Deafness Cure in 5 Years

Meh. The authors conjecture that GABAergenics are the cure-all seems kind of misguided to me. After all, that's what benzos are.

 

Benzos have been shown to have positive effects on T. However there are some side effects that that discriminates them as a viable solution for treating T.

 

Yeah, that was my point, I guess. Klonopin more or less obliterated my T for the years I took it.

 

I have klonopin but use it very sparingly because I'm not sure it works. It's a benzo but not fast acting or as ostensibly destructive as ativan or valium. It's a spare pacifier for me.

 

Yes but what if it's possible to create a drug that has effect on GABA without the drawbacks of benzos?

 

Absolutely agree that "Deafness Cure" is the wrong title for this and very misleading! First step to an inner-ear problem. That part is relatively simple compared to the total complexity of the inner ear and how once sound passes through the oval window through the cochlear is amazing. Yup, this seems a logical first step. The tinnitus (we know in older folks) is caused when cilia dies. If curing deafness was true, the deaf community would be raising their heads and voices against it. I can already imagine some of the bashing this may cause.

Pharms will present their facts in a positive light. People here can have hope and understand facts change and positive studies ... well, I guess I'll never completely trust them. I watched someone work with stocks and usually
got what appeared to be was getting misleading information about the companies doing their research. It's all a bit of a gamble. Companies got the investor's money and stocks plummeted based on valid research ... really ... was it?

If one pharm finds something positive (assuming it really is), maybe others will jump on the bandwagon. The problem loops back to - is the data being accurately reported? I don't know. What I do know, is how risky it is to believe the stats - hence reading and using our brain to figure out what to trust rather than totally depending on results published in studies.

We're all doing as much due diligence as we want and/or can. When I see stats tossed out and this code, it really makes me wonder. Yes, I'm repeating myself and debugging, looking for patterns, and weird stuff is what I'll continue to do.

Since the advertising.drugdiscoverytoday.com is in the code and not on the website, this smells fishy. If someone can dispel myth number one - why advertising is used but not seen, I'd be less skeptical. In the meantime, it is a red flag to me.

 

They always say 5-10 years and nothing comes to fruition.

 

Nope, I didn't because as soon as saw the word advertising in the code - not on the website, I left it alone. I'll read it in a bit. I'd be the one to see things like this versus others on the forum. If there was truth in advertising, I'd read anything and willingly.

Coming from the states and seeing what weird things go on here that are kept quiet while harming folks (and it's allowed) fracking comes to mind (the commercials are great and lovely and are absolute bull) but there are many other examples does turn me into a skeptic.

That seems to be the odd trend here. I saw articles listing cures (somewhere in this forum) for time out in the future. Later, that number changed a couple of times.

 

yes it's a problem of the boulevard, the press needs some hooks, some headlines.
But overall, the past 10 years brought many very important things to the market.... for tinnitus, we have some
trials running and some trials to come....that wasn't the case 10 years ago... there are many companies with just candidates in pipeline adressing inner ear problems... 10 years ago, it only was otogene... changed to sound pharmaceuticals.....
Today and that is really stunning, we have a gene therapy adressing hearing loss... this is amazing because this would be a new class of treatment...
Further we have much more processing power in bioinformatics... this is also a very important field in research for cures, Stanford does it, Google does it... and some communities like the word community grid...
https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org

But I know, I'm not always thinking that positive when I am suffering... I know, everything moves so slow....

 

I do agree with that, well, we do have trobalt as proof that they can lower tinnitus...Just need to get rid of the horrid side-effects...

 

@Sabo: I think alike. You'd think a cochlear implant would be the case to it. People think if one is totally DEAF - they have silence. The truth is, it's WORSE. There's nothing to mask it and the outcome has exacerbated the "T" to be a LOUDER-vibrating electrical T , 24 hrs daily. No hearing left.
I mentioned there's a difference between a cure for "Deafness" vs. "Tinnitus" (in "5 yrs). People get these two mixed up. Yes, some "T" are caused by hearing-loss, such as acoustic trauma and age-related.
Keep in mind there's such a broad range of cause of deafness in people that Drugs or Surgery cannot fix - unrealistically in 5 yrs (How I wish!). Examples of Deafness are, and NOT limited to:

1. Drugs cannot grow dysfunctional or hearing-nerve aplasia (*8th nerve) or Neuropathy.
2. Drugs cannot morph, tweak or modify inner-ear anomalies (eg. congenital:cochlea hypoplasia, LVAS)
3. Drugs cannot grow cilia hairs to remain permanent. Concurrently, we don't even a solution for external head baldness/alopecia, unless you maintain it which many tried. Should we pour it down our ears?
4. Drugs carry risks & factors, including further deafness, T & health issues (liver damage, kidney failure, dementia, cancer, ototoxity etc etc)
5. Many surgeries by Drs. have caused worse outcomes, including deafness w/ neurological issues: Cochlear impl. Stapedectomies, cutting the 8th nerve, fistulaes, gentamicin/acid etc.) Thus, a LAST resort.
6. Bacterial-related issues: e.g. Meningitis, Lyme disease. Attempt by steroid injections to prevent further hearing-loss & blindness at the EARLY stage. That's it. The infection destructs both hearing nerve cells and cochlea damage. No drug cure for this.
7. Age-related & acoustic trauma hearing-loss. This category is the main focus for drug companies at this time, to creating MORE -addictive- short-term drug "treatments" for T relief (not a permanent cure).

