Hearing Loss

[Old Pit Guy]

The feeling of clogged seems to be a a mental, top-down effect. Because the ear isn't hearing as well as expected, part of the brain is like "It's gotta be clogged" and inserts the feeling of clogginess.

Fascinating stuff. What part of the brain is it that autonomically makes flawed assumptions on the body's condition and then to make its case causes symptoms to support the silent guesswork -- Is it a psychosomatic phenomena?

[john lamb]

The feeling of clogged seems to be a a mental, top-down effect. Because the ear isn't hearing as well as expected, part of the brain is like "It's gotta be clogged" and inserts the feeling of clogginess.

Fascinating stuff. What part of the brain is it that autonomically makes flawed assumptions on the body's condition and then to make its case causes symptoms to support the silent guesswork -- Is it a psychosomatic phenomena?

I think you need to change your handle to Old Balcony Guy. As in, those guys from the Muppets. What is your explanation for why the ear feels clogged or stuffed when presented with sudden hearing loss and no actual clogging? I'm borrowing the studied opinion of Dr. Neil from the Center of Hearing Loss Help who has looked at thousands of cases of ototoxicity. Yes, it is an opinion, which is why I said "seems to" instead of "is". However, in my opinion, it seems like a perfectly good explanation that fits the facts nicely. How else would you explain a feeling of the ears being stuffed when they aren't? The sensors going haywire and presenting false information? No evidence exists for that. It far more likely to be top down. Therefore the brain is inserting the feeling for some reason. The sudden hearing loss occurs at the same time. I'm comfortable enough linking the two. As Dr Neil is. Please, what is your explanation?

[Old Pit Guy]

I think you have me confused with someone who offered an explanation. I'm not a pretend-a-doctor and I'm not farming the internet for quacks and their solutions to pad self-published, non peer reviewed E-books with. As for your citation, I would implore anyone to see the good doctor's site and notice what he's all about -- selling books! Go figure.

http://hearinglosshelp.com/about-us/

Don't know about you, well, I do, sort of, but the doctors I put stock in spend their time working with people in hospitals and offices, not on the internet selling books.

My issue with these sorts of proclamations is that while admittedly helpful, usually, people with physical, mental or emotional issues are best to see someone personally with education, training, experience and a degree. That's always the best answer. Whereas "I think ....." or "In my experience" blah blah are sometimes helpful but should always end with "see a real doctor."

Last but definitely not least, this habit you have of basing theories on how they are "fitting the facts nicely" is not only a terrible way to go about science, it's abjectly ridiculous.

[Old Pit Guy]

In case anyone has trouble with the above link to the good doctor and his commendable work, here is a screen of the pertinent bit:

quack-a-lot.jpg (275.17 KiB) Viewed 6244 times

-

Have to admit I'm a little puzzled why the doctor doesn't refer patients to be properly ,er ... Healed.

[john lamb]

Don't know about you, well, I do, sort of,

No, you don't know me. You're jumping to conclusions and insulting me in public, hidden behind a fake name. Neither are you familiar with Dr. Neil. His book covers look terrible, but you can't judge a book by its cover. The works cited list in his ototoxicity book is dozens of pages long. The book itself is 800 pages. Yes! Please, read Dr. Neil's stuff. It's quite good. It is easily the most accessible, thorough and useful guide to ototoxicity I found. I can't vouch for his other books, but the one I read was very, very well done. Why don't you open it yourself to form your own opinion?

I'm accusing you of being biased. Someone caring enough about an issue to write a book to raise public awareness doesn't make them a quack. You didn't do your homework and you are jumping to conclusions. Either that or you possess the rare skill of knowing everything there is to know about things without even bothering to look. Well, this is the internet and you have a fake name, so I suppose that skill is not so rare. Either way, I politely request that you take your troll back home with you and let me get back on with providing people with "admittedly helpful" information that just might save their careers.

I think you have me confused with someone who offered an explanation.

No, believe me, I don't. I just wanted to make clear that you aren't offering anything of any use to anyone other than your own studied opinion.



Re: non-peer reviewed. Peer reviewed articles are really only of use to peers. The amount of jargon they contain and the awkward, but required, format of make their contents inaccessible to anyone not trained in research. The works coming out of the peer reviewed system are sometimes great, but almost unreadable. Anyone caring about the thread at this point, try reading this:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3428095?se ... b_contents

Riveting, right? It is the role of the peer-reviewed system to judge the quality of an experiment. It is not their role to disseminate information to the public. That role falls to those of us who care enough about the subject to get the word out. FWIW, I was trained in research from birth. My father (a PhD in science education) won a lifetime achievement award from the National Science Teachers Assoc for his work promoting research based education. I won a dozen awards for my various research projects in high school from local and regional research science competitions, and took one project the International Science Expo one year as an alternate. Not all education results in a formal degree. But then some of it does. I took at least three dedicated Research Methods courses in the course of getting my (non-internet) degrees in Music, Psychology, Biology and Education. But then you knew that. Sort of.

[Old Pit Guy]

My work was done come 7:02 AM.

[chris perra]

I think it's best to check out all info, even if it's free. or even if there is an agenda behind it.. I don't think John has and agenda.. Just stating something than can happen from time to time.. And make my own judgment.

I don't understand why Old Pit Guy has a problem with the info John has provided.. Even if you believed it completely and he was totally wrong, how is protecting your ears a problem? What are you going to do about it even armed with the new info?.. If you have ringing in your ears... you are going to go see a doctor.. and if you become paranoid from the new info you will protect your ears.. either way it's all good. There isn't enough information there for you to fix it yourself , just try and minimize or prevent it.