Member- May 29, 2015
- 664
- 30
- Tinnitus Since
- 2012
- Cause of Tinnitus
- I had tinnitus for as long as I can remember. Got bad later.
My Posting Place
- Thread starter threefirefour
- Start date
Ya I don't know. My T is quite shit on it's flair up days-like today can hardly focus. I'd easily drop 30k if I could get my health back. hopefully It wont come to this point and Mutebutton wont shoot themselves in the foot.
@JohnAdams, this is a link that is buried on his Korean patent registered on KIPRIS:
http://drprpusa.com/the-secret-behind-PRP-injections-immortality
It includes all the stuff I talked about yesterday.
Here's where it's listed:
http://engpat.kipris.or.kr/engpat/biblioa.do?method=biblioFrame
EDIT:
It won't link direct so go here: http://engpat.kipris.or.kr and type this number in the search bar: 1020160057806
http://drprpusa.com/the-secret-behind-PRP-injections-immortality
It includes all the stuff I talked about yesterday.
Here's where it's listed:
http://engpat.kipris.or.kr/engpat/biblioa.do?method=biblioFrame
EDIT:
It won't link direct so go here: http://engpat.kipris.or.kr and type this number in the search bar: 1020160057806
Last edited:
I know I said I'd shut up but I'll leave you with one more link:
https://www.painscience.com/articles/platelet-rich-plasma-does-it-work.php
I stopped looking at blood spinning (PRP) about 3 years ago because of the controversy surrounding it in the scientific community. This was one of the things I looked into extensively at the time along with AM-101, AUT0034, SF00063, and various other possible treatments.
If I were you I would contact Dr Min Bo Shim and ask him what the circumstances were in the cases of his before and after audiograms. Were they SSHL cases or confirmed longterm hearing loss candidates? As we know, SSHL cases can improve on their own without any intervention. There just isn't a whole lot of detail in his reports, and the lack of supporting science surrounding his method (there's basically none) still concerns me. Especially when I read things like this:
After all, he isn't doing anything new. He is injecting your own blood platelets into your ear with some vitamins thrown in. If the cells and synapses are dead then we know nothing can repair them. PRP is designed to heal, but how can you heal something that is already dead? This is why science is looking towards regenerative compounds like FX-322, CGF166, and stem cell technology.
https://www.painscience.com/articles/platelet-rich-plasma-does-it-work.php
I stopped looking at blood spinning (PRP) about 3 years ago because of the controversy surrounding it in the scientific community. This was one of the things I looked into extensively at the time along with AM-101, AUT0034, SF00063, and various other possible treatments.
If I were you I would contact Dr Min Bo Shim and ask him what the circumstances were in the cases of his before and after audiograms. Were they SSHL cases or confirmed longterm hearing loss candidates? As we know, SSHL cases can improve on their own without any intervention. There just isn't a whole lot of detail in his reports, and the lack of supporting science surrounding his method (there's basically none) still concerns me. Especially when I read things like this:
After all, he isn't doing anything new. He is injecting your own blood platelets into your ear with some vitamins thrown in. If the cells and synapses are dead then we know nothing can repair them. PRP is designed to heal, but how can you heal something that is already dead? This is why science is looking towards regenerative compounds like FX-322, CGF166, and stem cell technology.
- May 29, 2015
- 664
- 30
- Tinnitus Since
- 2012
- Cause of Tinnitus
- I had tinnitus for as long as I can remember. Got bad later.
If it means anything:
http://cmclinics.com/2017/01/17/in-their-20s-treatment-for-tinnitus-after-sport-shooting/
http://cmclinics.com/2017/02/17/joined-as-a-authorized-clinic-for-stem-cell-regeration-treatment/
Does sudden hearing loss include noise induced loss that has existed for many years? Also, he has said that he does use stem cells, but primarily relies on growth factor
In the first one he doesn't seem to know if he treated a man or a woman?
He/she can't hear other people well.After the test from Cheong-Min Clinic, there was hearing loss on both sides in all frequencies, and it was worse in the higher frequencies.This is the result of one time tinnitus and hearing loss treatment from Cheong-Min Clinic.
