Toilet Lid Noise and Corticosteroids?

This is probably due to most of our medical care is still under one umbrella, the government. Private health care is not common yet where I live.

 

This is not possible in my local hospital networks either where electronic data is shared between multiple doctors.

However, I do recall a thread where a Canadian member recommended having a family member go to the ER, lie and try to secure prednisone for someone with tinnitus. So it seems there is a way around it and it is possible to lie about meds. It is also possible to lie about why you feel you need prednisone, and that is encouraged by posters on multiple threads too.

I have seen a wide range of doctors due to a serious autoimmune concern, but even the ENT and audiologist who seemed — well less than average — knew that a heavy dose of oral steroids was the recommended guideline.

From posts, it seems doctors are prescribing longer than two or three days but a poster is recommending under medicating, only doing two or three days and holding onto the rest to use at a later date. This is on the first page of this thread. Even Canada’s medical files would not know a patient was doing that unless they specifically told their doctor.

 

Hmm, perhaps I am naive, never thought of this!

 

Not recommended but still within safe use of the medication.
Medication generally loses its efficacy after its expiry date...it cannot be "stockpiled" for long and have the same potency.

 

Untrue. With a small exception of medications (Nitroglycerin, insulin, and liquid antibiotics) most maintain a high degree of potency even beyond a decade.

 

I think you are honest, not naive. This is why some of us are rather vocal against posters who encourage others to outright lie to their doctors.

But as you mentioned previously, it is under medicating. In order for medication to be most effective, it is best to follow the doctor’s recommendation.

And as I mentioned earlier, there is a reason for the recommended level. Sure I could only take two out of a 10-day dosing of prednisone and it would be safe, but is it effective? Is taking only two prednisone going to actually do anything to help SSHL? It doesn’t look like it according to the studies.

 

I still can't find any studies anywhere linking taking prednisone to an increased risk of cancer. If you can provide us with a link, that would be helpful. Assuming those studies exist, given how difficult it is to find those studies, you can't blame me and others for suggesting that people take prednisone. Also, your calculations didn't take into account the people saved from committing suicide as a result of loud T as a result of not taking prednisone.

 

Here is the non-paywalled results: https://www.webmd.com/cancer/lymphoma/news/20040504/steroids-increase-skin-cancer-risk#1

and no I didn't account for people saved from committing suicide as a result of loud T as a result of not taking prednisone. Do you really want to go here? I haven't lectured for some time on the social determinants of health... The deeper we dig the more you realize the negative consequences. One small example, living a lifestyle that results in social isolation is as predicative as obesity and smoking status for morbidity.

 

How does one ultimately know if prednisone is helping them? Spikes come and go anyway, without the involvement of drugs, so there’s no way of knowing if it is helping someone or not. We only have anecdotal information to go on here.

If someone posts: I was exposed to a door slamming and decided to take prednisone, and after 5 days the spike subsided. What exactly does that tell us? The answer? Absolutely nothing at all.

We are drawing conclusions. What started the spike in the first place? The door slamming or the stress response from it? Secondly, how can you prove the prednisone did anything to alter the outcome? The spike could have gone whilst taking nothing at all. Just because we assume one thing affects another it isn’t always necessarily so. We have to be careful of human biasing here to which we are all subject to.

 

But to your comment: In a large, population-based study of adult patients in the United Kingdom (UK), those receiving glucocorticoids were almost 7 times more likely to commit or attempt suicide, more than 5 times more likely to develop delirium, more than 4 times more likely to develop mania, and almost twice as likely to develop depression than those with the same underlying conditions who did not receive the medications.

 

I disagree; if this were true there would not be any need for expiry dates.

 

I spent spent some time looking into those "studies." The reason I use quotation marks is that to the best of my knowledge, none of them had accounted for things like whether their subjects were extroverts or introverts. If isolation benefited introverts less than it harmed extroverts, then you would get that result. Another reason for the quotation marks is that they had uncovered correlation, which of course does not imply causation. Yes, of course homeless and sick people are more likely to die and are also more likely to be isolated. Laughable.

Steroids put one on edge. I guess everything depends on how effective they are in preventing permanent spikes.

I agree. However, some doctors are telling us that taking steroids ensures hairs do not die following an acoustic trauma. So there is some theory behind taking steroids.

 

Thank you, yes, I will take honest over naive.

 

I mean what does Harvard know anyways... https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/drug-expiration-dates-do-they-mean-anything

 

@kelpiemsp "This is the date at which the manufacturer can still guarantee the full potency and safety of the drug."
If I need to take a drug, I want to know it will be safe and effective; personal preference. Thank you for the article, though.

