I'll have to tell my friend. She has been treating back pain for over 2 years and they never once offered her this treatment. Right now she is getting nerve blocks from a pain clinic. She can at least ask about the procedure.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.monte on 5/24/03 at 12:50 (119817)
The doctor is covered by my Oxford insurance. The surgery center is not covered because i don't have out of network coverage...but if you do, it would all be covered.
I will be asleep for the procedure and then he will give my feet a shot of something to help with the immediate pain after waking up (if there is any). I am supposed to be able to go back to work the next day as normal. The effect of the procedure won't be felt for at least two weeks. It is not immediate.
Each treatment point is only 90 seconds long. The addition time added is to find the right spot with the needle.
Of course, I will tell everyone of the exact procedure and outcome after I get it done. I am hoping to do it in about two more weeks. I am waiting for the phone call from the doctor's office.
Dr Cozz has never had a patient that has not experienced some level of relief. That sounds good. ANY reduction in pain is good. As I mentioned before, the condition is not gone and you still must take care of your feet as before and still give the PF proper time to run its course.
Do not be fooled into going out to run and jump and go barefoot just the pain is reduced or gone. Just like with pain killers or ice treatments, the pain is gone or reduced, but the PF still exists and you woouldn't do anything foolish at that point either.
So, I will tell you all when I am booked and then everything that follows.
I explained the procedure to Dr Z and he is onboard with it. He recommends that I should do it since there is no downside. Dr Z is my foot doctor and does my ESWT treatments. I fully trust him and that is why I asked him for his opinion.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Dr. Z on 5/24/03 at 12:57 (119818)
Dr. Cozz is one of the most experienced podiatrist with this technique and has been using this procedure for a very long time.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.john h on 5/24/03 at 17:16 (119824)
If Radio Frequency Lesioning for the low back was going to work Pauline the Doctor said it would have been immediate. Has your friend had Facet Injections? This is also sort of a standard treatment for Pain Specialist. My protocol went like this: (1)Visit to Orthopedic Spine Specialist with MRI (2) Hand off to Pain Specialist within his group (3) Medrol Dose Pack (4) Series of three Epidurals spaced several weeks apart (5) Radio Frequency Lesioning (6) Series of facet injections at three levels on both sides all at once. (7) Diagnostic Discogram (this sometimes can hurt) as they are trying to reproduce your pain so they do not completely deaden the area. All of these were done under a flouroscope in a hospital outpatient clinc with Doctor and two nurses.
I have a lot of questions about Radio Frequency Lesioning for the feet I wonder which nerves they are trying to deaden with heat on a permenent basis? How do they know these are the correct nerves. What is the downside? Anytime you are messing with nerves there is a downside. I will be interested to see how this works out. In the back they have good guidepost besides the flouroscope to guide them as the disc and nerves at particular levels are very clear on the scope.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Pauline on 5/24/03 at 18:07 (119828)
I'm going to print your treatments out and give them to her so she can compare with what she has alread had. Maybe she didn't hit them all.
All I know is that she has had constant pain and the worst part is the doctors don't know what is causing it.
It's stumped them all and in the mean time she just takes pain pills and gets blocks. I'm not sure how many of those she will be able to have.
They help for a while then it's back to square one.
Thanks for your post. She may find out she missed something along the way.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Pauline on 5/24/03 at 18:11 (119829)
How many ESWT treatments have you tried so far before heading off for this new treatment?
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.john h on 5/24/03 at 18:15 (119830)
Pauline: I may have some results from another type treatment as I am seriously considering the VAX-D series of 20 treatments. The VAX-D Ortho is right next to my office and I can just walk there at lunch hour and as we say have a non weight bearing stretch. Since my Orthopedic Doc says he is going to have this treatment for his disc also I will insist he have his along with me.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Pauline on 5/24/03 at 18:21 (119832)
From Monte's explaination the treatment does sound interesting and quite scary to say the least. Didn't she say several doctors will be watching her feet during the treatment.
Sure wish there was a better way to do it. I wonder if there is some other kind of guidance system also used.
All I can think of is when I watched surgery for Epilepsy how the doctors very carefully test the nerves while the patient responds in some fashion. This always amazes me.
