Dear Eric,

In one part of your very comprehensive contribution to this discussion
(which I have substancially edited), you said:

>Only in recent years has an intensification of 'normal science' research
been undertaken within the 'Root paradigm'. In addition to this, with the
comparatively recent arrival of the emergent clinical paradigms referred to
by Payne (J.A.P.M.A. 1998) such as the Dananberg model, the Fuller model,
and the McPoil and Hunt model (to which I would add the Kirby model and the
Demp model), 'normal science' research within these models is only now
starting to gain momentum. Thus, it is my contention (for what it is worth)
that much more 'nomal science' research needs to be prosecuted within all
of the aforementioned 'paradigms' before they are rejected. Clinically,
practitioners across the globe are getting gratifying results when using
them. As Goethe stated many years ago: "......The little that is done seems
nothing when we look forward and see how much we have yet to do."<

In the light of this well balanced statement, I would like to re-raise
Irma's question in another recent posting - "Why isn't further research on
the Root paradigm being completed?" Okay, research is expensive, but I
wonder if part of the answer is because those podiatrists who are in
positions to receive serious research grants have now simply given up on
the paradigm. Perhaps they now believe that recent research has done enough
to condemn the paradigm to redundency. Like you Eric, I think that maybe
some more 'normal science' should be carried out around the Root paradigm
before the baby is finally thrown out with the bath water. Who
knows....maybe we will find that we just have to change the water or add
some bubble bath!?

Respectfully


Ray Anthony



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%