Not everything has to have a trial to be real.Where are the results of this trial?
Not everything has to have a trial to be real.Where are the results of this trial?
Yes, there are 40% without improvement...http://www.acufenos.org/~foro/viewtopic.php?t=3516
I found this forum online. Many individuals that have seen the doctor have noticed no improvement.
Don't they have a number? Has anybody ever considered calling them. I doubt they monitor this forum and even know about this stuff to be honest, it's ridiculous.that guy does seem to look like he is really happy.
I wish our so called "tinnitus associations" would get off their asses and investigate this sort of stuff.
But are there at least some people with improvement?Yes, there are 40% without improvement...
But are there at least some people with improvement?
But there is no patient subtyping. Probably 100% noise induced cases are the most difficult to treat.
What's the rationale behind that statement? I don't see why it'd be any harder than ototoxicity for example. Can you explain?
Well... it says the treatment helps irrigation. Maybe it is useful with vascular issues. But if you are fine and only have hearing loss... maybe not so.
Thank for answering but my question wasn't to explain why hearing loss was harder to cure than vascular problems, it was why noise induced hearing loss would be harder than other types of hearing loss such as HL due to ototoxicity, viruses, diseases, etc.
Well ... I do not know why I only said "noise induced". Probably it is just hearing loss (all types).
With subtyping I mean somatic, non somatic, hyperacusis patients, etc
They told me that the cause of tinnitus doesn't matter in terms of benefiting from the treatment.
A Spanish clinic, treatment by radio frequency...
62% success rate. Between 2000- 3000 euros.
What do you think?
https://www.ototech.es
This person is a famous presenter and artist in Spain who says he was treated at this tinnitus clinic, and that it works and he recommends it on Twitter to another famous Spanish film director who suffers from tinnitus.
View attachment 25328
I contacted Manel via instagram and he says the treatment didnt work for him. I dont know if I trust this company.
Thank for answering but my question wasn't to explain why hearing loss was harder to cure than vascular problems, it was why noise induced hearing loss would be harder than other types of hearing loss such as HL due to ototoxicity, viruses, diseases, etc.
From my point of view it should not matter if it is caused by a virus, noise or meds, hearing loss is hearing loss no matter what initially caused it .
Ok then, maybe you can explain me this, how does one know what is damaged (if one has some sensorineural hearing loss): hair cells, synaptic connections or the hearing nerve itself?It does matter actually.
If you have conductive hearing loss for example, you can sometimes have surgery to fix it. Otosclerosis is an example of that: if you have hearing loss due to otosclerosis, you do have options to not only regain your hearing, but also silence your T (if you suffer from it).
For sensorineural losses, there is a reasonable chance that it does matter too: if it's your hair cells that are damaged, then treatments that focus on regenerating them are probably more applicable than if it's your synaptic connections that are damaged.
Ok then, maybe you can explain me this, how do one knows what is damaged (if one has some hearing loss): hair cells, synaptic connections or the hearing nerve itself?