Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsPosted by scottr on 3/03/04 at 07:17 (145905)
Dr Ed, I didn't see an inappropriate response from JudyS that you seemed sensitive to.
I took away Dr. Z's ability to moderate because his very first deletion included removing a nice long discussion between Dr Rompe and Elliot. It just seemed capricious.
There is a limit to advertising other websites here, especially websites that may break apart the heelspurs.com community of posters. Please don't advertise f**tch*t anymore. I'm not saying this because i think it can cause harm, but because it seems like a broken record.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsEd Davis, DPM on 3/03/04 at 14:30 (145931)
Look at the ESWT Board under the Moderator's 'please discontinue posting on this thread' to see where Dr. Z was deleted. Then look at Judy's post below on this page directed at my comments. I don't want to start a long thread here but just point out the two items you could not find.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsDr. Z on 3/03/04 at 16:21 (145938)
Here is a small portion of the Elliot posting that was part of the reason I deleted the entire post.
If the rest of your post is meant to be funny, I don't find it so, and regardless does not take away from the fact that your statements on these boards, as well as your web site, were misleading all these years as to success rates, and no doubt generated some extra business you otherwise may not have been entitled to.
This is just one example of why I deleted Elliott's thread. My intention wasn't to delete all of the thread between Dr.Rompe and Elliott.
The sucess rate were taken from published data period. This is before Elliott wrote his Dornier vs. Ossatron comparision
There is nothing wrong with debating results etc. Elliott started right from the beginning that his intention was to make Dr. Z look bad to put it politely.
There are many way to express your opinion and or feelings but to attack Dr. Z with misleading,profiteer,etc is wrong.
Scott if you had let DR.Z do his moderator job we wouldn't be talking about any of this. I knew right from the start with Elliott's postings and the WAY he did this there was going to be a problem. My intention was to stop this right from the start and you stopped me. This is the truth. Dam if I was trying to stop people from talking bad about me I would never be hear. I still remember the first day I entered this site with John H and I think his name was Bill. They called me a criminical for illegal important of the Big O
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsscottr on 3/03/04 at 17:02 (145941)
as i have said many time, i do not dig through hundreds of posts when all you have to do is copy and paste the URL to your complaint.
Re: Hey man, don't waste your time here, the action is moving to http://fuutchat.jrmhost.com/ but you will have to replace the letter "u" with the letter "o"Phil C. on 3/03/04 at 23:56 (145966)
Go where you are needed and RESPECTED.
Re: that is funny scotty as you had no problem finding all the stuff you did not like and delete it; a selective attention span or a very strong bias, huh?Phil C. on 3/04/04 at 00:14 (145967)
What can you say.
Re: Dr ZJulie on 3/04/04 at 04:00 (145984)
Something I have been wondering about for years. Why, instead of saying 'I', do you always refer to yourself in the third person, as 'Dr Z'?
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postselliott on 3/04/04 at 08:27 (145992)
Dr. Z, if you're going to dredge this up, at least give some context, e.g., that it's disingenuous to state nothing but a one-year success rate all by itself--not that it stopped you.
The number was published in the literature? If not the two most obvious places--the Healthtronics web site and the FDA studies you repeatedly asked us to read (either of which would have instantly made clear that the comparison was unwarranted), can I ask where you saw it? Given you stated the Ossatron's success rate over and over and have repeatedly made a comparison to that of the Dornier (including a prominent one on your web site), I hope it was from more than just hearsay or plucked from some shoddy site off the web (of which unfortunately there are many). And did it ever occur to you that even if you get the right number, studies can differ, so it's a good idea to know what a number means before you use it? You are the one selling your services and pushing your machine here. It is your responsibility to be accurate, not anyone else's. And if you are concerned about accuracy, why haven't you pulled the comparison off your web site yet? My questions above are not rhetorical; please answer them.
Your 'intention wasn't to delete all of the thread between Dr.Rompe and Elliott'? Here were your exact words, typos, warts and all:
'This is the end of the link for this topic. All posters can read and determine what I have tried to point out in all of my postings whether now or in the past. Everyone has a choice
Any attempt to try to continue with this post will be a violation of the board and I will delete the entire thread
All posters all the opportunity to review all and any postings in the past.
Additinal conservation will NOT serve this board'
Re: Dr ZDr. Z on 3/04/04 at 08:57 (145993)
I have idea.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsDr. Z on 3/04/04 at 10:35 (146002)
All of the ossatron information sucess rates came directly from ossatron. I have been certified to use the ossatron since it became FDA approved. They send us information all the time. All of the dornier information either came from Dornier and or the literature.
Just so you know the information on the Excellence Shockwave Therapy Site was reviewed by the managing partner and deem to be correct.
But you are missing what I am saying and that is HOW you addressed the issue. You didn't address this from an academic and or an informational correct position but from an ATTACK and lets make sure that Dr. Z is wrong and I am going to prove it. As a moderator I wanted to cut off this from the start. If you have just presented your Dornier vs Ossatron comparison with your conclusions and without any other inference then that is a horse of a differenct color. Do you get what I am saying?
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postselliott on 3/04/04 at 13:23 (146015)
OK, Dr. Z, I can see you are sincere. I honestly did not start that thread with the intention of 'attacking' you. I was trying to get a handle on sample size and was planning to question Dr. Rompe further as to whether some of his studies as well as others had a large enough sample to reach concrete conclusions. It is only after he listed some of the protocols that are supposed to be followed and I realized you weren't following them that led to the rest of the thread. At that time, I happened to be in the middle of looking into the Ossatron success rates, so that's how the thread developed. I can see how you took it as a premeditated attack, and I apologize for leaving that impression, as well as for the bluntness with which I made my arguments.