It's all very wishy washy. His site certainly doesn't fill me with much confidence, and there's no way I'd have a treatment from him based on all we know.
Why aren't more clinicians using PRP for hearing disorders? To me, something doesn't quite add up, and as the saying goes: if it's too good to be true, it probably is.
Someone needs to inform Frequency that they are wasting their time. Let Dave Lucchino know that PRP can already regenerate and repair nerve and hair cell damage.
Maybe I'm wrong and Min Bo Shim really does have the answers?
No, typically sudden hearing loss refers to a sudden loss rather than a loss that has previously existed. But you could have previous loss and suddenly lose more.
This topic keeps reminding me of the cases of patients who went blind after a Florida clinic injected supposed stem cells in their eyes. The clinic claimed to be doing a trial. Interestingly the article said a listing on ClinicalTrials.gov does not guarantee a trial is legitimate. That's not applicable to this South Korea ENT but is more of a general word of caution. And no I'm not suggesting the Korea clinic's procedure will cause deafness, though I suppose hearing loss is always a slight risk with intratympanic injections.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/stem-cell-treatment-blinded-three-women-florida/
And before someone mentions the legitimacy of having a needle poked in your eye, that is already an established delivery method for steroids. Much like intratympanic steroid injections are frequently used.
As far as I can see, any treatment has the potential for both good and harm.
You can't 'untake' a drug.
You can't 'undo' surgery.
You can't 'undo' a procedure.
You can't 'undo' an experience.
You can't 'undo' anything.
Caution always......x
You can't 'untake' a drug.
You can't 'undo' surgery.
You can't 'undo' a procedure.
You can't 'undo' an experience.
You can't 'undo' anything.
Caution always......x
Last edited:
I have clearly stated a BAJILLION TIMES that I have read the entire patent. How can I take your advice seriously when it seems as if you arent even keeping up with the discussion?
I'll post an except from the article above that's well worth reading:
Science says "probably not"
PRP fans and purveyors will tell you there is good evidence that PRP works, but they are cherry picking from a few studies that worked out in their favour one way or another. A few positive studies never not mean much; indeed, most "positive" study results are actually just bogus.plantar fasciitis when combined with several other therapies, and limited evidence that it might be beneficial on its own.chronic lateral epicondylar tendinopathy.
In early 2018, the journal Sports Medicine piled on with a review of six (crappy) studies of PRP for muscle injury ("pulled" muscles, strains):muscle strains, for instance, or even fail with one kind of muscle strain and succeed with another. Hammond et al, an experiment on rats — rats were harmed and treated for our edification — reported a difference between two kinds of muscle strain. Initially promising in principle, I predict that PRP will now be mired in trumped-up controversy for years.It worked better on a more serious injury, where regeneration of muscle tissue was part of the healing process. PRP might assist with that regenerative process, but have no effect on a less serious strain where no regeneration is occurring.12
But these are faint hopes. In general, one would hope that the methods and conditions tested so far are at least in shouting distance of being the right formula — close enough to be at least a little more encouraging.
Initially promising in principle, I predict that PRP will now be mired in trumped-up controversy for years. It will die a slow death, only beaten into submission over many years by a growing pile of underwhelming evidence, while its proponents continue to overconfidently sell the service and defend it from detractors, mainly by betting — with dwindling odds — that just the right formula can still be proven effective for just the right kind of patient. If so, great: I will be pleased to admit that my prediction was wrong! But I'm betting against them for now.
After the centrifuge treatment, platelets are separated from the other components of blood.
Platelets give good placebo
My final word on this topic has to be "placebo" — PRP is a perfect storm for it. It's got everything! Bearing in mind that it's been thoroughly demonstrated that people get stronger placebo effects from treatment features trivial as a more potent pill colour …
Is it worth a try anyway?
The bar for "worth a try" is fairly high. No invasive treatment can qualify for it without being proven at least safe. And you really need clear, consistent evidence of non-trivial benefit across several good trials before anything injected is "worth a try." Before that it's more like "hey, it's your knee, don't stab it"!
