to Scott R or is it ScottRPosted by elliott on 2/22/04 at 09:01 (145011)
Scott R ( Scottr ), I see that a thread I started was deleted and then partially restored. I'd have less of a problem with that if you did the deleting (it's your board), but some may view it as a bit dangerous that the deleter has the power to delete posts not in his personal interest, and that he may already have been a bit too aggressive in that regard, including a nonrestored post demanding a complete end to all conversation on the topic or else face deletion.
I claim the statement, 'the Dornier has a 94% success rate, while the Ossatron has only an 81% success rate,' which has been used repeatedly on these boards as a selling point for choosing the first machine over the second, is misleading, if not downright wrong. (Note: This does not suggest intentional deception.) I'd like to offer evidence to explain why. The key starting point in this regard--pertaining to the criteria used to define success--which happened to be contained in the deleted thread, was not restored. Given how often the above claim has been made, I think it only fair to be able to set the record straight. I'll offer references, there will be nothing inflammatory, and if I'm wrong, I'd be happy if someone would point it out. Can I be assured that my posts will not be deleted simply because they are not in the deleter's interests?
Re: to Scott R or is it ScottRScott R on 2/22/04 at 10:28 (145016)
it's 'scottr' to get my attention
i am only one with deletion privileges now.
your post is the perfect middle ground that's needed.
Re: Re Scott new rulesDr. Z on 2/22/04 at 10:44 (145017)
There are always going to be two or three different opinions on subjects. This will never be resolved. The only reason I though that your post should be deleted was due to the use of terms such as misleading, and other statements concerning finanical entitlement.
I have never intentionally tried to be deceptive and or mis-leading and to make that statement is just plain mean along with other things.
Re: Re Scott new rulesBrianJ on 2/22/04 at 11:07 (145018)
As someone who has contributed to this board for several years, I can say that both Dr. Z and Elliott are intelligent and valuable posters. I ask both of them to please realize we are all trying to provide accurate information that will help people in pain. I think the word 'misleading' was intended to suggest that the information in question might cause someone to reach the wrong conclusion, not that anyone is TRYING to mislead.
Thanks to both of you for your patience.
Re: to Scott R or is it ScottRPauline on 2/22/04 at 13:10 (145022)
On other controversial topics, others have had a final say on the subject. Your posts I think must have been deleted prematurly and perhaps more out of fear than content. Personally I think the opportunity to post your information should be afforded to you.
Facts are facts they should be embraced not feared.
Re: Re Scott new rulesPauline on 2/22/04 at 20:01 (145040)
Read my #2 posted before I left on vacation. Perhaps doubtful at first, I think you reached the same conclusion I posted 2 weeks ago in your own post: 'This will never be resolved'.
Re: Dornier with full IV view thread
Posted by Pauline on 2/06/04 at 14:28
1. First of all let's both understand I don't need ESWT treatment at this time because my pain has gone.
2. Although they may try, no one posting today will ever settle the controversy that exist, on this site---which machine is good, better or best. It just ain't going to happen, paper work or no paper work.
3. In my own personal case, after reviewing the data available if I was going to have ESWT I would have select the Ossatron. I'm not saying my choice should be another's choice, but that's the conclusion I arrived for me, myself, and I.
4. Whether you or anyone else agrees with the decision I would have made makes no difference to me.
5. Since I never ended up having ESWT, the discussion of which machine for my case of P.F is really null and void until such time that I get another case of it. At that time, I will once again look at all of my options, and make my personal decision based on my own convections and my condition at the time.
Posted to Category: ESWT
Re: Re Scott new rulesDr. Z on 2/22/04 at 21:22 (145044)
I remember your post very well. By the way just curious what were your choices back when you were evaluating ESWT for your pf.
Re: to Scott R or is it ScottREd Davis, DPM on 2/22/04 at 21:47 (145054)
I really have not paid much attention to that since there are so many machines out there and beleive, after all is said and done, statististical differences between machines will not be a major issue. Issues including protocols, energy delivered, 'high' energy vs. 'low' energy, aiming techniques can be batted about but we really don't have enough solid evidence to have a reasonable debate in those areas yet.
