Frequency Therapeutics — Hearing Loss Regeneration

[SD7]

Agreed. This isn't just regular medicine; its regenerative, its localized and it works on chemical messengers. It's completely believable to me that dosing too often could inhibit the process. You put a dose in the ear and tell the progenitor cells to start their mitotic regeneration, then you come back a week later and interrupt those same cells by telling them to start over when they barely have even got started. The analogy I used was it's like trying to bake a cake in the oven but every 5 minutes you open the oven door and add another egg and some extra flour rather than just leaving the cake alone and letting it does its thing.

God, please let this be true.

 

[Exit]

God, please let this be true.

So why are we not seeing results on the 1 injection studies which there have been many?

It's been 3-4 results this year, correct?

This is not a cakewalk. There's delivery problems or lack of connection to the brain. If there's at all any functional hair cell growth in humans?

 

[tommyd87]

So why are we not seeing results on the 1 injection studies which there have been many?

It's been 3-4 results this year, correct?

This is not a cakewalk. There's delivery problems or lack of connection to the brain. If there's at all any functional hair cell growth in humans?

The thing that we are aware of is that there have been delivery issues with the current method. Most certainly this is why other firms have not utilised this approach and also why Frequency Therapeutics has looked at investigating alternative delivery methods.

There have been three trials that have released results. There was one which was positive and the multiple courses trial showed improvements too but the issue was that both the placebo group and the FX-322 group both demonstrated benefit making the outcomes redundant.

 

[Damocles]

That cake has potential...

It's gonna be a SUPER CAKE!

It'll have so many yolks + flour + hair cells, it'll be able to hear a cake slice coming from 500 miles away!

And such mass that when that cake slice does come, it'll be able to choke slam the wielder with ease...

 

[d'Wooluf]

It's gonna be a SUPER CAKE!

It'll have so many yolks + flour + hair cells, it'll be able to hear a cake slice coming from 500 miles away!

And such mass that when that cake slice does come, it'll be able to choke slam the wielder with ease...

Easy Tiger. Just sit over there and eat some of that other cake with no medication baked into it whatsoever.

 

[Jurger]

Easy Tiger. Just sit over there and eat some of that other cake with no medication baked into it whatsoever.

Or cake with copium.

 

[AfroSnowman]

Frequency Therapeutics to Present at Upcoming Investor Conferences

 

[Street Novelist]

Frequency Therapeutics to Present at Upcoming Investor Conferences

Good find Snowman; will be very curious to see if he releases the results then or if we will have to wait until October or later.

 

[Keith Handy]

Good find Snowman; will be very curious to see if he releases the results then or if we will have to wait until October or later.

I'm going to guess no. They don't seem to do "reveals" like that at conferences; it will probably largely be a rehash of things we already know, except maybe some hints as to what R&D has been working on.

 

[Ed209]

Listening to the latest Tinnitus Talk Podcast episode with Prof. Dirk De Ridder reminds me of the debate we had on pages 581-583.

He pretty much restates the argument that I made, that there's no evidence to suggest that by fixing hearing loss, it would be a magic bullet for tinnitus. There are too many areas of the brain involved to assume it would work automatically. When I made this point, the responses I received were very understandably passionate, but I think I was perceived as being unnecessarily pessimistic and negative. It was clear that my opinion was in the minority.

We can only ever judge something by the evidence we have, and until something happens to change that, we must remain neutral to such ideas.

 

[star-affinity]

Listening to the latest Tinnitus Talk Podcast episode with Prof. Dirk De Ridder reminds me of the debate we had on pages 581-583.

He pretty much restates the argument that I made, that there's no evidence to suggest that by fixing hearing loss, it would be a magic bullet for tinnitus. There are too many areas of the brain involved to assume it would work automatically.

I think I understand the argument, but until we have actually been able to cure hearing loss, how can we know? I don't see how the conclusion that because a hearing aid doesn't alleviate tinnitus for everyone with measurable hearing loss (still, it does for 20% according to De Ridder) it means curing hearing loss likely won't help removing tinnitus. I mean, the auditory system in the inner ear is still broken even if you "help" it with a hearing aid.

