New University of Michigan Tinnitus Discovery — Signal Timing

[Cyborg]

Anyway, @Markku previously mentioned that the timelines discussed here on Tinnitus Talk for the potential launch of Susan Shore's device are unrealistic.

I don't think the device will be available on the market before 2030, and it likely won't be accessible outside the United States before 2035...

I'd say (hope) that that's maybe a bit pessimistic.

 

[From9to<1]

Ah, yes, having a notoriously anti-scientific figure who once suggested injecting bleach as a solution for COVID-19 will undoubtedly speed up approvals for safe treatments, right?

YouTube and Google are already overrun with snake oil salesmen touting tinnitus "cures." Do you really want to open the door to more manipulation and make these scams legal if the FDA can no longer protect consumers?

Also, companies pay a fee whenever they submit or notify the FDA about a product for any reason. This doesn't mean they own the FDA or control its employees. In fact, if someone has previously worked for a company, they cannot participate in reviewing that company's submissions.

The real reason many conservatives hate the FDA is because it approved Mifepristone, giving women a choice regarding unwanted pregnancies. If we think Lenire's business practices are questionable, just wait to see what kind of products could hit the market if the FDA's authority is weakened.

You DO know he never actually said that, right? He was rather uneducated on the subject and was rambling in his musings. But liberals jumped on a quick, abridged version—much like how most rumors start. Liberals, being liberals, tend to believe what other liberals say without fact-checking. His actual, literal words were:

A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light. And I think you said that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?

And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it'd be interesting to check that, so that you're going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we'll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That's pretty powerful.

And before you say, "That's essentially the same thing"—no, it's not.

Saying "something like that" is not saying "that."

 

[ZFire]

Yes, Trump wants Americans to have access to treatments and medicines that can help us. Despite what the liberal media says, he is focused on what is best for the people!

No. Immunity from the judicial process is the priority. You fell for the con.

 

[Jonno02]

You DO know he never actually said that, right? He was rather uneducated on the subject and was rambling in his musings. But liberals jumped on a quick, abridged version—much like how most rumors start. Liberals, being liberals, tend to believe what other liberals say without fact-checking. His actual, literal words were:

And before you say, "That's essentially the same thing"—no, it's not.

Saying "something like that" is not saying "that."

From that whole post about reducing the FDA's protectorate remit and opening people like us up to conmen, your whole stance is, "I must protect Trump." Oh, apologies, he said, "inject disinfectant," which is worlds apart from injecting bleach. I'm relieved the medical doctors didn't listen to him either way.

I'm glad we both agree he's uneducated on subjects he interjects himself into and rambles.

 

[IYIiKe]

Hi everyone. I've been having a rough few days. I know things have been left a bit up in the air, but are there any upcoming studies aimed at advancing this research? Like many of you, I'm genuinely excited about potential treatments that address the physiological basis of tinnitus rather than framing it solely as a psychological issue.

If dorsal cochlear nucleus (DCN) modulation is just the first of many pathways involved in the perception of tinnitus, wouldn't more animal studies help identify other potentially non-invasive options? So far, all I've found are some basic animal studies focusing on DCN lesioning. Is this because the upstream auditory networks are challenging to pinpoint and vary individually?