Currently, the issues are availability and price. I was trained on the Ossatron first but have barely used it due to pricing issues. Healthtronics has a pricing model built on health care economics of the late 1970's and early 1980's in my opinion and that is why they are having some troubles. It does not seem that they can make significant changes in their treatment model.
Re: to Scott R or is it ScottREd Davis, DPM on 2/22/04 at 21:52 (145057)
PS Invitation #4 for Elliott. There has never been a deletion of a post there as far as I know. We will soon have a research link including Rompe's papers. There is NO MARKETING on the 'other' site so a motive for bias in certain areas is removed. I don't know if the 'no marketing' policy will go on forever though as, if things grow too big, we will need to find some source of funding.
Re: to Scott R or is it ScottRDr. Z on 2/22/04 at 22:21 (145062)
Do you think Elliott would come over if he knew that Dr. Z was the ESWT moderator . By the way when will I get my deletion prvileges on your site.
Seriouly deletions have a place. Notice that there is more attention toward helping posters and less on proving who is right and who is wrong.
Re: thanks Scott; I'll get to it soon (nm)elliott on 2/23/04 at 10:11 (145088)
Re: Dr. Edelliott on 2/23/04 at 10:17 (145089)
With regard to your site, I have 4 reservations:
1. You have to log on and I just haven't felt like doing so yet
2. I have some problems with the layout, one being that it gives the feeling that the boards and posts are so deeply buried that no one will ever find them
3. There's not enough traffic
4. You're anyway posting here
OTOH, if you get Pauline over there, well, that's different. :-)
Re: Re Scott new ruleselliott on 2/23/04 at 10:40 (145090)
Dr. Z, let the readers decide whether this has to do with opinion; I say No. Regarding misleading and deception, BrianJ has it right. If the thread had been left in, the viewers would have seen that I never said you intentionally misled, but I do maintain the statements are misleading. And I only used the word 'deceptive' in the negative, namely to say that a number on your web site, while wrong, certainly was not deceptive because a more impressive one could have been used.
My only beef with you is that, while I honestly don't think you do it on purpose, you seem to be careless with your statements (even when challenged as to their accuracy), statements which happen to shed a more favorable view on the machine you are promoting and (yes) on which you profit. Especially on a public forum, I would think that someone who is both a DPM and an ESWT provider would take pains to get it right the first time and check into things when there is doubt. We're not there yet.
Re: Re Scott new rulesDr. Z on 2/23/04 at 11:01 (145091)
It is very interesting how you pick out Dr. Z and Dr. Z's web site, when there are hundreds of web sites that you could have chosen
I have no beef with you and the problem is you DO have a beef with me.
I can spend many hours defending myself and my opinions and then you can say ok and then more on and leave. and you will have wasted my time. So let the readers review the information and decide. I can be answering many posters with the time I will be spending with you
So lets all just move on and follow Scot new rules.
Re: Dr. EdPauline on 2/23/04 at 13:02 (145096)
I go visit if you go, but I can't find the site. So Dr. Ed knows when I arrive I'll use my same name. He may be planning a party for us so we should ATVL try to arrive together.
It's funny when I try to find his site, I get porn about feet instead. Worse than Scott's heel pictures. How many spellings can their be for two words F**tc**t?
Re: Re Scott new rulesDorothy on 2/23/04 at 13:47 (145101)
Perfectly said. Here!Here!
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/23/04 at 14:15 (145109)
You CAN find the site. All you have to do is email me, (email removed) , and I will give you the address. As mentioned, Scott will not allow it to be posted here. I think he will change his mind eventually when he realizes it is probably helping him more than hurting him.
Yes, Pauline and Elliott, the other site is harder to maneuver. That is, in part, intentional as there are more divisions used to separate topics thereby heading off potential conflict.
