You keep speaking the truth, Glenn.I know I'm repeating myself here but I think the most important facet of the Lenire story at present is the undeniable disconnect between the User Experience reports and Neuromod's claimed outcome stats (both from the trials and informal statements about how actual end-users are faring).
I am really looking forward to Tinnitus Talk taking the pending crunched data from April and getting Neuromod into a formal response. I know Tinnitus Talk wants to maintain a good channel of communication with them but this independent data-gathering is a necessary check and balance against the sort of exploitation that has been par for the course with tinnitus pseudo-treatments. Neuromod has been the benefit of a lot of renewed goodwill despite the failure of MuteButton. If the treatment works, then Neuromod has nothing to be afraid of by being placed under the microscope, but the more it squirms and evades and cries foul the more suspicious they'll look. So really the burden is on them and Tinnitus Talk has every right to put them under the hot-seat.
You didn't deserve the hate that you were receiving from other people who were criticising your Lenire judgement. Why can't we just be kind to one another.Well said. I am just thankful that the snark in this thread has started to subside in sync with the emerging data.
You've nothing to be regretful about. Tinnitus Talk is fighting the good fight.I can only imagine how many of our unregistered readers have ended up learning about Lenire from here and buying a device. Sometimes I regret this
Yeah, clenching my jaw makes it louder, sometimes chewing does the same thing.Hey @BigNick, thanks for your update.
Can you modulate your tinnitus by moving your jaw?
Hope that you are going to improve somehow!
I am going to postpone my report for 3 weeks, can't say much after 3 weeks. It fluctuates.
Damn straight.So really the burden is on them and Tinnitus Talk has every right to put them under the hot-seat.
Speak for yourself. Those who have been tracking the reviews online see it very differently.I know I'm repeating myself here but I think the most important facet of the Lenire story at present is the undeniable disconnect between the User Experience reports and Neuromod's claimed outcome stats
Speak for yourself. Those who have been tracking the reviews online see it very differently.
Yeah it's true Glenn's stats weren't even close to accurate. But he's right that Lenire is underperforming with site-based improvements. I will release my final stats in late March but Lenire has underperformed here.Speak for yourself. Those who have been tracking the reviews online see it very differently.
Forgive me - can you explain what these numbers mean for dummies (i.e. me)?Neuromod official stats:
Including placebo: 86%
Excluding placebo: 70%
My stats:
Including placebo: 85%
Excluding placebo: 70%
Hasn't the main problem here been the meaning of the phrase "clinically significant"? I mean, 86% of treatment completed users saying, "Erm, well, yeah, hmmm, there could be a bit of difference in my tinnitus now, and that might be down to Lenire", is just not the same as 86% saying, "Hell yeah, my tinnitus is much lower in general now since treatment; Lenire has done the job and I'm feeling much better."Yeah it's true Glenn's stats weren't even close to accurate. But he's right that Lenire is underperforming with site-based improvements. I will release my final stats in late March but Lenire has underperformed here.
That being said as *the* person who tracked down each online review the most (maybe except for PeterPan), I don't see Lenire extremely over/underperforming in any major metric. Here's what I've noticed:
Neuromod official stats:
Including placebo: 86%
Excluding placebo: 70%
My stats:
Including placebo: 85%
Excluding placebo: 70%
Neuromod really needs to just release the technical paper, but they clearly haven't made it a priority. Very disappointed in them tbh.
I don't think you're mischaracterising the situation at all although I do feel the statement that Lenire has perhaps made some patients worse is understated.I've been looking at Tinnitus Talk for a little over a year now, and am not familiar with the arc of optimism for other technologies mentioned by longer term posters. Would it not be fair to say with Lenire, though, that whilst the results are underwhelming, there *are* results. With many of these other products the common element seems to be zero effect. Lenire appears to make some marginally better, and perhaps some worse. But that does at least present some empirical evidence in favor of the theorized treatment mechanism. This seems to be a step forward, regardless of Lenire's particular performance. Or am I mischaracterizing things?
'In my opinion - YES.'I've been looking at Tinnitus Talk for a little over a year now, and am not familiar with the arc of optimism for other technologies mentioned by longer term posters. Would it not be fair to say with Lenire, though, that whilst the results are underwhelming, there *are* results. With many of these other products the common element seems to be zero effect. Lenire appears to make some marginally better, and perhaps some worse. But that does at least present some empirical evidence in favor of the theorized treatment mechanism. This seems to be a step forward, regardless of Lenire's particular performance. Or am I mischaracterizing things?
It definitely works for me and for a couple other folks. So it's not a dummy. But individual reactions vary greatly.I've been looking at Tinnitus Talk for a little over a year now, and am not familiar with the arc of optimism for other technologies mentioned by longer term posters. Would it not be fair to say with Lenire, though, that whilst the results are underwhelming, there *are* results. With many of these other products the common element seems to be zero effect. Lenire appears to make some marginally better, and perhaps some worse. But that does at least present some empirical evidence in favor of the theorized treatment mechanism. This seems to be a step forward, regardless of Lenire's particular performance. Or am I mischaracterizing things?
