Neuromod has been guilty of opaqueness and doublespeak for some time now. They have created the perception among the public that the probability of statistically significant for anyone accepted for treatment is very high. But when asked, they have categorically refused to release any details other than things about hyperacusis sufferers being super-responders. * The closest to hard data we got was in a Vimeo video from a conference Hubert Lim did which was summarily smacked down by Neuromod. Then they gave all sorts of excuses for the lack of data:
a) peer review will take a long time... because muh data volume
b) data about those now using the device can't be released... because muh privacy
Despite that, they will gladly throw out exuberant numbers one-on-one when you're in the clinic to make sure you write the check.
If the public had nothing go by beyond their word that's one thing. But the user experience reports, limited in number as they may be, act as the verify part of trust but verify.
And how is that going?
Well, if nothing changes, then the conclusion in April will be that the trust can't be verified. There is a disconnect that needs to be explained.
Where should we go when that happens?
At the very least, Tinnitus Talk's data (and based on the preview, it's going to be really well done) should be brought over to them and they should be asked to answer for it in classic 60 minutes fashion. If they slam the door or give increasingly farcical answers then it will be pretty hard to hold onto that initial benefit-of-the-doubt trust.
* At least one (from memory) in the user experience thread reported he/she has hyperacusis but is not a super-responder.