Recent content by tommyd87

This is already occurring at present. Pretty much there are two main aspects being assessed right now to improve this. The first is that there's tonnes of effort/research/work being done to preserve hearing in cochlear implant candidates. Currently there has been some major improvement in this...

A lot of individuals do not have hearing loss below/at 2 kHz anyway who would be in the target group for Frequency Therapeutics. Thus this is why even in certain CI candidates, there tends to be an approach where they don't do anything with these lower frequencies. From a lot of evaluations...

They would, however they would reduce a lot of the lead time since a lot of the lead in work such as the preclinical studies etc is already completed. Well wasn't the reason people improved in the FX-322 placebo group due to them falsifying their word scores to enter into the trial though? Then...

There has already been a lot of development around nanoparticles and therefore it would seem a plausible and logical option.

Correct, which is why an implant is seen by many as being vastly superior to pretty much all hearing aids. As a result the only way improvement could be obtained is by cell/synapse regrowth.

There have been claims from some saying they'd eliminated hyperacusis also with the implant.

I think it will get released right after it is given approval. At this stage it seems that the biggest barrier's been getting it past that.

The problems with audiograms are actually absolutely understated too. There have been recent examples of the audiogram being the sole measure that both audis and doctors use for determining things, despite there being countless examples of how flawed this is. It is exactly why it isn't in any...

There was commentary put out from some about how hearing loss leads to dementia through the recent results of a fairly sizeable study and some groups (with very vested interests) commented about this. There has been further commentary come out from parties with relevant expertise and knowledge...

Even if it is developed as a speech understanding drug, this is still helping with hearing loss even if there is no improvement on the audiogram. One such argument is that it is triggering the inner hair cells which deal with this.

Why would that stop speculation about how they can get the medicine the whole way through the cochlea? Can't improve one's understanding of speech if this is not doable...

If you mean will the exclusion criteria likely exclude groups of people who have got tinnitus from participating, then the answer is likely to be no, it will not. Noting cases of sudden hearing loss to date, a lot of them have tinnitus as a result of it.

So if no one benefitted from the medicine then, explain why those who received it subsequently demonstrated improvement? I think that @Chad Lawton summed things up quite well with his comment.

I get this study now, however it seems on face value that it is only referring to a specific subset of tinnitus and not all kinds of tinnitus. Thus this makes things much clearer.

I don't get how blood flow can be related to tinnitus at all.