At least I think it's a good start to restore hearing loss, which in itself is a fantastic achievement.

But you're right – we should stay neutral until more evidence arise.

 

[Ed209]

I think I understand the argument, but until we have actually been able to cure hearing loss, how can we know? I don't see how the conclusion that because a hearing aid doesn't alleviate tinnitus for everyone with measurable hearing loss (still, it does for 20% according to De Ridder) it means curing hearing loss likely won't help removing tinnitus. I mean, the auditory system in the inner ear is still broken even if you "help" it with a hearing aid.

At least I think it's a good start to restore hearing loss, which in itself is a fantastic achievement.

But you're right – we should stay neutral until more evidence arise.

The point I made is that we don't know. The main issue is that everyone on the planet has hearing loss (nobody escapes it), but not everyone has tinnitus. Even if we take those with acute hearing losses, or SSHL, there's only a subset that goes on to develop chronic tinnitus. This picture is further distorted by those who develop tinnitus without an obvious acoustic trauma, such as during pregnancy, or people with muscular skeletal issues, PTSD, etc. We do not yet fully understand the pathophysiology of tinnitus. We have glimpses of the mechanics behind it, but we don't understand the full picture yet.

I do understand how easy it is to become emotionally biased on a thread like this, though. I was told that my thinking was outdated at one point with no explanation as to why.

 

[Gb3]

The point I made is that we don't know. The main issue is that everyone on the planet has hearing loss (nobody escapes it), but not everyone has tinnitus. Even if we take those with acute hearing losses, or SSHL, there's only a subset that goes on to develop chronic tinnitus. This picture is further distorted by those who develop tinnitus without an obvious acoustic trauma, such as during pregnancy, or people with muscular skeletal issues, PTSD, etc. We do not yet fully understand the pathophysiology of tinnitus. We have glimpses of the mechanics behind it, but we don't understand the full picture yet.

I do understand how easy it is to become emotionally biased on a thread like this, though. I was told that my thinking was outdated at one point with no explanation as to why.

Most people who have SSHL have tinnitus; not a subset. It's like 70%.

 

[Ed209]

Most people who have SSHL have tinnitus; not a subset. It's like 70%.

Yeah, that's a poor choice of word for that instance, but the point remains when you look at hearing loss as a whole (it's still a subset). Not all people with hearing loss, acute or otherwise, end up with chronic tinnitus. It's a much smaller percentage that do.

 

[antonio77]

Agreed. This isn't just regular medicine; its regenerative, its localized and it works on chemical messengers. It's completely believable to me that dosing too often could inhibit the process. You put a dose in the ear and tell the progenitor cells to start their mitotic regeneration, then you come back a week later and interrupt those same cells by telling them to start over when they barely have even got started. The analogy I used was it's like trying to bake a cake in the oven but every 5 minutes you open the oven door and add another egg and some extra flour rather than just leaving the cake alone and letting it does its thing.

This is the answer I was looking for a long time ago, I did not quite understand it (English is not my native language).

 

[star-affinity]

The point I made is that we don't know. The main issue is that everyone on the planet has hearing loss (nobody escapes it), but not everyone has tinnitus. Even if we take those with acute hearing losses, or SSHL, there's only a subset that goes on to develop chronic tinnitus. This picture is further distorted by those who develop tinnitus without an obvious acoustic trauma, such as during pregnancy, or people with muscular skeletal issues, PTSD, etc. We do not yet fully understand the pathophysiology of tinnitus. We have glimpses of the mechanics behind it, but we don't understand the full picture yet.

I do understand how easy it is to become emotionally biased on a thread like this, though. I was told that my thinking was outdated at one point with no explanation as to why.

I agree with what you say.

In another thread I was speculating about this as a reason for why some develop tinnitus and others don't:

Maybe there's also a difference to how the brain reacts to the synaptopathy – if the synapse disconnects/dies gracefully of old age compared to if it's damaged or "disconnected somewhat" from auditory overstimulation?

I have no idea what I'm talking about, but since hearing-loss can come from both damaged or dead hair cells and/or (more common it seems) damaged or "disconnected" synapses that's connected to those hair cells, there are more than one parameter in the inner ear that can lead to hearing loss. Maybe it's just the synaptopathy that's involved in tinnitus and maybe it's only when you have lost parts of them connected to each hair cell – do we know how many synapses are connected to each hair cell?