Elliott: my posting here is limited to certain areas and topics -- I am entering into controversies here on ESWT and surgery ONLY. ALL topics are fair game on the other site. Yes, Dr. Z moderates the ESWT section but he also realizes that it is not as widely read and represents a 'clean slate' so it is much less likely that a similar situation would occur. He also is not as active on that site as he has a very long history on this one. The 'owner' of the other site, Marie, is, I beleive, a little bit more activistic than Scott and is more likely to 'police' things and get involved in conflict resolution.
Re: Dr. EdPauline on 2/23/04 at 14:53 (145111)
Oh no not Dr. Z moderating again. Don't know if I could take reading every other line of someone's post. Makes for real tired eyes, but then again if there not much activity Elliott and I could find ourselves reading only advertisements with nothing to discuss:*
Pulling your foot Dr. Ed.
Re: Re Scott new ruleselliott on 2/23/04 at 16:30 (145115)
Dr. Z, you still don't seem to get it. It is you, not I, who are actively soliciting business on these heel pain boards, and far more than any other. That's why I pick you out rather than hundreds of web sites. Not very interesting, just very obvious. I'm not asking you to spend any time defending your opinions. You are using certain statistics as a pitch to draw customers. You have a responsibility to ensure that your statements in this regard be accurate. Your taking the time to answer questions on these boards, while much appreciated, and your use of humor, do not change any of that. What do you say to someone who chose your machine over the other based on your statistics and then did not get successful treatment?
Re: Dr. EdDr. Z on 2/23/04 at 18:11 (145121)
I would be very happy to discuss on your site any topic you want for example. The one year follow up of patients that were in the dornier/ossatron pma study. I believe Pauline's Dr. Zingas was one of the author of this paper. We can even compare the healthronic study with the dornier. We can talk about the reality of double blind studies and what they really show in the daily.
Re: Re Scott new rulesDr. Z on 2/23/04 at 20:10 (145128)
IF you think that people chose Excellence Shockwave Therapy over other groups due to just the machine you are very mistaken. That 94% sucess rate that is used from the one year follow from FDA studied pateints is not a number that I made up it came from a paper written by Dr. Zingas. As for the what this means is an opinion and just that. I am entitled to my opinion. What you aren't entitled to is to make assumptions that patients chose Dr. Z for just stats from a study.
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/23/04 at 23:06 (145146)
I am still waiting for your email. :) Sorry but no welcome parties on that site -- it is a very subdued site which attempts to give everyone a niche if they so desire. There is a section called the 'coffee house' for those who want to engage in relaxing chat and a separate section called 'hot topics' for those who wish to debate or discuss political issues -- we do so in a civil fashion. The ESWT section has not been very active yet. Dr. Rompe will have a link to his work.
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/23/04 at 23:08 (145147)
Please feel free to take the lead in doing so as you are one of our professions leaders in this area.
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/23/04 at 23:23 (145149)
1)'logging on' helps provide, hopefully, better control over potential problem posters (you may have missed out on some of the action here in late 2003).
2)Layout -- yes it is more cumbersome -- well no one's perfect...
3)It is a relatively new site and the traffic is growing -- get in on the ground floor. It is like not walking into a room because you feel there are nlot enough people there -- if you walk in, then there will be more people there.
I have invited Pauline over. I am not sure she is really serious or perhaps she feels someone is waiting to pounce on her (party waiting). I can assure her that she will be perfectly safe there. Dr. Rompe has shown a strong interest as we are trying to keep things on as factual a level as possible -- something I thought you would desire.
I would still like to have someone write a short 'essay' on experimental design and statistics, perhaps posting here and/or on the new site. I am
a clinician so it is not my forte. There are a lot of readers who would benefit greatly from that knowledge.
Re: Dr. EdDorothy on 2/24/04 at 02:17 (145160)
What is your purpose in 'recruiting' here?
Re: Dr. EdPauline on 2/24/04 at 07:03 (145167)
I'm safe where ever I go. Bodyguards.