New University of Michigan Tinnitus Discovery — Signal Timing

[DimLeb]

View attachment 61877

All of us at Tinnitus Quest are thrilled to share that a live Q&A with Jon Pearson and Susan Shore from Auricle is coming up.

The event will happen sometime before the end of October 2025, though the exact date is still to be announced. Soon you will be able to sign up.

As for what to expect, there will be updates on the development of Auricle's device, insights into what the team has been working on, and a look at what lies ahead. There will also be a dedicated portion of the event for audience questions.

This could turn out to be our most popular Q&A yet! How about we try to get over 1,000 people to attend?

Let's hope something actually moves forward, and she won't recycle old stuff.

 

[Markku]

Let's hope something actually moves forward, and she won't recycle old stuff.

No worries about that. We're already looped in, so I can confidently say so.

 

[RebelScum]

I'm also cautiously optimistic, as they likely wouldn't be doing this if they didn't have at least some update for the community. However, I believe we shouldn't expect full answers to every question, so we won't be too disappointed if they are still unwilling to give a time frame or other details.

 

[Hazel]

Please submit your questions before the live event here:

Submit Your Questions for Dr. Susan Shore and Jon Pearson of Auricle

Ask your burning questions for Dr. Susan Shore and Jon Pearson of Auricle before the live event on October 13.

tinnitustalk.typeform.com

 

[Sodlin]

No worries about that. We're already looped in, so I can confidently say so.

Oh man, you're getting me hyped!

 

[AfroSnowman]

By the way, a bit of self-promotion: we strongly encourage everyone to support Tinnitus Quest by becoming a monthly donor

I just signed up, thanks for putting this on!

 

[Bhaveen]

No worries about that. We're already looped in, so I can confidently say so.

Thanks so much to you and @Hazel for staying on top of this. I'm already a monthly donor, and it's the best use of money leaving my account. I felt a bit deflated about the prospects of this treatment, but I know you wouldn't organize anything unless it was worthwhile. Thanks again!

 

[Applejuice]

Please submit your questions before the live event here:

Submit Your Questions for Dr. Susan Shore and Jon Pearson of Auricle

Ask your burning questions for Dr. Susan Shore and Jon Pearson of Auricle before the live event on October 13.

tinnitustalk.typeform.com

In that form, it says the event will take place on the 13th of October. Is that just a placeholder, or will that be the actual date of the event?

Either way, I'm really glad you took the time to organize this. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed, even for just a little bit of good news.

 

[Pixelito]

Oh, this is such amazing news. I was just logging in to express a bit of dismay and lost hope. I'm really happy to see that this is happening. The image of Dr. Shore with someone receiving treatment almost brought me to tears.

I'm cautious, and I'm not going to let myself believe this will be a cure, but I'm hopeful it will ease my never-ending hiss and lower the volume a bit.

Same here. What a pleasant surprise. I can only hope this is a sign of good news about the approval process.

I imagine the top question at the Q&A will be:

WHEN WILL IT BE AVAILABLE?!?!??!

 

[UKBloke]

I have not forgotten that last year, after their pivotal trial, which left many questions unanswered, Susan Shore and Jon Pearson completely shut down communication with Tinnitus Talk. That is why I find it really strange that, out of nowhere, a Q&A has now been announced.

Susan Shore is almost infamous within our community for giving robotic answers. So this logically leaves only a couple of possibilities for the tone of the upcoming Q&A. Either she will repeat the same points we have already heard countless times, or there is a major announcement on the way.

If it is the latter, I find it odd that Susan would not precede such news with an official public announcement. On the other hand, if Auricle is planning to use the Tinnitus Quest Q&A to reveal something significant, that would mark a major change in their approach, especially considering how they closed the door on us last year.

 

[Markku]

I have not forgotten that last year, after their pivotal trial, which left many questions unanswered, Susan Shore and Jon Pearson completely shut down communication with Tinnitus Talk. That is why I find it really strange that, out of nowhere, a Q&A has now been announced.

Susan Shore is almost infamous within our community for giving robotic answers. So this logically leaves only a couple of possibilities for the tone of the upcoming Q&A. Either she will repeat the same points we have already heard countless times, or there is a major announcement on the way.

