New University of Michigan Tinnitus Discovery — Signal Timing

I can only judge German ENTs. I wasn't implying that ENTs in other countries are better.

Dr. Schaaf neither mentioned Neuromod nor the University of Minnesota to show that other people see bimodal stimulation as a potential treatment for tinnitus.

The way he described Susan Shore’s research made her look unprofessional and ill-prepared. He didn’t mention that more trials are planned and that studies with more participants will be published to further investigate the effectiveness of bimodal stimulation. He intentionally didn't explain that the trial he talked about was only a Phase 1 trial. However, he stressed that they had already filed a patent application for their device, further making her look like she’ll be selling an untested, dubious device.

Instead of encouraging the reader to inform themselves about the University of Michigan and to follow the results of their future trials, he recommended, what can only be called as, his own form of TRT. Further, he questioned whether the improvements of their Phase 1 trial would last. They didn’t, he would know that had he actually paid attention. Had he actually done research, he would also know that Neuromod achieved lasting improvements in their patients, following the impacts up to 12 months post-treatment cessation. Even if he meant it as in: could bimodal stimulation in general cause longlasting/permanent improvements? Again, he neither mentions Neuromod nor that Susan Shore and her team are investigating how long the improvements will last.

Dr. Schaaf, head of a tinnitus clinic and psychotherapist, doesn’t really care, he’s here to sell you his clinic’s treatment made up of mindfulness and meditation. He very obviously looked down on research done by Americans. As if Germans would ever find a viable treatment for tinnitus, they’re still calling notched music a revolutionary breakthrough.

 

@Autumnly: thank you for your summary on this article.

 

@Autumnly You brought it to the point. You feel in every sentence that he doesn’t care one bit about a real treatment.

 

In the United States it is now the first to file for a patent that gets patent protection. It used to be first to invent, but that changed several years ago. So this is likely the rush to patent regardless of how well it works. I don't think it is a rush to produce a junk device. Filing a patent is cheap in the grand scheme of things.

 

I spoke with Dr. Schaaf personally 5 years ago for two hours. I was so desperate with my horror T, full of anxiety, and he was only talking about psycho stuff (and partly their TRT treatment). He is not a T therapist, but a psychologist. Close to the end of the talk he offered me to go into a clinic where dependant people (heroin, alcohol, any form of dependancy even dependancy on other people like your wife) are locked up. This was because he asked me all kind of psychological stuff and I was thinking about if my wife could be the problem. She never was, but if you talk two hours with a psycho doc, the doc is steering you, then you think about each and everything.

At the end, my only thought was to get quickly out of this location before they put me into a straitjacket. It was a horror day. At the end, he sent me a bill about 400 Euros for this excellent talk.

They charge 400-500 Euros per day!!! in their clinic. For psycho blabla, TRT and so on. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER go to this clinic.

German clinics in general have no clue about Mutebutton, Susan Shore etc. Everyone thinks, Germany has good approaches in treating T. But it is the opposite. It is all about TRT and psycho blabla.

 

That is purely disgusting. He surely doesn't have any compassion for tinnitus sufferer.

 

Fuck these doctors. Jastreboff, Schaaf and all their ilk. If any of the bimodal devices really works it will be our holy task straight from God to spread the news far and wide and put these quacks out of business.

May their oncologist tell them to "habituate" to their cancer. And be mindful of it. Maybe run a fan in the background!

 

Hilarious - Habituate to their cancer ... The auld f&rts that they are.

 

• Handheld Barcode Scanner
  RCP1 replied A moment ago
• New University of Michigan...
  RCP1 replied 26 minutes ago
• How to Be with Someone Having...
  RCP1 replied 28 minutes ago
• Q&A: Tinnitus Hub Meets...
  RCP1 replied 34 minutes ago

I'm at it again. Time to exit the boards.

Nite !

 

Hey all,
Long time reader, first time poster.
I’ve been concerned with the clinical trials site listing this trial:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03621735
It states a primary study end date of 2022.
Start date of 2018, with a study length of 6 months.

Recently spoke with my sibling who oversees a large territory of clinical trials for one of the big pharma.

He postulated that the only reason that it should take that long is that they don’t have the manpower or capacity on the campus to manage the 100 or so subjects at once and must be doing 25 or so at a time, four times in a row, potentially one group per acedemic year.

I’m certain there would be plenty of interest from ofher sites and managing ENT’s & audiologists that would be more than happy to handle a concurrent second cohort of subjects.

Spreading it out could improve the results of the trial and prove its robustness.
As well, not keeping a trial going on for so long would help keep the integrity of the material in the trial. ie: not allowing information out to the public or to potential future subject while the trial is still underway, and in turn diluting the accuracy of the results.

Any thoughts? Preferably without giving away pertinent details within the trial.

Have very high hopes on this!

 

I may be wrong, but I believe somebody has posted in this forum about this issue.

Somebody posted a few months ago that they knew somebody in this trial and that they were in fact staggering the starts due to lack of space and or resources. I believe they were also waiting for the devices to show up. Look back in the thread, it’s here somewhere. I’ll see if I can find it.

 

Here it is.

 

Thanks Spedgas!
I'll speak with "said pharma player' to see if there may be room for investment or cooperation in branching out to a second location. Long shot, but It's worth it.

 

It’s worth a shot. I’ve posted here multiple times about the long prediction of this trial's time frame. I’ve even emailed Susan Shore a few times.

 

Did the trial start yet does anybody know? I wonder if it is too late to try and participate

 

Unfortunately I don't know but I found an e-mail for candidates for this trial at University of Michigan. You can just ask them to know for sure:
tinn.trial@umich.edu

First-hand information is the best

 

I just emailed Susan Shore sushore@umich.edu. I will send to the above email as well.

 

As of November 12th they are “enrolling by invitation”. I think they have their people already and are bringing them in as smaller groups. They don’t have the space or people to run the whole group at once. They are having to stagger the starts.

 

Why is this expected to be effective only for somatic tinnitus?

 

It's not.

 

https://hearinghealthmatters.org/he...plasticity-adults-mild-moderate-hearing-loss/

 

I sent and email to Dr. Shore about non-somatic tinnitus and this was her answer

Noise induced tinnitus can also be somatic. Currently our trial is ongoing - we hope to be finished at the end of the year.

 

Thanks for sharing that. It’s great to hear her say that she hopes to be finished by the end of the year.

 

About non-somatic forms she said

"We don't know if it can help non-somatic, but it might"

 

It is now January 2019. So "end of the year" basically means one year from now?

 

I think you are right

 

Ugh. In my mind it was still 2018 December and I was happy to see fast progress. End of 2019 sounds a lot worse especially because it can take many months from the conclusion of the trial to the actual publication of the study... We might not see this until mid-2020

 

Dr. Shore. Get someone to sign up here and drop a hint.

Best,
PD

 

This would imply 5 months between the conclusion of the trials and the publication of a paper. Normally it would take 6 months to finish the paper. Then it could take a year or two for the paper to be accepted for publication. Then it will take about 3-6 months for the paper to be actually published. My guess is that it will be published in 2022.

 

I sadly agree. ClinicalTrials.gov has an estimated preliminary study completion date as September of 2022. Estimated study completion date as January 2023. I don’t know at what point they start marketing the device, but it certainly isn’t three years before the completion date of the study.

This is why I’m toying with the idea of getting my hands on the Neuromod device when it’s available, then following that up with the Shore device once it’s here.

Hopefully the Neuromod device works its wonders alone, but I’m not afraid to clean up the scraps with the Shore device.