Yes exactly. If I said both groups fit under improved, then it would be an 86% reduction. If I only said the latter group improved, it would be only 70% improved.Hasn't the main problem here been the meaning of the phrase "clinically significant"? I mean, 86% of treatment completed users saying, "Erm, well, yeah, hmmm, there could be a bit of difference in my tinnitus now, and that might be down to Lenire", is just not the same as 86% saying, "Hell yeah, my tinnitus is much lower in general now since treatment; Lenire has done the job and I'm feeling much better."
Basically, 86% feel they improved, 70% actually improved.Forgive me - can you explain what these numbers mean for dummies (i.e. me)?
Thanks,
Jack
Sorry to keep pressing this point but how are you making the distinction? I mean, if a patient "feels" they improved, that's down to stuff like THI, right? Therefore what criteria does a patient's outcome need to satisfy in order that you can say they "actually" improved? Is it stuff like MML? Haven't we had situations where MML has increased and yet the patient "feels" marginally better? It doesn't make sense.Yes exactly. If I said both groups fit under improved, then it would be an 86% reduction. If I only said the latter group improved, it would be only 70% improved.
Yes I feel that's where the disconnect lies. My methodology is to try to record dB reduction as much as possible using reported dB reductions (compared to Lenire's 6 dB) and comparing improvement language to known "standard candles". People have been wondering why the official improvement rate that Neuromod and I share is 70%, but the Tinnitus Talk exclusive observed real improvement rate is 55%.Sorry to keep pressing this point but how are you making the distinction? I mean, if a patient "feels" they improved, that's down to stuff like THI, right? Therefore what criteria does a patient's outcome need to satisfy in order that you can say they "actually" improved? Is it stuff like MML? Haven't we had situations where MML has increased and yet the patient "feels" marginally better? It doesn't make sense.
This point has been made quite a few times but I think now we're seeing Tinnitus Talk results come in it does give us something more tangible to work with so thanks for going through it again.Yes I feel that's where the disconnect lies. My methodology is to try to record dB reduction as much as possible using reported dB reductions (compared to Lenire's 6 dB) and comparing improvement language to known "standard candles". People have been wondering why the official improvement rate that Neuromod and I share is 70%, but the Tinnitus Talk exclusive observed real improvement rate is 55%.
I honed in on the problem: dB reduction doesn't make as much of an impact as we thought unless it goes into the single digits. You could have people like Mike T who have huge dB improvement but little "real" improvement because their tinnitus is so loud it hardly makes a difference. And on the other hand you could have people like Hans799 have very good improvement with little because their tinnitus is so mild.
In other words; why Tinnitus Talk results are underwhelming is because people with loud tinnitus are less likely to have an impact, and people who linger on tinnitus forums are more likely to have loud tinnitus. Therefore people on Tinnitus Talk are less likely to have a reduction in perceived tinnitus volume.
Well I was hoping that perhaps Neuromod could release subtype information that could help certain sufferers figure out if they're prone to improvement or not. It would be hard to really come up with an actual new method to help sufferers if they'll benefit a lot from treatment. And I'm not an actual tinnitus researcher so I probably wouldn't be able to propose a good method. But if I had to, I'd say we should focus on comparing before-after MMLs or mild and severe sufferers, and compare them to their own before-after THIs.This point has been made quite a few times but I think now we're seeing Tinnitus Talk results come in it does give us something more tangible to work with so thanks for going through it again.
Based on the data you're collecting do you feel confident that we can establish a new metric going forward - one that provides some kind of statistical probability for the treatment's efficacy based on one's own MML, which a person could of course measure prior to engaging Neuromod at much less cost and strife?
70% still sounds pretty good, but would you say that out of that 70% maybe only 25% experience very good results and the rest is average? Or how would you break it down?Yes exactly. If I said both groups fit under improved, then it would be an 86% reduction. If I only said the latter group improved, it would be only 70% improved.
Wow you're almost exactly spot on. 26% seem to have a "Great" rating in terms of reduction. And yeah the remaining 44% improved is meh.70% still sounds pretty good, but would you say that out of that 70% maybe only 25% experience very good results and the rest is average? Or how would you break it down?
Yes, but it seems like the odds of your tinnitus getting worse are just as high as them getting better--with the majority never seeing change exceeding placebo. That tells me that while yes, neuromodulation is a thing, Neuromod has really oversold its ability to harness and control it. I mean, it's like they have their fingers on a tinnitus volume knob but they don't know which direction to turn it to make it go down. It's a risky proposition to jump in this early.whilst the results are underwhelming, there *are* results.