Can Someone Explain to Me Why Neil Bauman Is So Influential?

[Ken219]

What I don't like is being preached to, whether by you or Neil Bauman. The latter is causing paranoia about 'ototoxic' drugs that people may need to take for other conditions, when there is no evidence they are ototoxic.

As for helping you, well, he may have.

It is important the patient is well informed! If there is an alternative to an ototoxic drug, the patient should tell the doctor!

Extermination is appropriate!

What are you trying to say?

 

[tpj]

It is important the patient is well informed! If there is an alternative to an ototoxic drug, the patient should tell the doctor!

What are you trying to say?

Perhaps @Nick47 was referencing the Daleks? Just a figure of speech @Ken219.

 

[Nick47]

What are you trying to say?

I was having a bad day. It worries me to see people panicking and not taking medications they've been prescribed because Neil Bauman lists them as ototoxic.

There's enough paranoia around and things are difficult enough without that fear-mongering. Do you agree?

 

[ajc]

I was having a bad day. It worries me to see people panicking and not taking medications they've been prescribed because Neil Bauman lists them as ototoxic.

There's enough paranoia around and things are difficult enough without that fear-mongering. Do you agree?

And these are Neil Bauman's credentials, taken from his website's "Meet the Director" page:

"He earned several degrees in fields ranging from forestry to ancient astronomy (Ph.D.) and theology (Th.D.). Later, he trained as a hearing loss coping skills specialist."

NOTHING related to medicine or pharmacology. "Hearing loss coping skills specialist" - lol.

He has helped create more paranoia and fear than anything else with his misguided "anything and everything is ototoxic" advice.

 

[ZFire]

There's enough paranoia around and things are difficult enough without that fear-mongering. Do you agree?

I see paranoia all the time here over the most trivial things lol. I agree though. There's way too much fear-mongering happening around medication and ototoxicity.

I can disregard Neil Bauman's stance on 'ototoxic' drugs, but it doesn't mean I have to dismiss the person entirely. There's some interesting stuff on reactive tinnitus that he goes into. @UKBloke sent me this passage from Bauman once and it's something I can relate with:

 

[Lane]

There's enough paranoia around and things are difficult enough without that fear-mongering. Do you agree?

I can disregard Neil Bauman's stance on 'ototoxic' drugs, but it doesn't mean I have to dismiss the person entirely.

Hi guys. If there's one take away for me about the whole subject of ototoxic drugs, it's that it would be wise to proceed very cautiously with any medication one is considering. My tinnitus started with a single 25 mg dose of a supposedly relatively benign drug called Promethazine. I later discovered it can be prescribed in much lower quantities, so I would most likely have much less severe tinnitus had I done a lower dose instead.

It seems to me that people who end up with tinnitus from taking any kind of medication already had a susceptibility to it. And people who already have tinnitus end up with unusual susceptibility to just about all kinds of drugs. So when considering any kind of medication, why not start slowly with lower doses, and see if an unusual susceptibility manifests itself quickly? Which it turn might ward off catastrophic drug-induced tinnitus (as has been reported by many on this forum). I think there's a big difference between prudent caution and paranoia.

 

[ZFire]

Hi guys. If there's one take away for me about the whole subject of ototoxic drugs, it's that it would be wise to proceed very cautiously with any medication one is considering. My tinnitus started with a single 25 mg dose of a supposedly relatively benign drug called Promethazine. I later discovered it can be prescribed in much lower quantities, so I would most likely have much less severe tinnitus had I done a lower dose instead.

It seems to me that people who end up with tinnitus from taking any kind of medication already had a susceptibility to it. And people who already have tinnitus end up with unusual susceptibility to just about all kinds of drugs. So when considering any kind of medication, why not start slowly with lower doses, and see if an unusual susceptibility manifests itself quickly? Which it turn might ward off catastrophic drug-induced tinnitus (as has been reported by many on this forum). I think there's a big difference between prudent caution and paranoia.

I agree with most of what you say, @Lane. Precaution is always wise. It's just when I start seeing people telling others in absolute fashion to avoid taking drugs at all costs, I get irked.

I likely disagree with your stance on antidepressants for instance, but I also respect how you encourage others to try safer non-drug approaches to 'troubleshoot' tinnitus FIRST before resorting to drug methods. I like how you still go out your way to help others (ever since you joined), whether it's through supplementation or specific facial/neck/spinal (thoracic) massages. All good harmless advice. You were one of the notable members who I enjoyed reading from before I joined this forum. Very likable.

 

[JD SR71]

No one should take Neil Bauman seriously. His publications have unnecessarily instilled fear in many people for whom a prescribed drug could have been helpful for their condition.

I've debated with him on his website regarding certain drugs he claims are ototoxic. I provided data from the FDA, controlled studies, the PDR and many other reputable sources challenging his false tinnitus incidence rate claims. His responses are based on random anecdotal reports, which in my view and I'm confident most scientists believe, are irrelevant to establish true incidence rates. He does not use reputable scientific data.

His degrees do not make him qualified in any way to make him an expert on tinnitus. As an aside, I'm also interested where he obtained his degrees, he doesn't provide his CV and I wonder if they're reputable institutions.

 

[Stayinghopeful]

Neil Bauman is spreading dangerous misinformation based on random antidotal evidence. His PhD is in forestry and astrology.

 

[mknature]

I'm going to weigh in here. Neil Bauman's was the first site to show for me that EYE drops of Gentamicin or Neomycin can cause hearing loss and tinnitus, mainly because he was compiling accounts of folks who reported it to him. Non-doctors can't report (other than VAERS) on adverse reactions, they have to come from doctors, and doctors don't generally report adverse reactions -- for a variety of reasons. So the Physician's Desk Reference is woefully out-of-date; it does NOT list Aminoglycosides as ototoxic unless taken in high doses via IV. Yet we all seem to know that taking them in other forms is a bad idea. How do we know this? We share knowledge amongst ourselves. Most of us are not doctors either. I think he is pretty clear on what he is offering (even if the way it's offered is not as classy as we'd like, as it detracts from doctors in visit rooms taking our concerns seriously).

From my perspective, as someone who did experience a hearing loss and tinnitus reaction from a drug, I'd say it's much better to stay on the safe side and decide with as much information, including reports, as possible. Because regret is the worst possible thing to live with.