Science says "probably not"
PRP fans and purveyors will tell you there is good evidence that PRP works, but they are cherry picking from a few studies that worked out in their favour one way or another. A few positive studies never not mean much; indeed, most "positive" study results are actually just bogus.plantar fasciitis when combined with several other therapies, and limited evidence that it might be beneficial on its own.chronic lateral epicondylar tendinopathy.
In early 2018, the journal Sports Medicine piled on with a review of six (crappy) studies of PRP for muscle injury ("pulled" muscles, strains):muscle strains, for instance, or even fail with one kind of muscle strain and succeed with another. Hammond et al, an experiment on rats — rats were harmed and treated for our edification — reported a difference between two kinds of muscle strain. Initially promising in principle, I predict that PRP will now be mired in trumped-up controversy for years.It worked better on a more serious injury, where regeneration of muscle tissue was part of the healing process. PRP might assist with that regenerative process, but have no effect on a less serious strain where no regeneration is occurring.12
But these are faint hopes. In general, one would hope that the methods and conditions tested so far are at least in shouting distance of being the right formula — close enough to be at least a little more encouraging.
Initially promising in principle, I predict that PRP will now be mired in trumped-up controversy for years. It will die a slow death, only beaten into submission over many years by a growing pile of underwhelming evidence, while its proponents continue to overconfidently sell the service and defend it from detractors, mainly by betting — with dwindling odds — that just the right formula can still be proven effective for just the right kind of patient. If so, great: I will be pleased to admit that my prediction was wrong! But I'm betting against them for now.
After the centrifuge treatment, platelets are separated from the other components of blood.
Platelets give good placebo
My final word on this topic has to be "placebo" — PRP is a perfect storm for it. It's got everything! Bearing in mind that it's been thoroughly demonstrated that people get stronger placebo effects from treatment features trivial as a more potent pill colour …
- People expect injected medicines to be more powerful.
- People are also strongly influenced by what elite athletes are doing.
- And of course it's both high-tech and "natural" — a rare combination. Usually these qualities are contradictory, but PRP is blessed by both.
Is it worth a try anyway?
The bar for "worth a try" is fairly high. No invasive treatment can qualify for it without being proven at least safe. And you really need clear, consistent evidence of non-trivial benefit across several good trials before anything injected is "worth a try." Before that it's more like "hey, it's your knee, don't stab it"!
BDNF is completely different.
I would pay particular attention to this paragraph:
Is it worth a try anyway?
The bar for "worth a try" is fairly high. No invasive treatment can qualify for it without being proven at least safe. And you really need clear, consistent evidence of non-trivial benefit across several good trials before anything injected is "worth a try." Before that it's more like "hey, it's your knee, don't stab it"!
And on a previous thread we discussed that having a patent does not mean an idea works or even that you will follow the patented idea. The patent is held in Russia, yes? Does South Korea not issue patents?
- May 29, 2015
- 664
- 30
- Tinnitus Since
- 2012
- Cause of Tinnitus
- I had tinnitus for as long as I can remember. Got bad later.
That's not his main site though. His main site is a lot more normal looking. I agree that the cmclinics site is garbage, but it is in English and has a decent amount of records.
He is a real ENT. That I can say with confidence. He has enough digital footprints, including a visit to Heller's Stanford lab for student research. I once found one of his clinics on Google Maps, and someone has in fact been there to verify. I also asked a NYC laywer who was from Korea what he thought, and he thought the clinic was genuine as well. Minbo Shim has also obviously invested thousands of dollars from medical research trips around the world. I do believe he is an ENT without a doubt.
He has been advertising his treatment for quite a few years now. As connected as he is, I would think he would have been shut down by now. I think that Korean authorities wouldn't have tolerated this. I also don't think that Russian news segment of him doing his treatment for people there was fake. I could be very wrong, but I doubt it at this point, and the only way to know for sure is for one of us to try it out. If does end up being a scammer, though I don't think so, we can always make sure he is shut down.
And korea. Two patents. I didnt say the existence of this patent prove anything works. I said it describes the method.
Havent you ever seen the movie FaceOff starring Nicholas Cage and John Travolta?
Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!
Similar threads