I certainly wish Monte luck with this treatment better than she apparently had with ESWT. Another difficult case of P.F.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.monte on 5/24/03 at 19:40 (119838)
First off....Pauline, I am a 'HE', not a she. :)
I had 2 Donier treatments last year and the inflammation in both feet went from almost .6mm to 3.5mm in my right foot and 4.0mm in my left.
Dr Z says that I cannot get another treatment at this time because there is no abnormal inflammation present. The heels still hurt along with my arches. But I will say that my heels are better now than before the ESWT. I think that if I did not have arch pain, I would already be 75% back to normal. The left heel hurts more than the right at the moment.
The people in the room that watch the feet are there as extra eyes. The needle is guided with the ultra sound. If the foot jumps when the needle is inserted, that must mean that a motor stimulus was located. They are looking for sensory stimuli, so they want NO movement.
John...I understand what you are saying about nerves, but I don't think that they are treating major nerves in the feet. They treat the little branches. In fact, I think they treat the substance that surrounds the nerve endings.
Dr Cozz can explain it perfectly, but he hasn't been on in a while..but you can e-mail and he does respond.
They perform this treatment for sensory and motor functions. Michael J Fox had it done on his brain for primary motor functions.
The feet are at the end of the nervous system that run from your spine.
I hope I am explaining myself correctly.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.elliott on 5/24/03 at 22:48 (119855)
Pauline, if you take all the alleged 92% success rates for different treatments, all supposedly applicable to the same ailment, with each success rate claimed to be independent of failure arising from another treatment boasting a similar 92% success rate, that ailment just would cease to be a problem anymore. Makes you kinda wonder.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.elliott on 5/24/03 at 22:55 (119856)
Monte, with a 92% success rate and administered by one of the most experienced docs in the country, can't the story from someone receiving the Dornier Epos treatment ever be that they're just about 100% better and have returned to their old happy life runnign marathons or whatever? There's always too many but's to these stories.
There is no abnormal inflammation present so you can't get another ESWT treatment? I thought there shouldn't be any inflammation since it's a fasciosis not a fasciitis. :)
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Dr. Z on 5/24/03 at 23:32 (119859)
How about fasciois that has healed and now is normal plantar fasciitis?
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.elliott on 5/24/03 at 23:58 (119860)
Dr. Z, you're saying that maybe the degenerative tissue problem healed and reverted to the inflammation more likely when one first contracts the acute form? Is that likely?
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.john h on 5/25/03 at 09:43 (119877)
Monte: Although I am totally unfamilar with this procedure I sure hope it works. I think you or someone commented it is no cure but just mask the pain. If this is the case (amd many if not most would jump at that) would one risk running a marathon or a 10k? My goal has always been to get back to running at least 5k races. There are a number of brain procedures were they actually kill certain areas to eliminate unwanted effects. I do not think there are any nerves in the brain so I assume they are dealing with receptors or such. From what I have seen most of these patients are awake so they can make sure they have the correct area before they zap it.
After 8 years plus of bi laterial PF I would say that I am 70% better than when this all started. Then again perhaps my body and mind have adjusted and this is a perception???
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.john h on 5/25/03 at 09:47 (119879)
I also wonder if this is done through a scope like PF surgery is sometimes done? Some people received nerve damage with the insertion of the scope. I know from having Tarsal Tunnel Surgery that the surgeon opened up the foot so he was clearly examing the nerve by eyeball.
Re: To Monte Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Pauline on 5/25/03 at 12:26 (119886)
Sorry I didn't realize you were male. No offense meant. I sure hope you can come back and report good news.
So many people pin their hopes on ESWT and it doesn't seem to be delivering the 'cure' that everyone wants. Maybe the combination that your having will give more people hope and get rid of their pain.
You'll be in my prayers for a successful procedure and a good outcome.
Re: To Elliott Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Pauline on 5/25/03 at 12:52 (119887)
The truth is that we are not suppose to read the reports,interpret the facts or add up the numbers ourselves. If you do those things most of us would come to the same conclusion you've reached 'Makes you kinda wonder'
If your name is Pauline instead of Elliott and you posted along these lines you'd be called negative and destructive in your thinking.
