HARP

The awful academic approach is to get a p value of everything - starting with hair, then eyelids which we suppose have poor p values for associated effects on walking – unless they affect vision? Eventually they get to the p-values of toe nails affecting walking. What does that sci-ency method do to help us know what at a minimum a patient needs and what choices have the least scope and risk to satisfy? Not much. Couple that with dated terminology which is, today, really badly misleading. This is why you are here. You might want to read the

footprints in the MUD book first in order to cleanse yourself of the misinformation that current terminology throws at you. Also some technical documenting of the evolution of our methodology might help fend off some of the mud slung this way. Yes, these books are content redundant. Redundancy & simplicity are at the core of reliability & how we learn languages, in this case the language of walking.