A frequent lament among posters here, there and everywhere is the length of time it takes for a new therapy to become available. Usually the phases of development are:
1) Someone in medical/ENT practice or academia gets a concept or idea.
2) They produce their 3D models or computer models of the contraption, the molecule, procedure or whatever.
3) The testing in petri dishes, test tubes, then on animals.
4) The testing for safety on young healthy robust human volunteers.
5) Testing on patients.
At the moment on the Research News threads there appears to be ten, twenty, thirty or more possible remedies put forward... but they all take time.
I was just wondering if there could be any way of shortening the procedure.
Well, if some genius scientist can come up with a method of viewing the workings of the inner ear in vivo that would open up a range of possibilities.
The example of BrysonKingMe setting sail from Denver to the distant shores of Korea, maybe to be followed by Bob the German chap has me disposed towards the view that they are doing precisely that -- they are shortening the procedure.
So if, say for example, a set of twelve of us -- all who have similar types of tinnitus, for example "chronic, noise-induced, high-pitched" were to venture off to do some therapy double-blind to get it as scientific as possible and, let's say of the original number of 12, that ten came back greatly relieved of their tinnitus -- it might not be a fully statistically conclusive QED test but it might be an indicator that the therapy deserves further attention and that the developer of the theory is on the right path. Of course if only 6 out of 12 came back greatly relieved... you could flip a coin and then decide whether to follow down that route.
I admit that this idea may be just bull. But it might have some merit. After all, we are awaiting the return of Mr. BrysonKingMe with great anticipation.