Electrical Stimulation of the Cochlea for Treatment of Chronic Disabling Tinnitus

For me, it feels like this device has the potential to silence tinnitus for some and deliver great results for others. Dr. Djalilian seems willing to engage with us as a group of sufferers, while Dr. Shore's device can reduce symptoms, but there's no communication from her. If only Dr. Djalilian had the Auricle device, I dare say we would get it sooner. And I would absolutely get implants if it meant some peace and quiet.

 

I spoke with someone about patents, as I would be pissed if Dr. Djalilian had patented his device. The outcome of the conversation was:

Whether you should patent a device developed with funds from gifts and donations depends on various factors, including the terms under which those funds were provided, ethical considerations, and the potential benefits or drawbacks of patenting.

1. Funding Agreements: Check if the gifts or donations came with any stipulations regarding intellectual property (IP). Sometimes, donors might have conditions about how the resulting work can be used, or they might expect that the work remains in the public domain.

2. Institutional Policies: If the work was done under the auspices of a university or research institution, there might be specific policies governing the ownership and patenting of inventions. Many institutions encourage or even require patenting to protect and potentially commercialize innovations, which can then be used to further fund research.

3. Ethical Considerations: Consider the ethical implications of patenting an invention developed with donated funds. If the donors expected their contributions to support public good rather than private gain, it might be more appropriate to keep the invention open-source or accessible.

4. Public Benefit: Patenting does not necessarily prevent public benefit. Patents can provide a way to control the quality and distribution of a technology. They can also help secure funding for further development and ensure that the invention is used responsibly.

5. Costs: Patent filing and maintenance can be expensive, which might be a concern if the funds were intended for direct research rather than IP protection.

 

If the procedure to install the proposed tech was as invasive as having a cochlear implant, I would think very seriously about it before trying, even with my severe tinnitus and loudness hyperacusis. However, my understanding is that they are working towards a device that could be fitted in audiology clinics. I'd willingly go for that.

WTF indeed. The situation is ludicrous.

 

I would like to say that Dr. Shore did communicate with us. She did a whole Q&A with us!

→ Q&A with Dr. Shore

She just won’t comment on the FDA process.

 

I agree with you that someone must have experienced reactivity and/or hyperacusis before getting a cochlear implant. I read about a woman who considered getting a cochlear implant for a while due to single-sided deafness. I know she struggled with severe tinnitus, but I’m fairly certain she also mentioned having hyperacusis. She eventually decided to get the cochlear implant, and I believe she said it significantly reduced both her tinnitus and hyperacusis.

I suppose it depends on the location of the hyper-excitatory nerves, synapses, and other factors that contribute to someone's sound sensitivity or reactivity. Suppose those misfiring/excitatory factors are in the inner ear. Would they need to be "eliminated," as happens with a cochlear implant, before the device begins sending electrical signals through the electrodes in the cochlea?

I apologize if my thoughts seem unclear or don’t align with the studies. I’ve done much less reading and research for a while now for the sake of my mental health. Ultimately, we know that many people who suffer from tinnitus severe enough to affect their quality of life—those who would be candidates for these types of implants—are also troubled by reactivity and/or hyperacusis. As I mentioned before, it’s the severe sound-reactive component that prevents me from fully living the life I once did.

 

Hopefully, Dr. Djalilian will touch upon this during his live Q&A. I’ve helped Tinnitus Quest by compiling a list of questions for him to prepare. Many have wondered if the middle ear implants will help reactive tinnitus, hyperacusis, noxacusis, and multiple tones.

 

Does anyone else get Billy Mays vibes from Dr. De Ridder and Dr. Djalilian? They seem to have so many products: Neuromed "migraine therapy," UCI CBT, and now a middle ear implant? Dr. De Ridder announces a neuromodulation device at the same conference where he states that only a third of people are helped by treatment.

I've seen some of Dr. De Ridder's drug "cocktails" shared here, and they border on experimental—like throwing mud on the wall and seeing what sticks, with a lot of narcotic use involved. If the middle ear implants work, then great! But I am a bit wary when these names are involved.

 

I'm trying to understand the ethical standpoint of research that, on one hand, cites a 40-year-old experiment that produced results many of us dream of, yet, on the other hand, is still conducting feasibility studies today to determine if that same technology actually works. Someone from the research community will have to help me because I can't, for the life of me, reconcile these two positions.

 

At least they are taking action and being transparent about it. Dr. Djalilian has conducted clinical trials on his migraine treatment protocol, and in my opinion, his research on middle ear implants is very promising. Electrical stimulation has been around since the 1970s, so it's not exactly a far-fetched concept. We'll learn more once the Q&A happens on August 30th.