If it is the latter, I find it odd that Susan would not precede such news with an official public announcement. On the other hand, if Auricle is planning to use the Tinnitus Quest Q&A to reveal something significant, that would mark a major change in their approach, especially considering how they closed the door on us last year.

They never shut down communication with us behind the scenes. Their decision not to engage with patients publicly at that time has no relevance to the October Q&A and its contents.

This Q&A does represent a significant shift in their approach. It marks a meaningful change in transparency from the company, and we're glad to be at the forefront of that.

You don't need to worry that this will be the same as any of the earlier events.

And let's all remember one thing: it's not common for companies to hold public live Q&A sessions where patients can ask questions directly, especially before a treatment is released. When something like this does happen, it usually signals a desire for transparency, community engagement, or public trust-building. So yes, it's quite exceptional, and gets a thumbs up from us and hopefully from most of you.

In that form, it says the event will take place on the 13th of October. Is that just a placeholder, or will that be the actual date of the event?

Either way, I'm really glad you took the time to organize this. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed, even for just a little bit of good news.

The date is confirmed to be the 13th of October. The event will begin before noon Pacific time. The exact time, along with a sign-up form, will be announced soon.

 

[Fields]

This is, of course, complete speculation on my part, but once companies have a minimum viable product in place, they usually want to start gathering feedback in order to improve it and prepare it for the market.

Marketing a minimum viable product can be crucial for validating the product's potential before investing heavily in a full launch or a broader marketing campaign.

This could be part of that process. However, I suggest you keep your expectations in check.

 

[UKBloke]

minimum viable product

Evidently, those of us not in direct contact with Auricle are not privy to the latest information. I should also add that we don't know whether or not those of us who are in close contact with Auricle, but not directly associated with the company, are privy either. That side of the current proceedings remains a bit of a mystery.

If it transpires that the next Auricle update reveals FDA submission has gone ahead, then the foundation upon which the resulting product rests would mean it is a minimum viable product, in my view. I base this opinion on the fact that the crossover data - a crucial feature of the trial design - was unusable.

If we want the best product, then this must come off the back of a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with a usable data set. I still believe that achieving that outcome is not beyond the ability of Susan Shore.

Really, the only way I can stay remotely interested in Auricle is to hear that they now understand where things went wrong, that they've deduced how to address that, and that they intend to re-run the trial. I'm afraid anything less, and we're in grave danger of sliding into Lenire territory.

 

[DimLeb]

Really, the only way I can stay remotely interested in Auricle is to hear that they now understand where things went wrong, that they've deduced how to address that, and that they intend to re-run the trial. I'm afraid anything less, and we're in grave danger of sliding into Lenire territory.

I've slowly lost interest over the course of all this, but do we actually have any information that things went wrong? I also feel like there might be something fishy about this story, but maybe I missed something.

 

[Applejuice]

I've slowly lost interest over the course of all this, but do we actually have any information that things went wrong? I also feel like there might be something fishy about this story, but maybe I missed something.

Well, the issue was that in the first trial, they applied the device for four weeks, and during the washout phase all the gains, or rather reductions, eventually disappeared. The positive results were only temporary.

In the second trial, they applied the device for six weeks instead. Unlike in the first trial, the results were not temporary and lasted even after the washout phase.

So what went wrong was that the effect became lasting instead of temporary, which meant they could not do a crossover test within the trial.

 

[Fightthearmy]

If we want the best product, then this must come off the back of a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with a usable data set. I still believe that achieving that outcome is not beyond the ability of Susan Shore.

As if many of us had the luxury of time. Do you?

 

[UKBloke]

As if many of us had the luxury of time. Do you?

Are you advocating for the release of a less-rigorously tested device?

but do we actually have any information that things went wrong?

I think the trial design went wrong, definitely.

As for the device, beyond timing changes, I don't really see how much road they have left in terms of developing it.

 

[DimLeb]

Well, the issue was that in the first trial, they applied the device for four weeks, and during the washout phase all the gains, or rather reductions, eventually disappeared. The positive results were only temporary.

In the second trial, they applied the device for six weeks instead. Unlike in the first trial, the results were not temporary and lasted even after the washout phase.

So what went wrong was that the effect became lasting instead of temporary, which meant they could not do a crossover test within the trial.

