I was recently offended yet again by the stupidity of the Jastrebluffites when I chanced upon their shitty attempt at brandsquatting at that site. I read the retarded, lazy, disgusting, disgraceful and already thoroughly debunked statement ''Since all people with hyperacusis can be helped by a behavioural approach with 'sound' therapy, it has become clear that the symptoms cannot be the result of irreversible ear damage'' at http://tinnitus.org/hyperacusis-etc/ so I sent them this email. Not holding my breath on whether those half-assed good-for-nothing intellectual slob cowards will take heed.
''Do you still believe the rubbish you write about hyperacusis that it is '' due to an alteration in the central processing of sound in the auditory pathways where there is an abnormally strong reaction from exposure to moderate sound levels. ''... now that we know for certain that certain types of hyperacusis were due to a malfunctioning stapes (Herbert Silverstein reinforcement procedure), and others were due to a malfunctioning eustachian tube (Schedler and Hain success with grommets, Sudhoff success with vox injections in the tube)? If some patulous tube syndrome experts admit that there's a host of symptoms from PET that don't necessarily include autophony that can be addressed with tube treatment, perhaps hyperacusis was a middle ear issue all along. So instead of ''The cochlea is often completely normal, although patients frequently wrongly believe it is irreversibly damaged. '', it would seem that patients were right all along to suspect that it was a middle ear issue all along. Why did Dr Hazell not follow this path down when he wrote ''Patulous Eustachian tube syndrome: The relationship with sensorineural hearing loss Treatment by Eustachian tube diathermy'' decades ago? In that paper the link between acoustic trauma and patulous tube is suspected (and so is cochlear damage). It was one thing to pull back on the mixed reviews tenotomies got for treating hyperacusis by saying that the muscles were part of the acoustic reflex and so were also mediated centrally, it's another thing entirely different to say that now apparently cognitive behavioral therapy of the auditory process can cure something that's so obviously not aurally mediated like the eustachian tube.''
''Do you still believe the rubbish you write about hyperacusis that it is '' due to an alteration in the central processing of sound in the auditory pathways where there is an abnormally strong reaction from exposure to moderate sound levels. ''... now that we know for certain that certain types of hyperacusis were due to a malfunctioning stapes (Herbert Silverstein reinforcement procedure), and others were due to a malfunctioning eustachian tube (Schedler and Hain success with grommets, Sudhoff success with vox injections in the tube)? If some patulous tube syndrome experts admit that there's a host of symptoms from PET that don't necessarily include autophony that can be addressed with tube treatment, perhaps hyperacusis was a middle ear issue all along. So instead of ''The cochlea is often completely normal, although patients frequently wrongly believe it is irreversibly damaged. '', it would seem that patients were right all along to suspect that it was a middle ear issue all along. Why did Dr Hazell not follow this path down when he wrote ''Patulous Eustachian tube syndrome: The relationship with sensorineural hearing loss Treatment by Eustachian tube diathermy'' decades ago? In that paper the link between acoustic trauma and patulous tube is suspected (and so is cochlear damage). It was one thing to pull back on the mixed reviews tenotomies got for treating hyperacusis by saying that the muscles were part of the acoustic reflex and so were also mediated centrally, it's another thing entirely different to say that now apparently cognitive behavioral therapy of the auditory process can cure something that's so obviously not aurally mediated like the eustachian tube.''