Just thinking loud, sorry...

But you are correct there seems to be more than hearing loss that has to do with tinnitus. My old tinnitus sound discovered in my right ear when I was a teen was basically a non-issue until the sound got elevated the day after I slept with a bunch of beers in my body. Also got a new hum/drone in my head. No loud music or sound at all that night, so it must have been the alcohol and/or maybe the Corona virus that affected me. I did have other symptoms for about two months. such as brain fog and "itchy scalp" at times, but none of the typical COVID-19 symptoms. My hearing wasn't noticeably affected, though. So was it the brain that got a tilt or was the inner ear also involved in the damage?

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Listening to the latest Tinnitus Talk Podcast episode with Prof. Dirk De Ridder reminds me of the debate we had on pages 581-583.

He pretty much restates the argument that I made, that there's no evidence to suggest that by fixing hearing loss, it would be a magic bullet for tinnitus. There are too many areas of the brain involved to assume it would work automatically. When I made this point, the responses I received were very understandably passionate, but I think I was perceived as being unnecessarily pessimistic and negative. It was clear that my opinion was in the minority.

We can only ever judge something by the evidence we have, and until something happens to change that, we must remain neutral to such ideas.

DDR is a neurologist so of course he sees things that way. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

If hearing loss is unrelated at all, then why does his solution include hearing aids...

 

[Gb3]

Yeah, that's a poor choice of word for that instance, but the point remains when you look at hearing loss as a whole (it's still a subset). Not all people with hearing loss, acute or otherwise, end up with chronic tinnitus. It's a much smaller percentage that do.

I think it has to do with the type of hearing loss. If it's sudden, the brain freaks out and causes the tinnitus due to lack of input. If the hearing loss is gradual, there is less chance that you get tinnitus but some still do. I think tinnitus can be caused by a number of different things but if it's caused from hearing loss there is definitely good reason to think curing hearing loss will fix it. We have already seen this with cochlear implants.

 

[Ed209]

If hearing loss is unrelated at all, then why does his solution include hearing aids...

Because it's clearly related? There's a correlation, but in no way does it explain tinnitus.

Tinnitus is a brain problem, so I'd say DDR is perfectly placed to give an expert opinion, especially considering that he deals with this condition every day.

Wasn't it you that said my thinking is outdated? Do you consider DDR's opinion to be outdated as well?

How do you explain the reason why there's only a small proportion of people with hearing loss that have tinnitus?

I think people in this thread largely want to believe this theory because of FX-322, which is understandable. But, I believe objectivity is being cast aside because people are willing it to work so badly. The fact remains that nobody knows what will happen, and until there's a clinical trial that uses something that is proven to restore hearing to a good enough level, then we'll have to keep guessing, unfortunately.

It appears I'm still in the minority on this thread.

 

[Ed209]

I think it has to do with the type of hearing loss. If it's sudden, the brain freaks out and causes the tinnitus due to lack of input. If the hearing loss is gradual, there is less chance that you get tinnitus but some still do.

I think it goes much deeper than this. There's too much entanglement of neural networks that involve things like our memory and emotional processing.

 

[serendipity1996]

Because it's clearly related? There's a correlation, but in no way does it explain tinnitus.

Tinnitus is a brain problem, so I'd say DDR is perfectly placed to give an expert opinion, especially considering that he deals with this condition every day.

Wasn't it you that said my thinking is outdated? Do you consider DDR's opinion to be outdated as well?

How do you explain the reason why there's only a small proportion of people with hearing loss that have tinnitus?

I think people in this thread largely want to believe this theory because of FX-322, which is understandable. But, I believe objectivity is being cast aside because people are willing it to work so badly. The fact remains that nobody knows what will happen, and until there's a clinical trial that uses something that is proven to restore hearing to a good enough level, then we'll have to keep guessing, unfortunately.

It appears I'm still in the minority on this thread.

