Michael

Although this may sound "really insane", I believe I discovered a cure/treatment for multiple hearing disorders.

One problem is that the procedure contradicts all the different theories believed over the past 100 years by the medical community about hearing disorders. The procedure is non invasive, does not use drugs, and with it, the way a person hears will be permanently changed. Probably the most common of the hearing disorders that can be cured/treated is tinnitus (ringing in the ears).

I'm not going to go into detail on how I know that the procedure will work but when I first analyzed what was happening, to me it was obviously more of an engineering problem than a medical problem. To me, hearing is nothing more than a very sophisticated audio system and as I did more research about hearing disorder theories, I couldn't believe that the medical community had missed something so simple and obvious. Initially I actually started believing that they really knew that their theories were wrong but didn't know how to solve the problem so to give people hope, they concocted some bullsh*t theories about broken neurological connections, psychological problems, pink noise, and other off the wall theories.

The procedure is very simple (at least to an engineer) and only requires some off the shelf audio equipment and headphones. The biggest issue is setting up the audio equipment correctly and listening to TV or music at a certain loudness level for a certain period of time and after a specific period of time, the way a person hears will change permanently. There are 3 different procedures that are required for most hearing disorders as each procedure changes the way a person hears until finally the last procedure changes hearing back to the way a person should hear. For one of the disorders, it only takes one procedure to change the way a person hears back to the way a person should hear. Therefore the first two procedures changes their disorder to the disorder that only requires one procedure.

I have a 40 page document that describes a "case study" with information about tests that can be performed, how to setup the audio equipment, time it takes for each procedure, how to determine if the procedure worked and is locked in, temporary changes that will occur and when, frequency spectrum analysis of sounds that exasperate certain conditions, what equal loudness contour hearing tests should look like between ears (never documented before), tests that can be performed when a disorder is severe, and many other bits of information.

The document also describe theories as to what I believe is happening. In fact although I can't prove it but from all the information I collected, I believe that not only can hearing disorders be cured/treated but with the correct procedure, hearing may be able to be improved. Hearing can't be improved for high frequency loss (except maybe through stem cell research) since the hair cells are damaged but for low frequencies, everything points to the possibility that hearing loss in that range could possibly be restored to normal. Also one of the theories strongly suggests that a normal hearing test (pure tone test) does not indicate how a person hears when someone has a hearing disorder.

For one of the disorders called "recruitment", researchers have used a pure tone test using an equal loudness contour test to show how hearing is out of balance between ears but the only conclusion was that it was caused by high frequency hearing loss. That is partially true since if a person didn't have high frequency hearing loss, it is highly unlikely that recruitment would ever occur. However by stopping at that point, they never theorized as to why a person with recruitment hears the same out of both ears. Therefore the equal loudness contour test conflicts with how a person is hearing and if they researched further, they may have possibly discovered why recruitment occurs. As an engineer, everything usually is a sequence of events and when something doesn't look right, it probably isn't right and therefore you have to continue your search.

Even a disorder known as "Acoustic Shock Disorder or Syndrome" which is someone who can't use headphones can be cured/treated with the procedure which requires the person to use headphones and is only dependent on how the audio equipment is initially setup.

The "pink noise" theory for a disorder called "hyperacusis" is completely insane. It claims that a neurological connection between the brain and ears has been broken and listening to "pink noise" tries to establish a new neurological connection. The theory is so widely accepted that hearing aids now have "pink noise" generators and are used to treat hyperacusis. "Pink noise" generators in hearing aids are also used to mask the sounds of tinnitus which is ok but not a cure or treatment.

I could make the document public domain on the internet but decided that is too dangerous and someone could cause real damage since there is not a lot of research done (only one case study) to back up my theories. Also someone who doesn't fully understand what they are doing could get stuck at the end of procedure "one" and that could be worst than his original condition or do something completely wrong causing permanent damage. Finally although I'm 99% sure of everything in the document, there is a 1% lingering doubt that I don't have "all" the answers. Therefore I don't even dare to post a partial summary of my research on a "hearing disorder forum". When I was developing my theory, I did post on hearing disorder forums to ask questions about observations but the feedback was brutal from the experts but from the community, they wanted more information. For instance, one observation I noticed didn't make sense so I posted on the forum and asked if anyone knew why that occurred and got negative feedback by the experts. However many months later, that observation told me why people with a 20 DB hearing loss (4x hearing loss) don't benefit from hearing aids. It also gave me one more clue as to how hearing works.

