Unfortunately it's evident from your own story that you improved idiopathically and in a placebo manner, not from TRT. The reason being your tinnitus went away. TRT hustlers always claim to habituate not to make the tinnitus go away. This is a problem that happens so often in TRT miracle cure stories like yours, you all jump all over the place, you are all radically unspecific, you're all more optimistic than Alice in Wonderland 1970s porn edition.
This guy hops on TRT and says nonsense as grandstanding as ''I helped many friends who have come to me for help with this. My old boss had really bad tinnitus for 30 years and I spent a slow day at work telling him about how TRT works. He called me the next day and told me he had not slept so good in years. Last time I saw him I asked him how he was feels and he said he never thinks about it. He said he got his life back.'' Which is a contradiction from the statements from TRT hustlers that TRT works long-term, not to mention an absurd mise-en-scene all on its own. 30 years of T and the boss is now cured because he has a white noise box at night. Also, had your ''tinnitus'' remained the same while the ''hyperacusis'' disappeared at least we could try to make a case for ''sensitivity'' and ''tolerance'', but as it is, it seems that simply the injury disappeared. Even if it wasn't placebo, it wouldn't merely be ''as how you see it'', it would be for your own type of ''hyperacusis'', which is a symptom, not a diagnosis.
Next time, don't just repeat the mantra about how the huge range of injuries and possibilities behind the different processes squirelling under the banner of hyperacusis are all down to ''hypersensitivity'' and ''decreased sound tolerance''. Give us a working theory behind what TRT is actually doing to the ear, and prove to us why hyperacusis is this one thing you speak of. Don't be a reductionist, don't be like Jastreboff. Try to address exactly the symptoms that are addressed by TRT and under what theory in otology Jastreboff is supposed to be making sense. Is he addressing pain? Is he addressing dysacusis? Is he addressing reactivity, distortion, echoes, neuropathic pain? What type of hyperacusis?
One paper titled Strange Chewing Muscle says ''Sustained contraction of these muscles in TMD may alter inner ear perilymphatic and endolymphatic pressure through changes transmitted from the oval window toward the walls of the labyrinth and semicircular canals''. Another one,
which Debbie from chat-hyperacusis pointed to in an important post, uses sonography to see if
cerebrospinal fluid is causing middle ear muscle contractions. So what is it, the middle ear affecting the inner ear, or the inner vascular system affecting the middle ear? Another paper says there's another theory behind the interaction between the middle and inner ear,
the intra-labyrinthine pressure theory. Other papers talk about cochlear damage from sounds, shit like the cochlea blood barrier suffering hypoxia during acoustic trauma, which I don't understand. Another one says it's phantom sounds from
microdisruption of the ossicles. So look into explaining whether this and that theory is or isn't part of Jastreboff's theory of TRT and ''decreased sound tolerance'' for ''hyperacusis''. I assume each and every one of these papers come up with their own resulting ''hyperacusises''. As do all the theories out there like what neurotransmitters sit on the tensor tympani, why the failure of muscle relaxants in dealing with TTTS isn't proof this isn't psychogenic. Or maybe look into how a partially open eustachian tube could be difficult to diagnose, or it could be a myth, and would it cause distortion and echo to external sound by allowing it to enter from where it shouldn't. All different types of ''hyperacusis'', as it's a symptom not a diagnosis.
Member