I mean, I don't think it's just some lone tiny minority of people on this thread who believe in this theory, as you seem to think. This is hardly a fringe opinion either. The Hearing Health Foundation last year made a post about how treatment of noise-induced tinnitus will require developing treatments/cures for hearing loss.

"Mounting evidence implicates tinnitus as an indicator of underlying auditory deficits, however mild these deficits might be, and including "hidden hearing loss" that isn't captured via the standard audiogram."

"In conclusion, all indications are that tinnitus, when not caused directly by a central nervous system issue (e.g., stroke), is always associated with one or more forms of hearing loss. As a result, although a treatment of most forms of tinnitus will likely emerge in the years to come, curing tinnitus will first require curing hearing loss."

https://hearinghealthfoundation.org/blogs/tinnitus-and-noise-trauma-to-the-inner-ear

Charles Liberman has also stated in various interviews that he thinks hearing restoration, e.g. via synaptogenesis could be a viable treatment for tinnitus and hyperacusis and that it's been observed that restoring input via cochlea implants has reduced tinnitus. Or does his expert opinion not count? He only discovered hidden hearing loss, after all...

I respect your opinion but it seems like you outhand dismiss any other theory as being completely wrong and baseless. You could lose some of the condescension too.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Because it's clearly related? There's a correlation, but in no way does it explain tinnitus.

Tinnitus is a brain problem, so I'd say DDR is perfectly placed to give an expert opinion, especially considering that he deals with this condition every day.

Wasn't it you that said my thinking is outdated? Do you consider DDR's opinion to be outdated as well?

How do you explain the reason why there's only a small proportion of people with hearing loss that have tinnitus?

I think people in this thread largely want to believe this theory because of FX-322, which is understandable. But, I believe objectivity is being cast aside because people are willing it to work so badly. The fact remains that nobody knows what will happen, and until there's a clinical trial that uses something that is proven to restore hearing to a good enough level, then we'll have to keep guessing, unfortunately.

It appears I'm still in the minority on this thread.

Well DDR has been working on this for a long, long time with nothing to show, he hasn't even proven "it's a brain problem".

On the other hand the theory you very rudely dismiss as "emotionally biased" without even considering it has more and more evidence of being correct piling up by the day.

 

[Keith Handy]

...so I'd say DDR is perfectly placed to give an expert opinion, especially considering that he deals with this condition every day.

How are his clinical trials going?

 

[Gb3]

I think it goes much deeper than this. There's too much entanglement of neural networks that involve things like our memory and emotional processing.

Emotional process lol. It has nothing to do with that. I lost my hearing suddenly and my brain is freaking out.

 

[Ed209]

Charles Liberman has also stated in various interviews that he thinks hearing restoration, e.g. via synaptogenesis could be a viable treatment for tinnitus and hyperacusis and that it's been observed that restoring input via cochlea implants has reduced tinnitus. Or does his expert opinion not count? He only discovered hidden hearing loss, after all...

Not at all. Anyone can have an opinion on this as we don't know, nobody does, and that's kind of my point. I think hearing loss will be a big part of the problem for a lot of people, but I don't think it will outright solve it; I think there will be more to it, and that's my opinion. Last time I gave my opinion on this thread I was very much in the minority and was rudely told that I was wrong by some members, pretty much. I just found it interesting that DDR had a similar opinion to me, that's all.

I wouldn't care either way if someone actually fixed tinnitus.

I respect your opinion but it seems like you outhand dismiss any other theory as being completely wrong and baseless. You could lose some of the condescension too.

Go back and read my previous interactions. Everything I said was dismissed with an air of condescension. All I said is that we don't know whilst others were fairly certain, and it seemed to anger a lot of people.

If I come across that way as well, then I apologise; it's honestly not my intention at all. I'm more of a truth seeker than a definitive believer of something that isn't proven.

Well DDR has been working on this for a long, long time with nothing to show, he hasn't even proven "it's a brain problem."

But nobody has got anything to show for tinnitus that clinically works right now, so I think this is a bit of an odd statement.

I think it's becoming quite clear that it's a brain problem more than an isolated issue of the ear. It's more of a combination of both in most cases based on the available evidence.

On the other hand the theory you very rudely dismiss as "emotionally biased" without even considering it has more and more evidence of being correct piling up by the day.