There's more money to reap for Pharm Co. to keep these symptoms ongoing, then to provide a cure. Wouldn't one think? I welcome peoples thoughts on the topic and of course would LOVE to have a cure. Five Years?
I cannot discuss this topic w/ people if my posts are deleted for some ODD reason.

 

Ma'am: Not all of us who have an implant get tinnitus. I had tinnitus prior to implant tinnitus and yup, it grew pretty deadly at night (in the day, the CI is sufficient to allow sounds in my head to quiet some of it) and it still exists constantly on one side of my head during the day and I'm able to tune in and tune out of it for now.

So, I am one who is deaf who does not live in silence (you are too). It's my oxymoron. Tinnitus is massively overwhelming and that's why I invented my own new word "bedaphobia." I turn off at night before going to bed and I know the swoosh and weird noises will blast my head.

The dead cilia ... it starts the hiccup in sound not being carried to our brains and that = tinnitus to one degree or another (a symptom common with olllld people, which I'm not at the moment).

Stapedectomies ... why mention that? I went to the guy who invented the surgery and I think you said it helped people. Had I been able to skip the junk in between surgeries and stayed with chunking off that stirrup and leaving the footplate to the oval window I think I would've been in better shape.

Yeah, drugs carry so many frickin' side-effects it's nuts. In order to herd people into a new mentality, the ads on tv included pharmaceuticals up the wazzoo to have people start sayin', "Ah who cares about the side-effects! Every drug has side-effects." It worked well. It was just one of those things I happened to learn in a class in 200x. I was forced to pay attention to tv and the commercials. It just made me pissed off and pharms won. The marketing scheme worked well.

 

As wonderful as it would be, I'm not holding my breath. Curing grey hair is apparently more important than recognising hearing issues

 

Indeed, money is their goal, however:

1) A drug company cannot direct a scientist to look for a temporary cure. Scientific researches that have already been done and lead to pharma cooperations aim to cure T. Although there could be hypothetically ways to search in the wrong places for T alleviation. Perhaps the term "tinnitus goes in the brain after time" or "it is in the brain" are notions and directions used to attain only temp results and not cure the source. In my mind they are doomed to fail. People have tried too much stuff with no relief, even Retigabine seem to only affect a few and not completely satisfactory. This tendency will be abandoned if people see that their miraculous drug does nothing more to their T than a mere placebo or a good night sleep. They will sell like those fake tinnitus cure out there, with herbs and strange stuff, there will be no way to differentiate themselves from those frauds! It is just to much of a risk to aim that way...

2) If they ever manage to create something that gives relief from T and hearing loss it would be rather strange if it actually works only temporary. If tinnitus had a way to go on its own and come back randomly, like a headache, drugs would help. But T is a constant condition, one that means something is damaged. It is quite delicate to create such a miraculous drug that eliminates the symptoms for a short period of time without fixing or addressing the source of the problem. It is my hypothesis that such a drug would not work at all that way and would be abandoned pretty soon as a failure. Why? It is extraordinary difficult to find a way to address the hearing problem by itself, it would be even more difficult to address it temporarily in a controlled way. They will NEVER manage to maintain their sails with only small reduction because it will be very hard to prove their stuff is responsible for the small temporary reduction in T since most have good and bad days. Considering other companies may try something different and beat them to it, it would make for an undesirable risk for them.

In conclusion, I tend to disagree. I do not consider a pharmaceutical company able to create a drug that does not work but will make people think it works. Also, they cannot crate something that partially works. They will have to create first something that really works (cures) and then fine tune it to work less if they can... That means more work and money. And because of the great interest and research in the area, others may beat them to it. And even if some are aiming at areas that are not the source and thus will not address the problem (like aiming at the brain) their stuff will either not work at all or they risk of putting their money onto something that will be abolished once a real treatment comes out by someone else that addresses the real problematic area. They do work at that too with gene therapies. So, how long will they profit, if they will profit?

As I said it has become a race, competition is good for us considering time, cost and especially efficiency of the final product... All the community is bothered for a solution to this, the first will get a Nobel prize. It is illogical to thing one of the many companies will attain anything serious by foul play.
I just tried to explain it in cold "company" thinking terms. It is just so damn difficult to cheat on this now!

