Discussion in 'Treatments' started by RODRIGO, Dec 31, 2018.
Separate names with a comma.
Not everything has to have a trial to be real.
Yes, there are 40% without improvement...
Never heard of this before ... Interesting!
Don't they have a number? Has anybody ever considered calling them. I doubt they monitor this forum and even know about this stuff to be honest, it's ridiculous.
But are there at least some people with improvement?
37% significant improvement, 25% without tinnitus! Can we trust this?
But there is no patient subtyping. Probably 100% noise induced cases are the most difficult to treat.
They told me that the cause of tinnitus doesn't matter in terms of benefiting from the treatment.
What's the rationale behind that statement? I don't see why it'd be any harder than ototoxicity for example. Can you explain?
Well... it says the treatment helps irrigation. Maybe it is useful with vascular issues. But if you are fine and only have hearing loss... maybe not so.
The problem is I don't really believe that it works. It has a super commercial vibe. Sorry. Hope I am wrong!
Thank for answering but my question wasn't to explain why hearing loss was harder to cure than vascular problems, it was why noise induced hearing loss would be harder than other types of hearing loss such as HL due to ototoxicity, viruses, diseases, etc.
Well ... I do not know why I only said "noise induced". Probably it is just hearing loss (all types).
With subtyping I mean somatic, non somatic, hyperacusis patients, etc
OK yes that makes more sense.
yeah i mean this is a red flag if i've ever seen one
they could at least try to get a bit of science behind it and admit that even if it might work for everyone you'll have different likelyhood of success depending on your type of tinnitus which is what seems the most logical
I contacted Manel via instagram and he says the treatment didnt work for him. I dont know if I trust this company.
He actually claims it got worse.
From my point of view it should not matter if it is caused by a virus, noise or meds, hearing loss is hearing loss no matter what initially caused it .
But I think this is just smoke and mirrors , like the Brain clinic, it simply does not work or it would be well known and offered as treatment worldwide .
It does matter actually.
If you have conductive hearing loss for example, you can sometimes have surgery to fix it. Otosclerosis is an example of that: if you have hearing loss due to otosclerosis, you do have options to not only regain your hearing, but also silence your T (if you suffer from it).
For sensorineural losses, there is a reasonable chance that it does matter too: if it's your hair cells that are damaged, then treatments that focus on regenerating them are probably more applicable than if it's your synaptic connections that are damaged.
Ok then, maybe you can explain me this, how does one know what is damaged (if one has some sensorineural hearing loss): hair cells, synaptic connections or the hearing nerve itself?
It's actually quite difficult. It's not like we can open up your cochlea and take a look. Well, we could, but you wouldn't like that. We reserve this to dead people/animals.
So we do tests that are somewhat a proxy, with various degrees of accuracy. For example, OAE tests are used to measure the "health" of outer hair cells. Speech in noise tests are supposed to detect issues with the hearing nerve (perhaps synaptopathy)... it's all very primitive.
Determining conductive vs sensorineural is fairly accurate, however (Webber/Rinne fork tests, bone conduction audiometry).
Whatever became of this?