Most people with P.F. just want out of pain. They don't spend a whole lot of time doing the same research you've done and many accept everything at face value. It's only after the fact, especially with poor surgical outcomes, that they become concerned.
I wish that magic bullet that everyone is seeking for a cure could be found in a drug store. It sure would be cheaper.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Dr. Z on 5/25/03 at 13:36 (119889)
Actually that isn't true. If you take conservative pf treatment as an example just in my area of Phila that leaves 16,000 people with chronic pf each year. How many 1.9 million cities in the USA. Well I think you get the idea. There is alot of chronic pf going around. Take 94 sucess rate for ESWT that still leaves alot of chronic pf . There is just alot of chronic pf in the world.
Re: Paulineelliott on 5/25/03 at 21:17 (119912)
The name 'Elliott', if not quite as unpopular as 'Pauline', does not exactly conjure up images of sycophancy and gullibility; I call them as I see them.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.elliott on 5/25/03 at 22:14 (119919)
No, actually, Dr. Z, what I said *is* true. I never claimed, as you falsely interpreted, that the number of chronic PF cases in the U.S. (10% of the 1.9 million PF cases in the U.S.) is small. Please leave the math to us cold, unfeeling, worthless mathematician types. Here is what I said in my post:
'Pauline, if you take all the alleged 92% success rates for different treatments, all supposedly applicable to the same ailment, with each success rate claimed to be independent of failure arising from another treatment boasting a similar 92% success rate, that ailment just would cease to be a problem anymore. Makes you kinda wonder.'
If this needs further explanation, here it is: The success rates for conservative treatment, ESWT Dornier Epos, Stereotactic RadioFrequency Thermal Lesioning, and surgery are 90%, 94% (using the more favorable R & M scale as you choose to do), 92%, and 83%, respectively. You yourself have said in an earlier post that such treatments (well, possibly excepting the SRFTL) are more or less independent of the others, assuming surgery is tried last. Ignoring surgery for the moment, using the stated success rates, all documented in the literature, the chances of going through these treatments and getting cured is
.9 + (.1)(.94) + (.1)(.06)(.92) = .9994, or over 99.9%. Well, that wouldn't leave too many chronic cases. In fact, it would leave (1-.9994)*1,900,000, or just 1140 cases nationwide. If these all would opt for surgery, there would be only 1140*(1-.83), or just 194 cases nationwide, left with chronic PF. My foot there would be. :-)
Not that everyone in the U.S. has tried each of these treatments, but maybe, just maybe, some of these figures are inflated. Maybe one of the inflated figures is the 94% for the ESWT Dornier Epos. We have seen on these boards so many who have received ESWT from you and ended up in the 6% that, well, I kinda wonder. :-)
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Dr. Z on 5/25/03 at 22:36 (119923)
I talked about Philadelphia not the USA. The population of the USA is about 350,000 million, so add some zero's to your number. As for the 94% I suggest you take it up with the math people at the FDA they did the study not Dr. Z. I do know from experience that the results from conserative treatments are inflated. As for the FDA why don't you contact them as one math person to another and see what you can find out. You haven't seen so many people from the board's end up with failed ESWT from DR.Z You weren't on the board when we kept track of my ESWT patients with the old orbie. The results were around 80% in over one hundred patients. Sounds to me like you are accusing Dornier of inflating their FDA studies if you feel so strong that this true write Dornier a letter and see what their response is
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.elliott on 5/25/03 at 23:49 (119930)
Dr. Z, you talked not only about Phila., but also about the USA. Your sentences are often so fragmented and laden with typos that it is hard to figure out just what you intend. That's not my fault. Your post I responded to said, 'How many 1.9 million cities in the USA.' The absence of punctuation aside, surely you can't mean that. I think you meant 1.9 million people (or cases) with PF, a figure I recall seeing somewhere. In that case, the math I gave is accurate and as intended, and so no, I won't add any zeros to my numbers. I looked at the number alleged to have PF in the USA and calculated how many should be left with PF after going through various treatments using the published success rates. Why would I look at all the people in the USA? And no, it is not true that 'The population of the USA is about 350,000 million', as you say in your latest post to which I am now responding. It is you who added way too many zeros.