I think there is a lot of emotional bias on here, but that's just my opinion. It's not a statement of fact. It may come across as rude, but that's not intentional and is no worse than how I was previously spoken to in this thread.

How are his clinical trials going?

How are everyone else's clinical trials going? I'm not sure what the point of this question is? Researchers look for answers, and every little bit of knowledge we gain enhances our understanding just a tiny bit. I'm thankful to everyone who tries to help.

I think there's a bit of a tribal mentality that really frowns upon anyone who has the opinion that solving hearing loss might not fix tinnitus.

Ultimately, I don't think anybody would care either way if there was actually a breakthrough and tinnitus became treatable.

 

[Damocles]

It'll seem ironic -considering my very vocal stance against the COVID-19 vaccines that are utilising gene therapy (also an ongoing experiment)- but there's no point in arguing about this.

As several people have already said: we're not going to know if restoration of CHCs is going to resolve tinnitus, until a handful of tinnitus sufferers with NIHL, have had their CHCs restored.

I'm really sorry @Justin Mills. You're gonna hate me, and I know you're probably going to come at me again for saying this again, but we are playing whack-a-mole here.

Everybody just needs to chill out, watch a boxset or something, and maybe find a way to donate their bucks to research, until our guys (the scientists) get this thing off the ground.

What I'll add, is that I am personally holding out more for treatments that reduce my symptoms rather than cure them for the time being. But if these "cures" ever begin to peek over the horizon, then as @danielthor said, I'm going to be prioritising regenerative treatments, ahead of anything that f*cks with my brain, like a chip.

Let's see if this preferable pathway garners results, than we can start zapping our neurons for days.

 

[Ed209]

Emotional process lol. It has nothing to do with that. I lost my hearing suddenly and my brain is freaking out.

There's a lot of research that suggests otherwise. It's still a minority of people who develop chronic tinnitus (particularly tinnitus that affects one's life considerably), even if it is present after an acoustic assault or repeated damage that leads to hearing loss. There surely has to be other brain processes involved otherwise everyone on the planet would have severe tinnitus. A bass player friend of mine - who has played in many bands with me over the years - has been in so many loud and damaging environments, including the gig that put me over the edge (he was sitting next to me at the time), has no tinnitus whatsoever, but he almost certainly has hearing loss. He has never used earplugs and has gigged since he was a teenager, and he's now in his 40's. This is just one example of many.

I apologise again if people thought my posts were condescending as that was not my intention whatsoever. However, I would argue that some of the posts in response to my opinions were equally as bad, lol. Your reply above could be considered as such, for example. You could also argue that people are being condescending towards Prof. Dirk De Ridder.

Until there is more conclusive evidence, all of our opinions are equally valid in my eyes. I just got a sense - the last time I was here - that my opinions weren't welcome in the discussion. It felt a bit echo-chamberish.

 

[Pete88]

There's a lot of research that suggests otherwise. It's still a minority of people who develop chronic tinnitus (particularly tinnitus that affects one's life considerably), even if it is present after an acoustic assault or repeated damage that leads to hearing loss. There surely has to be other brain processes involved otherwise everyone on the planet would have severe tinnitus. A bass player friend of mine - who has played in many bands with me over the years - has been in so many loud and damaging environments, including the gig that put me over the edge (he was sitting next to me at the time), has no tinnitus whatsoever, but he almost certainly has hearing loss. He has never used earplugs and has gigged since he was a teenager, and he's now in his 40's. This is just one example of many.

I apologise again if people thought my posts were condescending as that was not my intention whatsoever. However, I would argue that some of the posts in response to my opinions were equally as bad, lol. Your reply above could be considered as such, for example. You could also argue that people are being condescending towards Prof. Dirk De Ridder.

Until there is more conclusive evidence, all of our opinions are equally valid in my eyes. I just got a sense - the last time I was here - that my opinions weren't welcome in the discussion. It felt a bit echo-chamberish.