Well, I'm in no position to assess all that information thoroughly, but I still think it sounds better than the sketchy Lenire trial that had no placebo group. I like to think it is better than nothing, even if it has flaws, because if there is something, maybe someone will build upon it, improve it, or create a more effective device.

But until they release it, we have nothing.

 

[Fightthearmy]

Are you advocating for the release of a less-rigorously tested device?

It would make a huge difference. Where's your empathy? Lives are wasted because of this scourge. How much more do you think people are willing to give up if it is the case that something exists which could, in its present state, offer relief to millions? A decade? Are we supposed to work on 'mindfulness' or some other crap until then, or what?

 

[Joey72]

Well, I'm in no position to assess all that information thoroughly, but I still think it sounds better than the sketchy Lenire trial that had no placebo group. I like to think it is better than nothing, even if it has flaws, because if there is something, maybe someone will build upon it, improve it, or create a more effective device.

But until they release it, we have nothing.

Exactly.

 

[UKBloke]

Where's your empathy?

Interpreting a demand for the gold-standard science we have been promised as a lack of empathy is one of the most inverted comments I've read on here. Over the years, I've seen good, knowledgeable people driven away from these forums by that kind of tone. You should take your grievance up with Auricle.

 

[Fightthearmy]

Interpreting a demand for the gold-standard science we have been promised as a lack of empathy is one of the most inverted comments I've read on here. Over the years, I've seen good, knowledgeable people driven away from these forums by that kind of tone. You should take your grievance up with Auricle.

I'm at ease in saying that @UKBloke comes across as a very honorable man, perhaps the one we need but don't deserve, as he has the ability to regard the matter without personal bias. Being able to pursue hobbies, complete a master's degree, have a satisfying career, and remain employable, and above all, not having your life reduced to a miserable existence unless you're fortunate enough to live long, are all matters of little consequence to such honorable men, whether we're speaking of empathy or simply one's sense of urgency.

I'm not as honorable or as reasonable as @UKBloke, and I'm not willing to humble myself to the role of a sacrificial lamb, whether for a mere silver lining or a gold standard, which, for reasons well known to him, runs counter to bringing the device to market as soon as possible. Few of us would be willing to do so, but @UKBloke's an exception.

On the other hand, those of you who aren't in a place of hopelessness might find his outlook sobering. I'd hate to place any of you in slightly different circumstances, those of failed education and employment, of social inequity, and of the toll on your mental health, just to see where each of you would draw the line and abandon being the better man, as another potential decade of trials wears you down.

 

[UKBloke]

I'm at ease in saying that @UKBloke comes across as a very honorable man, perhaps the one we need but don't deserve, as he has the ability to regard the matter without personal bias. Being able to pursue hobbies, complete a master's degree, have a satisfying career, and remain employable, and above all, not having your life reduced to a miserable existence unless you're fortunate enough to live long, are all matters of little consequence to such honorable men, whether we're speaking of empathy or simply one's sense of urgency.

I'm not as honorable or as reasonable as @UKBloke, and I'm not willing to humble myself to the role of a sacrificial lamb, whether for a mere silver lining or a gold standard, which, for reasons well known to him, runs counter to bringing the device to market as soon as possible. Few of us would be willing to do so, but @UKBloke's an exception.

On the other hand, those of you who aren't in a place of hopelessness might find his outlook sobering. I'd hate to place any of you in slightly different circumstances, those of failed education and employment, of social inequity, and of the toll on your mental health, just to see where each of you would draw the line and abandon being the better man, as another potential decade of trials wears you down.

Stick to facts. Auricle are either moving forward with what they have (a product where the blinding process has not been tested), or they're going to have to re-run the trial. If they re-run the trial, they must either crossover (in line with their original promise to do proper science rigorously tested), or redesign the trial as a single arm with control to see if repeatability can be achieved. If it's the latter, I personally do not believe that it would take another 10 years.

I'm not going to respond further in this thread until Susan Shore and Jon Pearson have announced their plans.

 

[Joeseph Stope]

How I wish I had paid more attention during my statistics course back then. I can clearly recall a unique occasion when human trials were interrupted, and the medication was approved early.