 

I wouldn't allege conspirency to all pharma companies. Yes, it's about money, but they have to proof by FDA
that their drug is better than what's on the market. So if a drug isn't working, it's likely that this product won't come to the market... It's not like with quak or many of the unproofen alternative therapies.
There are many people doing research and give effort to really help people like us...
It's not always about money.


I

 

@Tomytl: I posted in another thread, I HAVE contacted USA/FDA and asked straightforward questions. Interestingly, they only provide, monitor approval of PRE-clinical studies/data. Thereafter? - NONE. Long-term statistics/outcome? NONE. It's only when people start becoming very sick or dying from a product and the media gets involved...then there's awareness. For instance, Pfizer went ahead, & manufactured drugs without approval to market. Eventually they were caught and fined billions. It's not hearsay or "conspiracy" on my part but factual.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09...abel-uses-promotion-and-kickback-charges-for/

I'm ALL for research, as that's how we improve, however protocols and ethics need to be established for public safety. Including monitoring & providing long-term data of it's ability (update info./side effects etc).
I also support small research companies, however conglomerate co. monopolize them out of business or steal their ideas (which occurs in all business avenues in USA - not yet Canada). Hint* Koch Brothers, Waltons etc.

 

There are some types of disorders that will be dealt with before other depending on the complexity of the disorder. Growing new nerves and making new pathways will probably take a very long time. But people with T. due to noise induced hearing loss might have a cure in the next 10 years.

The same as above goes here. However this is not entirely true. Gene therapies might help in these cases. Also creating organs with the patients DNA (cloning) might be a solution. There is research in creating organs using donor cells from the patient. It's not impossible that we in the future might be able to create complete cocheas using cells from a person and then transplanting them into their inner ear. It might be far off and many years into the future but it's not completelly impossible.

The problem with alopecia/baldness is that there is a process that is targeting those hair folicles and destroys them. They are sensitive to a hormone produced naturally in the body.

Normally there are no bodily processes that targets own hearing cells for destruction. It's sortof like an autoimmune disease. However we do have lots of solutions for baldness. There are hair transplants that work very well. There are also drugs that work very well. You must however use them indefinetlly due to the nature of the problem.

Treating T. with drugs might also turn out to be something that has to be done for life. But I'm OK with that. It's better then having T. But for now we have ZERO solutions for T. No transplants, no drugs. NOTHING!

There are of course risks with drugs but then again what are the alternatives. Also drugs are generally improved over time. The first generation of any drugs are always a bit slugish. Compare it to using a steak knife for surgery and a scalpel wich is what 2nd, 3d, 4th and so on generation of drugs could be compared to.

It depends on the nature of the surgery. The problem with surgeries is that there is a human being that is holding a scalpel and there will always be flaws with that. There are however new techiques f.i. the HIFU (read the HIFU thread) that are non invasive and can target specific cells with a precision unmatched by any surgeon using traditional methods.

Just as the above mentioned. Some conditions might take a longer time but for the majority of people that have T. or hearing loss. It's due to other reasons than mentioned here.

As I stated previouslly, I'm fine with this. I'd rather take a pill once a day and not have this thing than not taking that pill and having to live with it.

For some companies it might but then again for other companies it's the opposite. For companies that are selling maskers, hearing aids and so on there is. But for a medical company the interest in having millions if not billions of paying customers there are no such interests.

The whole comspiracy theory is rather weak. Even if there were companies that are against finding a cure. They can't stop every resercher around the world. They might influence one, maybe two, maybe three but there are so many companies and so many people doing this that there is no chance to stop everybody. And some people can't be bought. People who are sufferers them selves or have family members can't be easilly persuaded. I just don't believe it is possible to uphold indefinitely.

 

But how would you provide long-term data without it taking a very long time? There are already protocols for how long a drug must be tested for. But it seems to me that by your thinking we would have to wait 20-30 years for every drug to be released on the market just to see the long term effects. It's just not possible. In this way nothing would ever get done. Penicillin might have come out some time in the 90's with this thinking.

There is a protocol for drug testing and it was made to protect people. And even in your example Pfizer accually went ahead and BROKE THE LAW! You can't protect people from others commiting crimes against them if they want to. It's like if I went ahead and killed somebody and you started advocating that we have to make laws that make murder illegal. Guess what, there are already laws against that!

Accually protocols and ethics are what many times holds medical advancement back. This is why often big medical advancements are made in wars. Becouse ethics fly out the window and so do the concerns for safety.
There are many examples of this. F.i. the german doctors in the second world war experimented with people with no rules or regulations and made great discoveries. Was it right? HELL NO! But it serves to prove that ethics and protocol aren't always the best for the advancement of medicine.