As for the 94%, I'm not accusing Dornier of inflating the success rates. I am suggesting that the 94% is not as significant as you are claiming, as if someone who walks through your door has a 94% chance of being completely cured as a result of the ESWT treatment received.
1. A good chunk of those 94% are getting better not as result of the ESWT.
2. The patients selected for the study had nothing other than pure morning-pain insertional PF without other complications or previous surgery and so likely had a better chance of success than the public at large.
3. People think in their minds they have a 94% chance of a complete cure, which is not what the study said.
4. The FDA does not supervise every micro-detail of a study to give a stamp of approval to a claimed success rate, it just decides that the preponderence of the evidence is strong enough that approval is warranted. I don't have a beef with them on that.
I'm not sure how you can be so dismissive of the 90% conservative success figure, although I understand that being dismissive is in your interest, making me all the more wary of your dismissing it. (Can't you ever agree with a position that is not convenient or profitable for you simply because you believe it to be true and are honest enough to say so?) Baxter and many others observed such a rate and published such figures. The Honourable Dr. Ed and numerous other DPMs on these boards have said their own experience exceeds 90%. Are they all wrong? Although anecdotal, everyone I know personally who got PF--over a dozen of them--overcame it or brought it down to very manageable levels through conservative means. Of all the figures posted, the 90% figure to me is the most believable.
I have indeed observed many failed cases of yours on these boards. Should we start listing them all? Is everyone always an exception (too chronic, had surgery, too overweight, etc.)? Sorry, but it's just not in line with 94% the way it's being portrayed. Not sure why you're bringing in the old Orbie study now; even so, it may well be in line with a large chunk getting better 6 months or a year later not as a result of the ESWT.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Alex on 5/26/03 at 08:23 (119944)
IMO, his reason for posting is clear: flamebait. As he has contributed little to the discussion other than flamebaiting folks, I'd recommend that Dr. Z and others ignore the flamebait from here on out. I, for one, really, really appreciate you all having these discussions about ESWT, and Elliot's flamebait merely obfuscates the discussion. He may be in pain or just plain mean, but either way IMO his nitpicking posts don't require a response.
Again, let me thank the docs, professionals, and patients who have been earnestly posting here... The tons and tons of lurkers like me all appreciate it a lot!!!
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Dr. Z on 5/26/03 at 08:34 (119946)
Thank. I am sorry that I am one that is so easily lured by flamebaiting.
It is something that I must learn to ignore.
Re: Posted to the wrong board, but would like to know more about this.Dr. Z on 5/26/03 at 10:44 (119952)
Interesting thing about the FDA study that we are talking about . The placebo group was offered ESWT treatment at the 12 week end stage and they were followed up for one year . The sucess rate was 93%
Re: To ElliottPauline on 5/26/03 at 14:14 (119958)
Don't be surprised by what you call advertisements. You and others just don't realize how many.
Here are the dates for only April and May where Dr. Z. added either his web site or phone number to his reply inviting response from readers.
4/8/03 4/11/03 4/15/03 4/17/03/ 4/30/03/ 5/3/03 5/10/03
5/11/03 5/11/03 5/11/)03 (3 posts on the llth) 5/12/03 5/15/03
5/22/03 5/25/03 5/25/03 (2 posts on the 25th)
In that same time period, Dr. Ed posted one reply that said 'I'm about 30 min. Southeast of Seattle. WA.'
Anyone in Dr. Z's group, Dr. Wander, for instance has no need to advertise. He and the others are already well covered as you can see.
What were those words you used? 'kind a makes you wonder' No need to anymore.
Re: To ElliottDr. Z on 5/26/03 at 14:33 (119959)
I have something even better. Our group called ESWT advertizes on this site already. I have no reason to hide the fact that I have a group that offers ESWT.. I never hide or have tried to hide the fact. But then you already know that with your research.