That was during the AIDS epidemic, and the reasoning was straightforward. The drug had passed both animal and safety tests. Then, during the efficacy tests, the death toll in the placebo group exceeded the death toll of those receiving the medication. I believe it might have been called AZT or something similar. The difference was so significant that, on ethical grounds, the decision was made to set aside the usual rigor of the experiment and proceed with administering the medication, as it was considered life-saving.

That was then, and this is now. Sadly, the problem is much the same. Go to the thread on treatments and you will see that the number of choices is as numerous as stars in the night sky. If that is not enough, look at the thread on alternative treatments, and they are as numerous as the sands on the seashore. Some of them have worked for certain people, particularly during the early onset stage, within the first two years or so.

The cherry on top would be finding a rigorous cure, a proof from first principles of what tinnitus truly is. Professor Shore has already announced that her approach would work best for those with somatic tinnitus, meaning those who can influence the sound by moving their neck, jaw, and so on.

However, do not let that dishearten you. We already know there are different types of tinnitus. If she can develop a device or procedure that cures some of us, or even reduces the sound and its intrusiveness in some of us, that would, in my view, make twenty or thirty years of research well worth it.

It may not be the miracle drug we dream about, but it feels like the first signs of the cavalry arriving.

 

[Watasha]

I think the trial design went wrong, definitely.

Why do you think that? It seems like a professional scientist would have considered this, though I imagine trials get rejected by the FDA many times.

It would make a huge difference. Where's your empathy? Lives are wasted because of this scourge. How much more do you think people are willing to give up if it is the case that something exists which could, in its present state, offer relief to millions? A decade? Are we supposed to work on 'mindfulness' or some other crap until then, or what?

Please work on mindfulness until then.

 

[Bhaveen]

I, for one, would be deeply disappointed if we had to wait for another trial and then another peer-reviewed paper. It has already been proven to help some people, and a new trial will not change that. Let those people get relief.

 

[Fightthearmy]

...I personally do not believe that it would take another 10 years.

Obviously not. If I personally believed it wouldn't take another 10 years, perhaps I wouldn't be so impatient.

 

[ErikaS]

I can empathize with all the emotions around this topic, as well as some of the facts that have been shared. This coming September will mark three years since my life was altered in a way that I still deeply grieve. I miss the life I had before it happened. While my mental health and resilience have improved considerably, I still struggle. I continue to live with constant, bilateral, variable, sound-reactive tinnitus, and I hold on to the hope that one day will bring relief for me and for all of us.

With that said, I have faith and trust in @Hazel and @Markku. They have been here with most of us for years, long before I joined. They have endured their own tinnitus conditions and have read countless posts on this forum over the years. They know our suffering, and they created Tinnitus Quest because of it. If @Hazel and @Markku are sharing this Q&A with positivity and excitement, I feel I owe it to them to trust their intentions, share in their enthusiasm, and wait for the actual event before forming conclusions or letting doubt take over.

I know we aim to be logical and cautious with our hopes, because the sting of repeated disappointment has become so heavy. Still, let's allow ourselves to look forward to this, hope for some solid news, and take it from there. We've got this

 

[AfroSnowman]

Professor Shore has already announced that her approach would work best for those with somatic tinnitus, meaning those who can influence the sound by moving their neck, jaw, and so on.

My understanding is that she focused on somatic tinnitus for her studies because it seemed like the most likely target for her study, not that it would only work for somatic tinnitus. That is not a positive or a negative reflection about whether it will work on non-somatic tinnitus. In fact, I believe she has said that it should, but just hasn't been tested yet. To restate something that has been brought up numerous times over the years, no one asked the guinea pigs in her animal studies whether they could modulate their tinnitus.

 

[Markku]

With that said, I have faith and trust in @Hazel and @Markku. They have been here with most of us for years, long before I joined. They have endured their own tinnitus conditions and have read countless posts on this forum over the years. They know our suffering, and they created Tinnitus Quest because of it. If @Hazel and @Markku are sharing this Q&A with positivity and excitement, I feel I owe it to them to trust their intentions, share in their enthusiasm, and wait for the actual event before forming conclusions or letting doubt take over.

I want to make it absolutely clear, if it was not already, that the positivity and excitement we have expressed for this Q&A relate only to the increased transparency and the direct engagement with the patient community, which many have been hoping for. Our comments should not be interpreted as any kind of endorsement or as indicating anything about the future availability or the efficacy of the device.