And then you have the religion. Like how stem cell reseach was and still is being held back in the US with religous arguments.
The former president Geourge W. Bush went and publically spoke against stem cell research and even tried to legislate laws against it. PURE MADNESS!

 

- No- you misinterpreted. Any drugs, surgeries, devices, esp. controversial ones on the market should be monitored annually & updated of their efficiency within the general population (not "release it" 30 yrs later!? - illogical). Since you're from Sweden, you're unaware: USA/FDA does not provide this. Even more difficult when manufacturers are outsourced & offshore. Should we wait till it's too late like w/ GMOs? There's more children w/ unusual disabilities and superbugs - from drugs, vaccines & other chemicals. Continue on? (Thank god for Oregon State) [/QUOTE]

- Clinical drug-testing protocols are short lived in USA, with no-long term reports. Canada and Europe have their own strict regulations & provide better transparency because of their healthcare system monitored by the Fed. gov'ts. (USA does not have). The disturbing issue is that USA conglomerate companies are becoming too greedy, gaining too much control & not being transparent - and you feel that's ok. For people to be unaware & ingest unregulated chemicals with ambiguous information of it - that's your rationale.

- Continue with lobotomies then. We're not in the early 1900s but unfort. USA continues with it. I disagree with it, preferably complying to medical ethics for people's safety and humane treatment to lab animals in this century. Due to the fast evolvement of newer dangerous chemicals that no-one truly know it's substance, unless you're a chemist. Why not participate in any? - you may also get $90 compensation for your time.
http://www.naturalnews.com/019189_human_medical_experimentation_ethics.html#

- I did not elaborate on religion, stem-cell research or even mutation gene-therapy engineering (biology). Those topics go on forever; a slow process. I said Drugs/(chemicals) will not provide a cure for all deafness in general. People thought the same for Aids/HIV back in the 80's. The logic is Deafness vs. Tinnitus. I personally believe there won't be a cure (for the majority etiologies of) Deafness in 5 yrs. BUT, I agree with you - hopefully, a safe drug that doesn't cause dementia may blossom for a permanent cure for "T" sufferers. Of course we all want that. We shall see to 2020.

 

I'm not sure how it is in the US but in EU they are being monitored for long term effects.

I'm not saying that we should continue with lobotomies. All I said was that regulation and ethics make it a lot more difficult and take much longer time to reach the goal.

And how many ordinary people do you know that can make any kind of guess of any drug on the market and what it might do? Most people don't know don't know how aspirine works and they don't need to. What they should know is if there are any risks with taking the drug . Hell, most people don't even know the chemical formula for water!

Well of course drugs will ever be a cure for all! Some problems might take a longer time then others due to the complexity of the problem (as I stated earlier) and some might require other techniqes.

Of course for people that have some hearing loss but used to have good hearing and where all the infrastracture of hearing is intact it will probably be sooner since the complexity of the problem is not as big as with people that have abnormalities or even missing parts. Duh!

Also I never claimed that there will be a cure within 5 years. I believe that in my first post I stated that I DON'T belive it will be.

 

@SilvioSabo: Simple & Sweet finale. Hopefully, a safe -solution- (that doesn't cause dementia) may blossom for a permanent cure for ALL "T" sufferers...hopefully, even within 5 yrs. Keep us informed.
I wish upon a star, a solution to T for those near & far.

 

Ok, let's see: We have an article that by its title has to do with deaf people. Actually it doesn't, it just has to do with treating ear problems, and judging by the 5 drugs that will be available in 5 years, most of of them (if not all) do not address deaf people! And we have this lovely topic about T sufferers, that should allegedly be unrelated to that article, because they ultimately may find out that T is something that will be dealt differently (potassium channels?) than hearing loss.
And of course, the funny part is that those drugs mentioned may be ideal for us!

What a nice mess!

 

The charity Action on Hearing Loss predicts that there will be drugs on the market to treat tinnitus by the year 2020. Included in their list of drugs expected to reach the market by 2020 is AM-101 from Auris Medical, which a number of Tinnitus Talk members have taken via clinical trial.

Source: http://www.actiononhearingloss.org....ss-releases/hearing-progress-report-2015.aspx

 

Hi guys do you think when the cure is available, regular people could afford it

 

@kane, I would imagine that a drug that treats tinnitus would be covered by insurance and thus be more affordable!

 

And if it's just for hearing loss?

 

Well, one of the drugs they mention is AM-101, which is for treating tinnitus. And their list is just for drugs that are at the later stages of clinical trials. More are in earlier stages of clinical trials currently.

 

Thank you, what I was trying to ask was, seeing as there's a hearing restoration project, Novartis, and audion, do you think that if they get a successful cure for hearing loss / hair cell regeneration be affordable? I'm so sorry for my vague way of asking earlier

 

I hope so!