Re: To Elliottjohn h on 5/27/03 at 08:24 (120000)
In case some of you forgot, Dr. Z offered a free treatment every month by way of a drawing for many months. For some years he offered free follow on treatments for as long as it took. He on occasion gave free treatments to some who could not afford a treatemnt. He on many occasions gave a highly discounted rate to those who could not afford it. I am rather happy he advertised here. He sort of brought the board members into the world of ESWT when we knew little about it.
Re: To Elliottjohn h on 5/27/03 at 08:54 (120006)
I am lost on why all the barbs are being directed at Dr. Zuckerman. He has been a good source of information over the years and it is up to you to believe it or not. If one does not believe in ESWT then they simply do not have it. I have seen so many studies quoted that I am dizzy from the stats. He is one of the few trained foot specialist here. That fact that he seeks patients does not bother me in the least. Every day I open the paper I see all the major hospitals in our area advertising as well as many Doctors. This does not make him any less knowledgeable or compasionate for that matter. How many of his critics have met him face to face?
Re: To Elliottelliott on 5/28/03 at 12:04 (120151)
John h, you don't mind all the advertising Dr. Z does. Well, do you mind his violating doctor-patient confidentiality in the worst possible way? If yes, do you have the balls to say so? Funny how Dr. Z even embellishes his story at my expense, but you wouldn't know that, would you? (As I recall, he asked me why I didn't use a famous doc located close to my home, so I told him; it's not like his eyes were bulging out in disgust.) Just a little character assassination from him, that's all.
I wouldn't fault Dr. Z for occasionally advertising in his posts, but it's not occasional. He also has been astonishingly careless with facts, with the errors always being on the side that he stands to gain financially. Doesn't that bother you? For these reasons (and did I mention violating doctor-patient confidentiality?), I'd be very cautious in accepting at face value things like his own personal success rates. (I do admit, though, upon checking, that the latest figure in the FDA study he cites, the 93%, is indeed the score on one scale. But even that is telling: the other scale gives the 63% I quoted. In my opinion, a more honest doc would have stated both numbers.)
A site like this can be a two-way street: on the one side, undreamed-of free advertising; on the other, comments from others questioning those claims. But woe is anyone who dares try, especially when it's towards a doctor who just wants to heal. Be prepared for the consequences.
Re: To ElliottPauline on 5/28/03 at 17:07 (120193)
Although your post will be unpopular, and others may not wish to comment on what happened to you I feel it necessary to say something.
I have to agree with you, and I believe a court would as well that you indeed had established a doctor/patient relationship with Dr. Z. as defined by law.
His disclosure and posting on heelspurs your private information that he received through that relationship is just plain wrong if not liable as you indicate.
This is not the behavior expected from any doctor regardless of any debate taking place anywhere or sensative feelings that develop from that debate.
You have a right to be outraged, and this incident should not go unnoticed or be swept under the rug by the rest of us.
This is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Quick are the readers here to rebuke other posters for doing far less.
I am truly sorry that Dr. Z took the opportunity, for what ever reason, to publish your private conversations and would expect at the very least a public apology to you. I realize, however, this will not repair the damage already done.
Not one of us here would appreciate such an inexcusable act.
Re: To ElliottDr. Z on 5/28/03 at 17:36 (120196)
Becareful Pauline . Your are making assumptions here about something you know nothing about. I think this what they call Flamebaiting. Why don't you just let this alone and people will think whatever they want to think.
Re: To ElliottPauline on 5/28/03 at 17:46 (120199)
I am not Flamebaiting, just stating how I feel about the situation as it was posted. I'm not asking for other's comments, and am taking your 'Be carefull Pauline' as a threat.
Re: To ElliottDorothy C. on 5/28/03 at 18:36 (120208)
I am going to second the point of view that any violation of patient-doctor confidentiality, and most particularly on a public forum like this, is completely out of bounds, legally, ethically and common-sensically. I am one of, (I am going to venture a wild guess here), many posters/lurkers who has not one clue of what the dispute or argument or debate is about, but a charge of a violation like this is not trivial. It should not be made casually, nor should it be received casually. It is, however, also disconcerting that a public forum like this should be made a forum for what is apparently a personal dispute between ?two? parties. If a podiatrist or other medical professional has acted inappropriately toward a patient and that patient has proven that in the appropriate settings - e.g. court or licensure settings - then perhaps it should become a more public issue, but before that, it seems to be a discussion that has transcended the parameters of a website's message board. While an individual whose privacy or reputation has been violated has my sympathy, a message board is probably not the arena to resolve that serious problem. On the other hand, if unethical behavior or quackery or other 'red flags' are proven and part of the public record, then it would do all who visit a focused website a service to alert others to that information - but only what is proven, factual and fair.