So back in May, I decided to send the document to a university that was doing research in hearing. There were 10 researchers and eight had an email address so I sent the document to all eight. Since then, I haven't received a response. I suspect one problem is that the vast majority of hearing research is stem cell (that is what they were researching at the university that I sent the document to) and that is fine from a medical point of view but my document is about engineering and that could be over their heads. They could possibly have completely ignored the document, read it and didn't understand what I was talking about, read it and since it contradicted everything that the medical profession believed, it couldn't possibly be correct, or read it and had a good laugh.

Since I didn't get a response from anyone at that university, I am now considering sending the document to anybody that does research in hearing but I'm even concerned about that because the document could then get on the internet and become uncontrolled research by individuals that are desperate.

Therefore the question is how do I get the attention of the research department at a university?

Sally Redux

Unfortunately university researchers receive a lot of such enquiries from members of the public.

What is it that you actually want them to do? They would have to apply for grant funding and locate a suitable group of patients to take part in trials. You have already said that experts were not impressed by what you're putting forward, so it's going to be a hard sell.

AdobePinon

You really need to get some face time with someone. Sending a 40 page document is unlikely to get much attention. (Kind of like cold sending a résumé.) Unfortunately, academic egos get in the way of a lot of things, and I'm having a hard time thinking of how to get that face time. Those egos tend to view outsiders with very little respect. They'll also be unlikely to consider an idea that conflicts with any of their current research.

Given the way you describe things, you may have better luck starting with an academic engineer, and then bringing in the scientists.

As mentioned above, there will be issues concerning funding (where to get, who from, and when) as well as involving humans in experiments. For the latter, the rules are not completely clear until you know who's paying for it.

This is really an interesting question. I've never really thought about what it takes to get attention without the weight of an institution name attached to your own.

Michael

For me personally, it doesn't make much difference since I'm not looking for financial gain or anything else. However what I described above is just the tip of the iceberg. There are probably over 50 million people around the world that have some sort of hearing disorder that they know they have and probably 1/2 or more are seeking treatment or want treatment. The other half know that something is wrong but it is so minor that they just attribute it to tired ears.

Then there may possibly be millions more that don't even know they have a hearing disorder but have side effects such as headaches, migraines, nausea, and many other illnesses because hearing disorders cause side effects but the illness is not recognized as a hearing disorder since the symptoms aren't there.

In my opinion, acoustic shock disorder along with hearing fatigue and ear fatigue all derivatives of hyperacusis but the symptoms are just different. Tinnitus is also in the same category but I don't want to call it a derivative. They all have something in common and that is a low loudness discomfort level (LDL) but unfortunately only about 50% of people with tinnitus are perceived to have a low LDL. However the medical community doesn't know what is a normal LDL and if they knew, then 90% or better of the people with tinnitus would likely have a low LDL. The other 10% may have had a low LDL at one time but it could have been raised back to normal by just naturally doing something. In fact, procedure "one" is to raise the LDL to normal.

As far as the experts, they are self proclaimed experts. When I tried to fully comprehend and understand equal loudness contour (ISO:226:2003), I asked a question on a hearing web site about it since that is supposed to he the way a person with good average hearing hears. I had a problem understanding why that was different than an audiogram of a person with average good hearing. The experts told me that the equal loudness contour must be indicating something else since people with good average hearing don't hear that way.

Well they were wrong and apparently were never taught about equal loudness contour or even how an audiogram worked and assumed that an audiogram was the way people hear. However an audiogram is produced as a flat line with headphones that have specific response characteristics and electronic equipment made the audiogram flat line so an audiologist can more easily perceive what good average hearing is.

