Memberle happy merchant.jpg
literally dude, there are people in the FDA that want to hold back bio-medical research and scientific advancements. Lobbyist are everywhere.
New University of Michigan Tinnitus Discovery — Signal Timing
- Thread starter Hudson
- Start date
literally dude, there are people in the FDA that want to hold back bio-medical research and scientific advancements. Lobbyist are everywhere.
1. Finding the medicine that will regenerate the hair cells. Mammals aren't supposed to regenerate them so it takes time finding something that will reverse our natural biology in a way that doesn't cause adverse effects.
2. Administering the drug, making sure the right amount gets into the right place. The middle ear is one of the hardest places to navigate as it is behind one of the hardest bones in the human body.
3. Even of the other two were figured out today they will still have to go through years of trials and the results will have to be reviewed by the scientific/medical community. A blessing and a curse, I suppose.
There are a few candidates which are potential winners but it will take years before we will have an officially approved FDA treatment in the US. Your best bet for treatment is bimodal stimulation which is right around the corner in the next year or so which might lower the tinnitus. A cure is much further off.
It should help at least 80% of tinnitus patients. Head injuries might be harder to treat.But is that useful for not somatic forms of tinnitus?
I hope. Mine is 100% noise induced. It can't change moving the neck or jaw. Nothing.
Here is one of my worries with a device like this. Susan Shore, neuromod, etc... the only results I've seen mention some patients have gotten months of relief following treatment. That sounds good. So I'm assuming at the end of that time period a repeat use of the device is necessary. Again not a big deal. My question is will our brains build resistance to the treatment. Just like we build a resistance to drugs over time making them less or non effective.
I doubt it. They've been working and doing multiple trials for years. If it wasn't good, then patients from the past would say something to them.
You don't know that. I've seen articles about a guy that got it first after a really bad car wreck. I think if he had problems then he'd like to update the story.
wow that looks pretty good to me. Now do they want my arm or my leg to use it?
This is indeed encouraging but there might still be a peak efficacy and subsequent erosion, especially considering as this was only a four-week protocol. The imminent trial should mostly answer this though, considering its length (SMH...)
I don't want to sound unthankful or not eager to get my hands on this device, but if I'm reading those notes and graphs correctly it looks like they got an average decibel reduction of 12.2 decibels.
That's better than nothing, but not terribly large.
Sure I'd pay handsomely for a 12 dB reduction right now, but hopefully those numbers get slightly better as testing continues.
That's better than nothing, but not terribly large.
Sure I'd pay handsomely for a 12 dB reduction right now, but hopefully those numbers get slightly better as testing continues.
Well...remember, the decibel scale is logarithmic, with every 10 DB increase presenting a doubling of perceived loudness, on average. So it seems like a 12 db decrease is *50-55% (edited) volume reduction! I think??
Last edited:
And some estimates actually put the average DB to doubled perceived loudness ratio at a 6 DB increase (https://geoffthegreygeek.com/amplifier-power/ - sorry, best source I could find)
- which would mean that a 12 DB decrease is an approximately 75% (*edited) decrease in perceived volume!
Dr. Shore has even less publications than Dirk de Ridder / Paul vd Heyning. So why should she solve it?
Don't mean to be skeptical but don't understand why we put so much faith into non hard evidence aka research papers.
Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!
Similar threads