In my humble opinion.
Re: To ElliottBGCPED on 5/28/03 at 19:17 (120211)
'deflaming'? Dr Z I think you just invented a word, I kind of like it. A combo of defame and flame or inflame. Not making fun I just think it is a cool sounding typo, just trying to bring a wee bit o levity to this thread
Re: To ElliottDr. Z on 5/28/03 at 19:21 (120212)
Didn't you I was an English teacher before I became a Podiatrist. I was the 4th grade spelling B champ !!. This is a very tough thread for Dr. Z to shut up . I think some people knows this weakness and work on it
Re: To Elliottmonte on 5/28/03 at 20:57 (120220)
I am not one who posts alot, but I do read alot. This board has helped me as well as many, many others. But what is going on here now, is of no help to anyone trying to learn how to deal with PF.
Also, I must say that the attacks against Dr Z are unwarranted. I am so thankful that he advertises....that is how I found out about him and ESWT. I don't believe that he is trying to profit off everyone by promoting ESWT....but he is a doctor and they are a business and must remain solvent too.
I have visited him a few times for re-treats and he doesn't charge for it. I am certain that it costs him money to turn the machine on as well as the mobile unit. The nerve blocks too cost money too.
He even gave me a Foot Trainer and a pair of Powersteps without asking for a cent.
I have been to big time doctors in NY and they have horrible manners and could care less about responding to an email from anyone. One doctor charged me $70 to tape my feet! They are always so quick to move on to the next patient.
There is good reason why I drive 2.5 hours to see Dr Z.
I am not saying that you or anyone else is not entiltled to speak (or write) their mind, but please take it easy and don't distract from what this board really is for. To help.
Also, please do not make the doctors not want to be here because they don't want to deal with these postings.
With all due respect I thank you for reading.
Re: To ElliottDorothy C. on 5/28/03 at 21:09 (120222)
Thank you, Monte. I agree. Not only can these odd exchanges turn off the professionals, but they can also turn off posters and readers who might need help. I hope that my comments have not in any way been misconstrued.
This board needs to be broadly constructive, informative and helpful to those who are hurting, worried, frightened, desparate, etc etc.
I don't plan to say anymore on this.
Re: To Elliottwendyn on 5/28/03 at 23:02 (120237)
I think that all of you should just stop it.
My friend Elliott has long believed that there is a conspiracy of women on this board who are out to pick on him - and none of you are part of the group that he believed existed. (furthermore - many of you aren't women)
You are totally messing with this theory.
I have no opinion on this matter outside of the above.
Re: To Elliottelliott on 5/29/03 at 08:53 (120255)
Pauline (and Dorothy), thanks for having the courage to speak up. Other than a single appt as a patient and a brief email exchange over swapped research articles, I've had nothing to do personally with Dr. Z, and no sinister agendas, against him or any other doc, even though he's now concocting this as some personal behind-the-scenes feud. He violated doctor-patient confidentiality, plain and simple. Scary. His words had nothing even to do with the context of the thread. But enough, already.
Re: To Elliottjohn h on 5/29/03 at 09:09 (120256)
Dr. Z must always remain here as he is the only one who consistently Spells worse than I do. I have a spell checker but am to lazy to use it besides if you get my drift that is what counts. Some of the teachers like Suzanne have even taught me to spell a few words such as ' a lot' rather than 'alot'.
Some of our post remind me of the story of the guy who kept swatting at the mosquitoes as the tiger was carrying him away. I think the goal here has been to provide information to help relieve pain and not discover the meaning of life.
Re: To Elliottjohn h on 5/29/03 at 09:10 (120259)
BG: I like that word also. Deflaming has a good sound to it unlike the dreaded word Flameout.