This is objectively untrue. Please don't ruin your own victory lap.Yes, but it seems like the odds of your tinnitus getting worse are just as high as them getting better
This is objectively untrue. Please don't ruin your own victory lap.Yes, but it seems like the odds of your tinnitus getting worse are just as high as them getting better
I think data should be analysed on the following aspects: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.
Doesn't Neuromod say that temporary worsenings are normal and to be expected during the initial consult?This is objectively untrue. Please don't ruin your own victory lap.
Yes but that's not what he's talking about. He made it pretty clear a few weeks ago that he actually thinks it worsening tinnitus instead of improving it is just as likely.Doesn't Neuromod say that temporary worsenings are normal and to be expected during the initial consult?
That's what they say on the one hand, while refusing to disclose actual statistics with the other. I would not decide on whether to take a risk purely based on their word.Doesn't Neuromod say that temporary worsenings are normal and to be expected during the initial consult?
The way he brushed past that in the first interview did not inspire a lot of confidence.That's what they say on the one hand, while refusing to disclose actual statistics with the other. I would not decide on whether to take a risk purely based on their word.
Remember when people were wondering whether they force patients to sign NDAs? Neuromod is foolish if they think they can hold back or spin data at odds with factual reality because word of mouth simply takes its place. The results are the results and the truth comes out regardless.The way he brushed past that in the first interview did not inspire a lot of confidence.
Hi Hans, when did you start to notice the positive effects?It definitely works for me and for a couple other folks. So it's not a dummy. But individual reactions vary greatly.
@threefirefour, may I ask you your help? Sorry if you explained this before. I have to make a decision shortly on whether to keep my appointment or cancel it.Yes but that's not what he's talking about. He made it pretty clear a few weeks ago that he actually thinks it worsening tinnitus instead of improving it is just as likely.
But in that case, saying that it got worse because it temporarily worsened the tinnitus then made it better is bad wording.
4-5 weeks, fairly late into the first 6-week round. All I got during the first few days was spikes lol.Hi Hans, when did you start to notice the positive effects?
If the tinnitus is pretty severe Lenire might not help that much. On the other hand you haven't had it that long (10/2018). That could improve your chances, I guess.Is it correct that very severe cases like me are the least likely to get benefit? This is what I gathered from the leaked scatterplot.
Hey @Chinmoku do you have a copy of that scatter plot to post back in here? I've been searching high and low and can't find it.
Thank you, Ann. Severe cases seem to have gone down from 90 to 70 or 80 at final. I guess that is something but only two datapoints. What are the first plots, where there have been a lot of worsening?
@threefirefour's numbers aren't accurate but he just ignores rebuttals and blindly doubles down. People should not take his input on Lenire seriously.Your anecdotal figures point to a 70% improvement.
I was also looking at the last scatter plot that seems to be not too bad, although the earlier ones are worrying in terms of worsening.@threefirefour's numbers aren't accurate but he just ignores rebuttals and blindly doubles down. People should not take his input on Lenire seriously.
I totally understand where you're coming from. I'm in exactly the same boat and am really only concerned with:I think the least benefit will get the people that have severe tinnitus and have had it for a long time (like me). There's a 95% chance I will cancel my late April appointment, but mostly because of the possible worsening, not the money/placebo thing.
I'm not a researcher, but from a programmers perspective, this makes perfect sense. Having more variables around generates more noise (pun unintended) in the test results. With a complicated condition as tinnitus, you want as few differences as possible among the test subjects, especially when the amount of subjects is limited.My response to this is really straightforward: if there is currently nothing to suggest that duration is important why place the restriction on time since onset in the trials? This is such a vexing point! Even more so where Susan Shore's criteria is concerned because her device is being held up as the lantern to a flailing Lenire.
This is coming from the dude who says only 10% had a statistically significant reduction lmao I ain't taking flak from someone who doesn't understand statistics.@threefirefour's numbers aren't accurate but he just ignores rebuttals and blindly doubles down. People should not take his input on Lenire seriously.
From what I understand, it seems that the most severe cases aren't necessarily less likely to receive true improvement; but they are less likely to notice an improvement@threefirefour, may I ask you your help? Sorry if you explained this before. I have to make a decision shortly on whether to keep my appointment or cancel it.
I'm trying to assess the pros and cons.
Your anecdotal figures point to a 70% improvement in population, with this being a sizeable/noticeable improvement and not placebo. Is that right?
Is it correct that very severe cases like me are the least likely to get benefit? This is what I gathered from the leaked scatterplot.
Do you have any figures also for worsening?
Thanks.
We had a member, @kelpiemsp, who was on the Minnesota trial (not mentioned as often here) who had tinnitus for a very long time and was helped with it quite dramatically. That is really what got me thinking neuromodulation could work for those who had it for a long time.that leaves longer term sufferers with a stark choice - do we go for it, or do we not?
I think it's the future of tinnitus treatment. I hope we get a lot even more effective treatments like this. I personally think we're going to need neuromodulation treatments that target multiple areas of the brain.We had a member, @kelpiemsp, who was on the Minnesota trial (not mentioned as often here) who had tinnitus for a very long time and was helped with it quite dramatically. That is really what got me thinking neuromodulation could work for those who had it for a long time.
Something to consider when looking at the scatter plots is the term at the top of each plot: "Compliant Subjects Only"I was also looking at the last scatter plot that seems to be not too bad, although the earlier ones are worrying in terms of worsening.
Cheers for this. I went back and read his posts - tinnitus from birth, and Minnesota/Hubert Lim cured him.We had a member, @kelpiemsp, who was on the Minnesota trial (not mentioned as often here) who had tinnitus for a very long time and was helped with it quite dramatically. That is really what got me thinking neuromodulation could work for those who had it for a long time.
kelpiemsp said:I know Lenire didn't do this, but part of the reason the treatment was so successful for me, IMHO, is because Minnesota ran an EEG while developing a timing starting point. Kind of like a golf handicap specific to my brain. I think ultimately they may offer a customized treatment that is programmed to both your hearing level and the speed at which you uniquely process.
In fairness to Neuromod (yes, I do try to be fair) we really don't know the details behind the non-compliance. There definitely is a regimen to it and not everyone has the required discipline. So some of them probably just didn't stick to it well enough to classify them as "compliant". I don't think all of the non-compliant ones are worsenings, although it could very well be some.it is excluding the data for anyone who stopped treatment anything short of 12 weeks because of worsenings.