Note:  The following podiatric advertisement did have the following disclaimer in the lower right hand corner in extremely small print:
"This laser is cleared for safety however it is off label for the treatment of Cnychamycosis"
Please note that Onychomycosis was spelled as "Cnychamycosis"







I have always taken a position in my practice when any modality or treatments are developed to "Never be the first to use, but never be the last to use." I look at this advertisement and wonder what most of us would think? Are we judged by our "weakest link?"
I viewed this advertisement and cringed a bit to be honest.  I have no problem if a practitioner decides to use a product or modality  "off-label" so long as the language is explained in layman's terms and proper consent is taken. I was somewhat befuddled that the practitioner (identity of the advertiser was obscused) would state that the PinPointe Foot Laser is used for "Real Results for Toe Nail Fungus." However, the disclaimer in the lower righthand corner (after contacting NASA for Hubble telescopic enhancement.....LOL), states "This laser is cleared for safety however it is off label for the treatment of Cnychamycosis." Why did the practitioner  not say "fungal nails?, " afterall, the heading of the advertisement in large print says "Fungal nails."  Does the lay person know what "Cnychamycosis" or even onychomycosis is for that matter if the word was spelled correctly? Did the practitioner have the responsibility to site which agency considers this "off label" and does the public know what is meant by "off label?" Is the advertisement as written legal? Does the advertisement of "No More Toenail Fungus" imply a fail-safe treatment for onychomycosis via the laser by a prospective patient? Do we as practitioners have a responsibility to fully disclose and be upfront with patients? If a patient fails from this "off-label"  treatment are we all viewed by greater skeptism by this patient should they seek a subsequent consult with us.
I know of another practitioner who utilizes the PinPointe FootLaser for the treatment of onychomycosis but relates that this treatment modality has to be augmented with the use of  po (oral) Lamisil. WHAT?????? Economic stresses may be placing a burden on us...but should they be inflicted onto patients? Just my opinion. 

Gino,
You are such an astute person! I must have seen these ads at least 30-40 times but I never noticed that misspelling of onychomycosis. It is a trick of the eye really if you notice. The capital C looks like an O when juxtaposed with the n.

Perhaps it is my years as an Investigative Reporter with Gannett newspapers before I decided to make a career change to become a podiatrist that makes me say this, but I don't think this is a mistake.

First of all, ads are reviewed, previewed and edited ad nauseum. A misspelling like this would be caught in a heartbeat. That is a given.

So why would someone WANT a misspelling like this to appear in an ad. Ah, that is the questionable, isn't it. And, unfortunately the sad part. Especially for me.

Because I am afraid that perhaps the inventor and the supplier of this machine may possibly be someone I know (and I have no idea if my suspicion is true) . But having been around for several decades and knowing people in the practice management group and other innovative groups, I have a suspicion that this may be true because I know so many of the players in this profession. If this is true and you read this, will you get in touch with me. I would like to know and I will keep your identity a secret. 

The misspelling is not a mistake. It is obviously a legal mechanism to protect the purveyor who can claim 'I did not say it would cure onychomycosis did I' And after all they did not, did they? But of course now, on this public forum, their subterfuge has been exposed, so I don't know how well it will play in cort after all.  Time will tell.

Wow..... I had never even though of that.  Amazing the lengths people will go to chasing the dime....

Reminds me of a piece that made me cringe years ago.  I believe it was on 60 minutes and the location was New York, maybe NYC.  It was  a news crew taping a hired guy yelling about foot care and handing out fliers on a busy street corner.

To me it could not have been portrayed or perceived  any more cheesy than it was seen.  Surely business could not have been that bad and if it was this is all they could come up with?

I have posted previously that my interaction with the vendors for this laser at a national conference was less than professional.  I have also read with interest other posts that patients seem not to be happy with this treatment.  Of interest I have not seen any positive post for successful treatment with this laser modality.  I have not seen any publications in regards to this as well.  

Has anyone had any patients with positive results?  Any "real" data published to date?

Karr 

Just when you didn't think things could get worse! I came across this link to an article in the New Yorker. The portrayals of "podiatrists as doctors who could not get into medical school" and
"podiatrists as three steps below dentists" are statements I find particularly offensive. The article in the below link reveals a prosecution of a large podiatric group in the 80s-90s that ran amuck in insurance fraud and improper treatments rendered to patients.

Unfortunately, it is stories like this that create a "bad" situation for us all as a profession. It's like I say "the sins of the few are paid by the many." We have a responsibility to shun individual practitioners which reflect badly on us all and counter the great efforts and achievements in podiatry especially over the last 20-25 years.

The article is available online at:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/03/08/100308ta_talk_toobin

Interesting......

In a recent post entitled:

"Who are these guys and what really is their agenda"  Jamie Kinchsulsar posted her initial reply based on the New Yorker:

For a more comprehensive picture of the situation in McAllen, read Atul Gawande's article in The New Yorker magazine from June 2009. It is very well written. I've attached the link to the article:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

My personal opinion is that this publication, I am using the term loosely, is entirely too biased and it is an attempt at humor, alarmist if you will.

So as I posted before............ 
                                           ....................................Who are these guys and what really is their agenda?

Karr

 

Ouch!    But,  remember Joesph Mengele was an MD.

Yes,

But an MD opinion, in my opinion, at times no different than a DO, DPM, DDS, ect.  That was  directed at the publication, using the term loosely, than the doctor.

Karr 

And I liked Jeffrey Toobin before I read that New Yorker article. Very poorly researched too. After all, Dr. Scholl was an MD, not a DPM.

You could just as easily switch out an "MD" or "JD" for all of the "DPM" references in that article and it would still stand up to current events....unfortunately.

As Glenn Gastwirth said there are plenty of bad apples out there in any profession.