To come here and call another colleague a "fraudulent" is absurd. He sounds no different than that hideous orthopod that was bashing podiatrist a few months back. I know Dr. Sadrieh and he has achieved all his success through hard work, NOT fraud.
If you both feel that this podiatrist is committing a fraud, then go seek legal action and present your evidence in court. Otherwise, dont make unwarranted statements like that.
Whoa, sorry that you're not happy with the comments I made about your buddy. And if you're going to quote me, use the quote in the context IT was used and don't twist my words.
The FACT is that I stated his "claims are actually fraudulent" and that's not my opinion, it's simply fact. I did NOT call another colleague fraudulent, but his claims are simply not true. That can not be disputed.
I never made any comments about how hard he works, what he did to achieve his present status, etc., so all your points are completely irrelevant. I made a point that this doctor has clearly stated on his website, in interviews, etc., that HE has invented and/or pioneered procedures that have existed long before he knew what a foot looked like.
I have no problem with a doctor marketing himself/herself. I personally don't believe in cosmetic foot surgery, nor does the APMA, ABPS, ACFAS or the orthopedic foot and ankle society. But that really isn't the point either, because that's a decision he made and does not have any impact on me.
But taking credit for performing an Austin bunionectomy/osteotomy with screw fixation, and making a medial incision for proposed better cosmetic results is certainly not new or pioneering. Using implants for hammertoe surgery to maintain alignment is also not unique to his practice. Regardless of his intents, training, hard work, etc., he is at the very least misleading the public regarding what and what he did not "invent" or pioneer.
Oh, by the way, I just invented a great new product that relieves many foot ailments. You may hear about it soon......I call them orthoses and I'm going to come up with a fancy name and copyright that name.
So in conclusion, if you're going to engage me in an argument, at least argue against points I've discussed. There was NEVER, yes NEVER a mention of your buddy committing fraud. But there is absolutely NO dispute that his claims are fraudulent. If you can't see or understand that, there's nothing left to discuss.
