Richard S. Tyler, Tinnitus Retraining Therapy, Where Are the Results?

It appears a lot of venues have a sign at the back of their toilet door (where no one sees it), where something is written in font-size 6 along the lines of "This venue is not in any way responsible for injury or damage to one's property.", effectively clearing them from any liability. That's how easy they apparently get away with it.

Oh, and "property" can also mean one's body. It's nice to write things in the most general and ambiguous way possible right?

On topic: I view TRT just as a more professional and "honest" version of the Tinnitus Miracle (because at least they dont claim to cure Tinnitus). It can help you believe you can live with Tinnitus, just like the Tinnitus Miracle if you're into the kind of stuff with "holistic healing", but the end result of both will be the same; you still have Tinnitus and a more lightweight pocket...

Needless to say, I'd rather see all this money wasted on TRT invested in real progressive research. The frequent good news coming from that with proper funding will keep us afloat for the meantime, works better for me than TRT could ever accomplish in dealing with my Tinnitus.

 

Tyler as well as others discussed in this thread are faculty at US universities, and the funding is from the NIH so it makes sense to focus on that scenario. Your description suggests you don't understand how NIH funding operates. He isn't able to "book class A rooms in 5 star hotels" - or if he does he will only be reimbursed at the authorized federal government rate and will pay the difference out of pocket - if the university even lets him book something like that in the first place. He also doesn't get to pay himself "what ever they want per hour or even a salary based pay scale". He has a salary from the University of Iowa. He's in the college of medicine so he may have a requirement to bring in at least part of his salary by winning grants, but that still goes through the university to pay his salary. In other words, the grant funding is paid by NIH to the University, not to the faculty member.

As part of the grant submission, a budget is prepared. This would list personnel, supplies, travel, equipment, etc and their costs. A budget justification is also required. The personnel cost of the budget would be based on the percentage of effort devoted to the grant project multiplied by the person's salary. For example, an individual with a salary of $100,000 who is "on a grant" for 25% effort would be budgeted at $25,000 in salary. For an individual, the percentages across all grants (and any other duties) can be no more then 100% (except possibly for a short term "overload"). Let's take an extreme case. If someone has a salary of $100,000 and wins a grant with $1 million in direct costs in a year, the person doesn't suddenly make $1,000,000 that year. This person can't be paid more than $100,000 in salary from that grant in that year, and again NIH doesn't pay the investigator; it pays the university (And in that case, the person could not be paid from other grants in that year.)

Some people here may also not understand that the dollar figures discussed above are total costs. This is the sum of "direct" costs (salary, equipment, travel, etc) and "indirect" costs (overhead). The indirect cost rate for federal government grants is around 50% and is generally consistent across universities. It covers buildings, infrastructure, equipment not specific to a grant, and so on. It is not negotiated separately by grant. (Funders, typically foundations or non-NIH/NSF parts of the government, can insist on a lower rate, but there is no way a med school would allow a grant of any size to go forward with an ICR of say 10 or 20 percent.) So a year with $300,000 in total costs, similar to the figures in the OP, the direct costs are about $200,000. In a medical school, $200,000 in direct costs goes pretty fast.

A completely separate debate could be had about how NIH allocates funds. Winning grants tend to be conservative and incremental rather than bold, and that is potentially a significant problem if people keep incrementally moving down a wrong path. But that doesn't change the mechanics of grant applications and awards.

 

1. TRT definition: another way to steal money from us suffered in coordination with hearing aids company.

 

@Aaron123

Point taken. Thanks for the deeper information. Just the same, it is easy enough to work less aggressively on a subject when you know in the end your pay will be the same. The money for these grants do not just grow on a tree. I like to feel my tax dollar, or investment, or contribution is getting the best bang for the buck.

 

@Rings-a-Bell @Vinnitus

The issue with trying to sue a club, pup, bar or rock venue etc, is trying to prove you had absolutely the music or noise was going to be loud. Must be proven without a doubt. Also why do clubbers, myself included in the past, continue to go to them when we had earaches or headaches from the last one? We went once, man was it loud!! We went again?? And again?? And again?? Willful neglect is a powerful defense in court. He willfully neglected the signs and continued on this path.

I used to drum for a few local bands in many a pub and venue when I was younger. The same crowd were there many many times. There actually are warning signs posted in my province now for high noise areas. As vinnitus says, the way they are written and where they are posted leave much to be desired. Same with working conditions. When you have a loud working environment, its the owners responsibility to make sure the employees know its loud, and provide ear plugs or muffs to all employees in that area. Trying to babysit each employee in a plant thats operated 24 hours a day is near impossible. So hard to know who is wearing the muffs and who chooses to ignore the boss. Sure every now and then someone may say, "hey Joe, Earmuffs!!" Telling the guy to put them on. Is he wearing them an hour from now? Tomorrow? Then when his hearing goes bad he tries to collect Compensation knowing full well what happened was probably preventable by using the supplied equipment or plugs. Unfortunately in pubs, concerts and other loud gatherings, there is no responsibility for the operator of the venue to supply any sound damping device. The signs state they should be used and pretty much......bring your own ear plugs if ya wanna her less noise!! A class action lawsuit may only lead to a club having to hand out cheap ear plugs to anyone who enters the venue. Many concerts held here now have LARGE signs posted saying you may require earplugs, depending on the distance from the sound, and to bring your own.