 

I guess you have conceded the cancer issue? Good because that's not open for debate really. Please oh please show me a "study" in a peer-reviewed journal that shows how prednisone helps prevent suicide from permanent T spikes. I have done you the privilege of providing evidence, that prednisone does indeed lead to it. But alas, why ask, it doesn't exist.

 

That study was about Long Term use of steroids

So, "long-term" refers to 15 or more prescriptions over an 8-year period. I suspect each "prescription" is for longer than 14 days. Then again, who knows, it might be for 14 days. In your calculation you assumed that the risk would go up as much as the risk goes up after 15 prescriptions, even though we were talking about one prescription. This kind of sloppiness is surprising when coming from someone who works in the field. In any case, given how hard it is to get a prescription, people are unlikely to take the entire 14 days + tapering course of steroids. It is likely that their risk of cancer would not increase by a large amount.

Many people believe that tinnitus is worse than cancer. The next time someone asks about prednisone, or the next time I mention prednisone, I plan to post a link to the study you posted. Then let them decide.

It would have to be a study that tells us what fraction of sufferers end their life, combined with a study about the effectiveness of steroid in preventing damage following an acoustic trauma.

 

That was yours truly.

(I don't normally see your posts, but I saw them this time.)

 

There is more nuance to it than that. After you get an acoustic trauma, there is a very small window during which steroids are going to be effective. Also, T can take days to develop. You can begin taking steroids right after your trauma. If you continue having symptoms like a full ear sensation or a T spike, you can take a full course of steroids. However, if the next day all of the symptoms are gone and after a couple of days it becomes clear that it was a false alarm, you might consider discontinuing steroids and keeping them so that you have something to take right away should you be unlucky enough to experience a secondary acoustic trauma.

 

I am not sure why you make feeble attempts to dig me or people in my field. As if your relentless hours of googling makes you an expert. It really makes you look bad. You can resort to ad hominem attacks if you want. But it is called linear dose response. If you worked in the field or knew anything really about the research you would know that this is a prevailing theory towards estimating cancer. Sure, some, especially in the radiation field, may disagree, but you go with your best available knowledge. Also, the other study found increases of 268% at 10-14 uses over 8 years. That as we know is less than twice a year. Also, you have no idea what the average prednisone dose is. You can't make a statement like people are unlikely to take the entire 14 day course of steroids. Science doesn't work like that. I'm sorry.

Also, I understand this is a tinnitus forum, but do you really believe "many people" feel tinnitus is worse than cancer? I mean really? No, seriously, like really? Really, really, really?

 

I had never claimed to be an expert.

How is me pointing out that you haven't adjusted the risk figures (that you used to come up with that 300% estimate) for the dose, an ad hominem attack?

I was told that for an acoustic trauma, a course of steroids is 14 days + tapering. So 268/(10*14) = 1.91. If we assume that linear dose response is appropriate when looking at low dosage, the above implies that each pill increases one's risk by 2%. Note that the risk of those cancers is very low to begin with (say 1 in 1000), so when that low risk increases by 2%, one's risk goes up by a small amount (becomes 102 in 100,000, up from 100 in 100,000). I don't think that using those numbers would give you a 300% increase.

It would appear that what You did in order to get that 300% estimate was something similar.

Only one way to find out.
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/thread...itus-lasting-decades-worse-than-cancer.28393/

In any case, I have no ill feelings towards you. Thank you for pointing out that fact about steroids.

 

A well-designed survey would be one way to find out. A poll on this site is not a well-designed survey and won't provide any useful information.

 

Actually what I did in 15 minutes to prove a point is hardly real science. We all know... should know... that. No ill will @Bill Bauer

Also I’m not going to even respond to a poll about cancer. It’s not a contest.

 

This poll would provide information about the population (people who made an account on this forum) that all of us here belong to.

 

So? Still not useful.

 

And completely biased. But hey Bill will likely quote it as clear, irrefutable evidence in future posts despite its lack of any merit.

 

I’m well aware but did not name you to be polite. Most people are not proud of being dishonest. The behavior you encouraged is actually a felony in the U.S.

 

Especially given the way some of these polls are "designed"...

 

I agree that we can't use the fraction of "yes" responses as basis for confidence intervals. However, that poll would still give us a sense of whether a significant fraction of people feel this way.

 

So in a home invasion situation, if the bad guys find you and ask you for the location where your child is hiding from them, you would proudly point them in the right direction? Cool.