Cluffy Wedge

[robertisaacs]

You have dug a really big hole for yourself. Anyone can do a patent search and see that you are wrong.

Here is a link to Liley's patent:
www.google.com/patents?id=frsEAAAAEBAJ&dq=6182380
The claim is: "The equalizer pad extends from the tip of the big toe to a point behind the metatarsal parabola" ie its under the metatarsal head!

Here is the link to Clough's patent:
www.google.com/patents?id=DB8UAAAAEBAJ&dq=6938363
The claim is: "wedge adapted to be placed under the phalanges of a toe" ie it NOT under the metatarsal head.

As I said, you owe Dr Clough an apology for your lie.

Good post, and well researched!

Regards
Robert

[rothbart]

Dear Robert,

You bring up several good points. First, Liley's patent was granted because it did not infringe upon my patent. That is, if his design had extended to the metatarsal head, his patent would not have been granted. Punto!! He used the term Metatarsal parabola to indicate the space between the MPJ. Ending his invention just proximal to the Metatarsal parabola meant, just distal to the metatarsal head.(This point was pivotal in the granting of his patent). At the time, I was a little upset with his patent application. But once the term Metartarsal parabola was clarified, infringement was no longer an issue.

The second point, regarding outcome claims using the MCS, I believe that discussion needs to be carried out privately. This forum is not the appropriate place, unless the moderator approves this discussion first.

Regarding Birdman's contentions, I would be delighted to respond (again with the moderator's approval) once he/she identifies him/herself. This forum is not the ThatFootSite forum.

Prof B

[robertisaacs]

The second point, regarding outcome claims using the MCS, I believe that discussion needs to be carried out privately. This forum is not the appropriate place, unless the moderator approves this discussion first.

So sayeth the mod.

In the interests of keeping these discussions constructive, feel free to discuss outcomes backed by research OR rationales.

Unsupported outcome claims are probably not a terribly fertile ground for reasoned and constructive debate. They irritate people and when people get irritated they get personal.

I think we have all questioned some of the more exuberant claims of the Rothbart school of biomechanics (or posturology if you prefer). I'm sure that Brian respects this, as an academic he would doubtless ask similar questions of some of the other "new paradigms" and their claims. Certainly i agree with ron that these claims have, for me, been one of the major stumbling blocks to taking the concept seriously. However in the interests of keeping everything nice and civil lets focus on what we can discuss usefully.

A while ago you may remember that i invited brian to provide the full text (or link thereto) of a kinematic, kinetic or outcome based study on the proprioception concept so that we could review some solid evidence. Perhaps that would be a fertile ground upon which to move forward.

Specifically i would like to see a study (preferably blinded, preferably placebo controlled) on the kinematic effects of a postural insole. I've seen lots of "before/after" photos but as we all know these to not constitute research or evidence.

However if we get into the "i say it works" "i say it does'nt" thing it will end in tears. Or heavy editing.

Here endeth the saying of the mod.

Regards
Robert