Add on my asthma and an oxygen tank...why would I want the bells to ring !!!!
Seariously hahaha.... how old is to old....
Love glynis x
The problem is that a normal day can produce a 167db balloonpop, it was that kind of thing that made my tinnitus worse after 17 years of a protect when necessery-lifestyle. And now I am in @Bill Bauer land, and need to protect my ears to 70+DB sounds instead of 100+DB sounds.
This is a great thread. Seriously, very honest and it gets to the core of many of my concerns. There seems to be different factions on this site. You have veterans who think they know it all and aren't afraid to give their opinion (some quite condescendingly), yet they don't have it all worked out. If they did then why do many still take meds or are still on this site, instead of living their "normal" lives?
So what if @Bill Bauer has a different approach? Why is that threatening to many? He's advocating caution, which is a good thing, right? Hint: the answer is 'yes'. Maybe his approach can actually help some people? If you read negativity in what he says, it says to me that you are actually negative.
Read the rest of his post. He is saying that once something like that happens, the threshold of what will actually hurt our ears gets to be lower. When that happens, he (and I and many others) learned that denying it will often tend to make T worse, while protecting one's ears often leads to an objective improvement. When a person is in that situation, telling them to not let T win can lead to devastating consequences. On the other hand, when a person is in that situation, they might not realize that taking protection seriously is even an option. They need to be made aware of this option. After that, it is up to them.What the hell?
I know of at least one person who did.No one has ever recovered from the people who walk around outside the apartment with airport hearing protectors.
All I might have said is that social isolation is a viable option.
Aren't you also handing out generalized advice? Your advice happens to be the opposite of mine, but it is still general and it certainly has the potential to harm people. (Would you like me to provide links to posts that provide support for the preceding sentence?)
We are "keeping it real."My pick for craziest thread on TT yet
Do what I do and speak for yourself.If you want to become clinically depressed that is certainly a viable option.
Many of them comment how they find those tips to be helpful. I am not telling you what to post or what not to post, so please return the favour.That and the fact that I don't hand out advice nor do I post my ''tips'' on EVERY SINGLE newcomer's thread.
Many of them do comment how they find those tips to be helpful.
And what is wrong with the papers published in peer reviewed journals and cited by other peer reviewed journals and by an author of a dissertation (who had a dissertation supervisor and an external reviewer whose job it was to ensure that his or her thesis does not cite unreliable studies)?Anyone who is going through the anxiety/panic stage would be happy with those recovery stats
The point of statistics is that in large samples different medical histories cancel out, and we can see broad trends that can be useful for people with all kinds of medical histories.one you have no idea of the persons medical history
Not all of them had a small sample.this information is based on small case studies
The same can be said about every single post on this forum. People's outcome might have been different had they not read a particular post.last but certainly not least you are potentially interfering with someones recovery.
Not every person is going to search this forum using those keywords. (When I search for those words in Google, I don't see any links to this thread - too bad!)In fact when you google ''Tinnitus Recovery'' that thread is pretty much the first hit ...
Not everyone knows about the overview page.Your post with tips is hard to miss on the overview page, no need to shmeer it in every newbies face.
I just checked the first study, and as you can see on page 35 of 77, the sample size was 120. I have some stats background and can assure you that this is large enough to not be classified as "a small case study."secondly this information is based on small case studies
These personal point scoring posts are off putting and not what a forum is about....
I just checked the first study, and as you can see on page 35 of 77, the sample size was 120. I have some stats background and can assure you that this is large enough to not be classified as "a small case study."
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/27440/investig.pdf?sequence=1
I have not seen you produce any argument about why papers with large samples published in peer reviewed journals and cited by other authors are harmful. A number of people testified that those studies gave them hope. Note that this was not False hope, it was hope based on them looking at research about the patient outcomes that is relevant to them (some studies in the Stats thread talk about acoustic traumas due to exposure to guns, others talk about T experienced by seniors).People continuously posting in an almost obsessive manner on any newcomers posts with potentially harmful information is unethical and should be tackled
@Chris Holland with all due respect Bill Bauer at least has studies to refer to. Your fantasy stories not so much...
How can you be so thickheaded not to see he is right and you are wrong?
Don't bother reasoning with him. He presents his views in a well laid out matter, but make no mistake; his mind is set and absolutely nothing can change it.I have not seen you produce any argument about why papers with large samples published in peer reviewed journals and cited by other authors are harmful. A number of people testified that those studies gave them hope. Note that this was not False hope, it was hope based on them looking at research about the patient outcomes that is relevant to them (some studies in the Stats thread talk about acoustic traumas due to exposure to guns, others talk about T experienced by seniors).