In short, hard to file a lawsuit and expect any compensation or REAL change when willful neglect comes into play. I knew it was going to be loud, but I wanted to see......XXXX.....band perform and didn't bother bring ear plugs that really cost but a dollar for the little foam guys. Case dismissed!!!

 

well this pisses me the hell off. Why is TRT rakeing in millions in research, but honest real tinnitus research is getting pennies? And there's no real results coming out. Absence of evidence of effectiveness is evidence of absence of effectiveness.

 

ATA (American Tinnitus Association) has realized it is a more profitable business module to ride Jastreboff's TRT carousel than to find an actual cure for tinnitus and hearing loss.

 

I find that a bit disgusting honestly

 

Is there any up to date information on ATA and TRT, or also BTA?

love glynis

 

Because corruption. It's one of those systems that tick all the boxes in the phoneyness category required to extend like the plague.

Offers solution to blame bothersome weak people for not trying hard enough TICK
Offers an industry to audiologist harpies with no engineering skills in the stupid services sector TICK
Something for audiologists to go to conferences and congratulate each other about TICK
Shit research for colleges or the state to call it a day TICK
Easy way out for the gold standard of otology, to not treat ears without hearing loss (in the admittedly though, stressful job of ear surgery) TICK

etc etc etc...

Of course you catch them in a forum or somewhere, and their dialectical skills automagically transform into a desperate assortment of stalling tactics.

 

Could you please provide some evidence for this claim?

From their website (abridged):

The ATA is a "registered 501(c)(3) non-profit association.."

"ATA is the nation’s foremost and trusted organization committed to finding cures for tinnitus and hyperacusis.....

More here:
https://www.ata.org/about-us

 

I take the direct insult back I was having one of my moods...

However they are supporters of TRT and TRT esque services
but I guess you could say they are the only options available in this time.

The biggest thing that concerns me is they are clearly ignoring the evidence from cochlear implants and ear plug experiments are showing that tinnitus atleast in some cases can be reduced or cured by reversing hearing loss due the the brain restoring input. They should be working with hearing loss researchers when they are not. By treating tinnitus as if it were a complete issue of it's own that's a problem.

Researchers at the British Tinnitus Association and head researcher of Decibel Therapeutics mentioned reasonable hypothesis of reversing hearing loss being a treatment for tinnitus based on cochlear implants and ear plug experiments and middle ear damage, ear wax being corrected already showing reduction of volume if not an abolishment.

The ATA acknowledges the current scientific consensus of central gain https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4208401/ that tinnitus is caused by brain alterations due to hearing loss (lack of input from the auditory nerve).

But they are not having the conversation that reversing the hearing loss using future hair cell regeneration therapeutics will not solve it.

I would love to see a paper saying "curing hearing loss will not cure tinnitus" such as cochlear hair cells regenerated in rodents yet the tinnitus signal did not abolish after several months. Or perhaps something hypothetical like "Depending on the stage of treatment or region in the brain hearing loss will or will not solve tinnitus" Yet non of this exist to my knowledge, I am wondering if there information like that and they know but don't bother publishing results because most of the public has no interest in science.


Regarding my criticism of the ATA

I did find poor ratings regarding the ATA on this list.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.history&orgid=7914

and I am waiting for @threefirefour to show me a paper of their disclosed budget which he said mostly went towards habituation related services and not research.

this also russles my jimmies since their founding 1970 treatments the same as 2018.






Here in the mentally challenged thread (threefirefour's My Posting Place)
I posted a compilation of research that suggest reversing hearing will solve tinnitus in atleast some cases.
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/threads/my-posting-place.23694/page-86#post-343096

 

https://www.ata.org/research-toward-cure/research-program/past-ata-funded-research This shows where ATA gave money too. I still believe their awareness strategy is complete trash as well as their decision making,it’s just sad. BTA does a better job in my opinion from the things I hear (read)

 

You're absolutely correct. BTA stands for Better Tinnitus Association.

I think Steven posted a pretty good link. Sorry I couldn't do anything today. It's hard to explain my current life situation, but it's been very very hard for me to get 5 minutes alone at my computer. It's so frustrating.

 

Maybe you should resign from MPP. @PetitGarsTimide and I can handle the job

 

Once in the MPP, always in. It's not like I'm it's leader or anything. Just the OP. Especially when people like you, Pete, Champ, and California contribute more. I'm sure if I left it would continue to go. There's no need for me to leave, I'm just going to be on less frequently. It really sucks that I cant be with internet friendos as much anymore.

 

The ATA is composed of profiteering audiologists. It's as if you said a church was non-profit because they have a non-profit corp sitting somewhere around there in addition to all their other shady dealings.