That said, I have indeed previously addressed such issues to you in an academic way, but to no avail. For example, back when we were friends, I claimed in the nicest way possible that the Dornier study patients had a 2-year mean, not minimum--as you were claiming--of PF. You were vehement in insisting you were right, and when I dared to repeat the claim a few times at later dates, your posts got downright nasty and scornful. Trust me, you don't want me to dig them up. More professional would have been to say thanks for bringing it to your attention, you'll check it out and get back to us and then in fact get back to us. (It also would be more professional for you to have relevant materials on hand supporting your claims; there were many a time when Pauline or I had to find a Dornier abstract for *you*.) It was only after I dug up the abstract of the Dornier study for all to see that you relented on the mean vs. minimum. It shouldn't have to be that way. So I did try that horse of a different color and it didn't work.
I appreciate your having answered my questions. If the Ossatron's success rate came directly from Ossatron, I would think even more so that it should have contained at least a bare description of the 2 out of 4 criteria defining 'success', just like on its web site. Even if it didn't, if you're going to quote it and make a comparison to show that the machine you now use is superior to the other, it is your responsiblity to be aware of exactly what the number means, as there's no reason to assume studies are identical. It does not change my impression either that you never read the FDA studies you asked us to read in the very posts in which you claimed they supported your comparison when in fact those studies gave evidence to the contrary. You should have been far more familiar with these definitions of success than anyone else here; I would if I were running a business like that and trying to attract customers. I must profess that the more mistakes you make, the more suspicious I get as to your intentions. I say that is your fault.
So, the info on the Excellence Shockwave Therapy site was reviewed by the managing partner? Partner of what? Regardless, that doesn't make it right; the partner blew it. Not only aren't the numbers comparable, but your site says explicitly that it's an R & M comparison between the machines. It is not. You know it, I know it, and everyone on the ESWT board knows it. The Ossatron's 81% came from satisfying at least 2 out of 4 criteria, none of which was 4-point R & M. Yet more reasons against making the comparison were given in my threads (and it shouldn't have to come down to me having to dig all this out either). All I'm asking is, for the sake of accurate advertising, that you get that comparison pulled from your web site. Can you do that? It could well be there are other more legitimate comparisons that can be made.
One more question: have you been posting on these boards using any aliases? If yes, please elaborate.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsDr. Z on 3/04/04 at 15:48 (146028)
I am confused. Please answer this question. We have a patient that is interviewed one year after having ESWT performed for chronic, plantar fasciitis. The patient states that they have no pain and can do all of their activities including running, sports, walking, shopping etc. Is this considered a patient that has an excellent result and is complaint free? I think I can clear all of your concerns if you just follow me and take the time to answer some of these questions for DR. Z Thanks
PS: . I have never posted under any name except either Dr. Z or Dr. Zuckerman.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postselliott on 3/05/04 at 10:38 (146093)
Dr. Z, here is the answer to your question:
Maybe that patient got better just from the passage of time (which with PF is what eventually happens to the vast majority) rather than due to the machine. The way to minimize this effect in studies is to use a shorter time interval such as 3 months (which for PF most experts in the field agree to be about right), measure its effect and compare it to placebo. While the one-year mark is useful too, by itself it paints too rosy a picture of things. In my O vs. D part 2 post, I pointed out that there was a study that kept the placebos blinded for a year, and in that study the placebo group achieved a one-year success rate of 76% using the exact same R & M measure that produced the D study's 94% success rate on the treatment group. Here a straight subtraction is appropriate. Based on those two studies, it tells me that at the one-year mark, around 18% (give or take a little due to study differences) of patients treated actually get better due to the machine. And then we still haven't defined 'better'. Success determining the 94% figure was not defined as running or shop till you drop. It was defined as moving up from 'fair' or 'poor' to at least 'good'.
I've grown tired and weary of repeating the obvious over and over; maybe I was a fool for trying. The boards are in general shambles too. It's time to let this drop. Have a great day.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsDr. Z on 3/05/04 at 13:13 (146105)
This is sooo obvious maybe to you. Here we have a case where all I asked you was to answer one question and you come back with a study ( one year follow up which was blinded) and this study didn't have the same energy treatment as the Dornier FDA study used.
The problem is that you are a stat man and I am doctor.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postselliott on 3/05/04 at 14:59 (146112)
Dr. Z, sometimes I wonder if this isn't just a game. It was a *placebo* group. Think it over; even a doctor should get it.
Have a great weekend.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsmarie on 3/05/04 at 17:16 (146132)
Don't feel bad elliott...I'm a stat person too......kind of odd for an artist I know.
I'm glad you guys have found a common ground. Hats off to you gentlemen.
best wishes marie
Re: Hey man, don't waste your time here, the action is moving to http://fuutchat.jrmhost.com/ but you will have to replace the letter "u" with the letter "o"marie on 3/05/04 at 17:20 (146133)
Hey Phil...don't get me in trouble here....ok.
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsDr. Z on 3/05/04 at 18:18 (146141)
We both agree that comparisons can always be made that is my point. I sure wish the weather was going to be sunny this weekend
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsDr. Z on 3/05/04 at 18:26 (146144)
Ok here is one for fun. I am going to write a complete essay on why I think the placebo of 76% is too rosey. Must be misleading. I think that some of the shockwave came thru the foam rubber padding that keeps the foot protected. You have to admit that is pretty high percentage of a placebo stat
Re: Response to Dr. Ed's ESWT postsDr. Z on 3/06/04 at 04:42 (146190)
Please define the R/D scoring that you are using for good and or excellent. I think it is VERY specific about activity and function and pain.