I am on the side that thinks restoring input to the brain can lessen/stop tinnitus, at least sometimes. However, I do appreciate your scrutiny as I agree with the "echo-chamberish" comments. I've seen people in the thread repeat blatantly false information that sounds promising and these same people jump down throats who dare to question the religion and then act like nothing ever happened when the information was proven to be false. That is a clear indicator of emotional responses clouding objectivity in people, which is the perfect environment for an echo-chamber to thrive.

That being said, I've observed many, many more wonderful and highly informative posts with fantastic facts and interpretations so I'm not trying to shit on the thread or anything. Just showing appreciation for healthy dialog and members who challenge the popular narrative on the thread. I understand people may be of the mind set that certain challenges have been already debunked/settled but with hearing loss and tinnitus being such unknowns, there isn't really much that's been settled on and therefore warrants the door of dialog to be closed.

Of course there is a difference between a healthy challenge and just blatant pessimism, which is only backed by the mind set of "they haven't cured it yet so they will never be able to cure it". That is the same attitude that people who 50 years ago said "everything has already been invented".

This thread has been quiet for months now so it's nice to see something that reignites discussion and reminds people to remember that there is good reason to hold on to hope for a drug(s) that has been developed and in testing.

 

[Ed209]

I am on the side that thinks restoring input to the brain can lessen/stop tinnitus, at least sometimes. However, I do appreciate your scrutiny as I agree with the "echo-chamberish" comments. I've seen people in the thread repeat blatantly false information that sounds promising and these same people jump down throats who dare to question the religion and then act like nothing ever happened when the information was proven to be false. That is a clear indicator of emotional responses clouding objectivity in people, which is the perfect environment for an echo-chamber to thrive.

That being said, I've observed many, many more wonderful and highly informative posts with fantastic facts and interpretations so I'm not trying to shit on the thread or anything. Just showing appreciation for healthy dialog and members who challenge the popular narrative on the thread. I understand people may be of the mind set that certain challenges have been already debunked/settled but with hearing loss and tinnitus being such unknowns, there isn't really much that's been settled on and therefore warrants the door of dialog to be closed.

Of course there is a difference between a healthy challenge and just blatant pessimism, which is only backed by the mind set of "they haven't cured it yet so they will never be able to cure it". That is the same attitude that people who 50 years ago said "everything has already been invented".

This thread has been quiet for months now so it's nice to see something that reignites discussion and reminds people to remember that there is good reason to hold on to hope for a drug(s) that has been developed and in testing.

Yea, I appreciate that. My comments are just opinions like everyone else's on this thread. I did feel that I was being shut down a tad when I posted here last time, but I can appreciate that people can get overly passionate in an environment like this. It's always good to see healthy discussions taking place.

 

[antonio77]

I mean, I don't think it's just some lone tiny minority of people on this thread who believe in this theory, as you seem to think. This is hardly a fringe opinion either. The Hearing Health Foundation last year made a post about how treatment of noise-induced tinnitus will require developing treatments/cures for hearing loss.

"Mounting evidence implicates tinnitus as an indicator of underlying auditory deficits, however mild these deficits might be, and including "hidden hearing loss" that isn't captured via the standard audiogram."

"In conclusion, all indications are that tinnitus, when not caused directly by a central nervous system issue (e.g., stroke), is always associated with one or more forms of hearing loss. As a result, although a treatment of most forms of tinnitus will likely emerge in the years to come, curing tinnitus will first require curing hearing loss."

https://hearinghealthfoundation.org/blogs/tinnitus-and-noise-trauma-to-the-inner-ear

Charles Liberman has also stated in various interviews that he thinks hearing restoration, e.g. via synaptogenesis could be a viable treatment for tinnitus and hyperacusis and that it's been observed that restoring input via cochlea implants has reduced tinnitus. Or does his expert opinion not count? He only discovered hidden hearing loss, after all...

I respect your opinion but it seems like you outhand dismiss any other theory as being completely wrong and baseless. You could lose some of the condescension too.

If that were the case, all the people with hearing aids and tinnitus would have been cured of tinnitus. Just because hearing loss causes tinnitus does not mean that curing hearing cures tinnitus. I don't know how to explain it, but for example if you are deaf and that is why you are hit by a car and you lose your leg, and when your hearing will be cured does not mean that you will get your leg back.