The studies just followed up on T patients and reported what they say about their T. No guesswork there.Fact of the matter is we have no idea, the doctors have no clue, nobody does, it's just guesswork.
The studies show that many recover (70% of those young soldiers, 25% of seniors), and many do not. Many people (in the studies and on this forum) report their T fading. In any case, it is not all good news.Look, I like the studies, it's great if this would all play out like this, in fact I would love it.
I don't give "Answers" - I give links to published research.Simple as that, it's just not ethical, you don't have the answers, nobody does.
False hope?false hope
I think it is extreme to advise a person to carry on as if they are healthy. A person needs to be made aware of the fact that this is one of the things they could try. Personally, it took me a while to realize (it happened as a result of me reading posts on this forum) that standing next to a blender (something that never gave me problems before) might harm me. As soon as I began to stay away from blenders and vacuum cleaners, I got better. This had been an experience shared by many here. So it is important to make people aware of this. As for the social isolation, as I wrote earlier, just because you don't go to loud events and places does not mean you need to be socially isolated.Your advice on sound avoidance is extreme and create unnecessary social isolation
I don't advocate it. I practice it, but I only advocate staying away from moderate noises, if one can help it.to advocate social reclusion
@Chris Holland with all due respect Bill Bauer at least has studies to refer to. Your fantasy stories not so much...
How can you be so thickheaded not to see he is right and you are wrong?
I have not seen you produce any argument about why papers with large samples published in peer reviewed journals and cited by other authors are harmful. A number of people testified that those studies gave them hope. Note that this was not False hope, it was hope based on them looking at research about the patient outcomes that is relevant to them (some studies in the Stats thread talk about acoustic traumas due to exposure to guns, others talk about T experienced by seniors).
Bill you are gaining lots of traction on this thread. We need to create some, I love Bill shirts and start selling them bro
I'll be your manager.....
What you seemingly fail to understand is that I am not contesting these studies or their outcomes I'm merely saying that it is not responsible to use these studies as generalised advice to newcomers without you actually being able to determine if this is applicable to said person. Your views on sound avoidance I don't have any beef with, I think they actually make sense albeit somewhat extreme, the problem here again is that you present it as absolute truth, which is guesswork at best and possibly creates paranoia and fear for very tolerable sounds in newcomers which can then in turn drive them into even more social isolation. THIS IS EXTREMELY HARMFUL when it comes to depression.
Okay, Chris Holland time to stop the trouble you seem to want to continue on. You have stated your views too many times already. Plus your sentences are way too long. The message gets lost after the first twenty posts.
Some people are prompted to make trouble when this site is running smoothly - as it has been for a while.
STOP. People don't reply or argue with Chris Holland anymore.
So when a particular "expert" here expounds his belief that no one should ever use headphones because they will
increase their tinnitus and further damage their ears....that part is okay? That part is absolute truth and won't harm new comers? Where is the scientific proof from double blinded studies?
I am sure that if someone is aware of a past or an ongoing medical problem that would likely change their prognosis, they would share it in their intro post (e.g., they have had had problems with their ears for their entire life, etc) [in this case, I would of course not provide them with a link to the stats thread, as I understand that it is likely not relevant for their case]. If they won't do that, surely they will understand that those stats might not be relevant for their case due to their medical history.your obsessive pushing of this information in any and everyones face that comes on this forum (with no idea of their medical history) is irresponsible because you might more than likely be giving out false hope which can harm a persons mental wellbeing in the long run
Surely people with those exotic triggers will realize this.These studies do not even by far cover the full spectrum of possible triggers of tinnitus
This has never been my intention. In the future, I will attempt to see what I can do to not give this impression.the problem here again is that you present it as absolute truth
That's not what the "expert" is saying. Their posts link to posts by people who learned the hard way that using headphones can have life-changing consequences. This proves that there is risk associated with using headphones. It is important to raise awareness of that risk. I am the first person to encourage people who decide to take that risk to keep taking the risk.when a particular "expert" here expounds his belief that no one should ever use headphones because they will
increase their tinnitus and further damage their ears...
I am sure that if someone is aware of a past or an ongoing medical problem that would likely change their prognosis, they would share it in their intro post
If they won't do that, surely they will understand that those stats might not be relevant for their case due to their medical history.
Surely people with those exotic triggers will realize this.
This has never been my intention. In the future, I will attempt to see what I can do to not give this impression.
I have never been to a concert. A blender seems to be pretty extreme and loud to me. Come to think of it, the sound of a blender might be the loudest sound I had ever heard.Blenders and concerts in the same sentence.