The most shocking part was when I was communicating with an ENT (the most knowledgeable person when it comes to hearing) about hyperacusis and he didn't know what it was.

The de facto expert for tinnitus and hyperacusis is a TRT (tinnitus retraining therapy) therapist who has minimal training on how to adjust the "pink noise" in hearing aids and to psychologically try to convince the patient that they are going to have to live with their disorder. They don't know why TRT sometimes helps except they notice that the patient's loudness discomfort level (LDL) may rise but sometimes a rising LDL makes the disorder worse and sometimes after it rises it drops back down. They don't understand why but I do.

It is almost as if the medical profession has given up trying to solve hearing disorders since for a hundred years, they got nowhere.

In my personal opinion, 99% of the disorders are man made. For instance, I believe it is possible to reduce the possibility of getting recruitment by over 99% because people are doing something that they don't know they are doing. I can't say what it is on the internet since I would likely be sued and have a cease and desist order issued to me.

As far as hyperacusis, hearing fatigue, and ear fatigue, those are assumed to be caused by exposure to loud noises especially rock concerts. In my opinion, that is partially correct but the loud noises of a rock concert in itself should not cause those conditions unless man was also doing something else. There are also some magic numbers that people should know about.

There are some very heart braking stories out there. Some people are confined to their homes and others go through an 18 month TRT program and finally decide they are well enough to go back to work only to discover after 2 weeks, the symptoms return and they have to quit their job but the most heart breaking are the young children that have the disorders.

I'm trying to do it the right way but if the medical community ignores me, I'll have to release the document as public domain and there will be some catastrophic results but there will also be successful results that will get the attention of the medical community. However by that time, the "cat is out of the bag" and is uncontrollable.

Michael

My original thinking was a face to face but to try to describe all the details of a 40 page document (they are all important) would require a long time and if I just presented a brief summary, they would likely think I'm just blowing gas. Even getting an face to face to give a summary would be very hard.

The very first sentence of the document is that "you'll probably think I'm a nut job and totally insane" to try to get their attention so at least they would possibly have a very good laugh if the document really didn't make any sense. Then they would have something to talk about with other medical professionals and have another laugh.

Overcoming the egos are probably by far the biggest challenge. The medical and law profession seem to have very big egos. Once a believer is found, the money should be able to come rolling in.

It's very different for me. If someone sent me an email claiming to have a never before thought of technical concept and could describe in detail how the concept would work, I would get very excited. I wouldn't care in the least if the person was a janitor or had a PHD.

Michael

Besides egos, there is surprisingly another major problem to overcome since you would think that someone in hearing research would understand how sound works but that is not necessarily the case and in fact, that is rare.

For instance, someone working in stem cell research on hearing doesn't have to and probably doesn't understand how the human voice creates sounds, possibly even what is loudness discomfort level, what is ISO 226:2003, why the audio equipment is needed, and may have never heard of many of the disorders that I refer to.

Without that knowledge, the document won't make much sense.

Michael

What surprised me the most was that research stopped short not answering simple questions as to why something was happening.

For example, hyperacusis is when someone hears loud noises (some soft noises become very loud). To figure out why that occurs is very complex but researchers also know that if a person with hyperacusis uses ear plugs, the condition gets worse. You would think some researchers would say "why" and look for reasons but they didn't. Believe it or not, it is very easy to determine why with a simple test. But if the researcher believes that hyperacusis is caused by a broken neurological connection, there is no reason to look to see what the ear is actually doing before and after ear plugs are used. Also to the patient the sounds are loud but the researcher should delve deeper into what sounds are louder, what are the characteristics of the complex sounds, and therefore why those sounds are likely louder. But again if the researcher believes that the cause is a broken neurological connection, there is no need to go further.

Another researcher got a grant to test the relationship of LDL at different frequencies for elderly test subjects with high frequency hearing loss. He discovered that if the hearing loss was a X DB, the LDL did not rise X DB which he expected. Another interest thing was that there didn't appear to be any association that he could understand. So that was the end of the research and a white paper was written.

However as an engineer, there is an association but it is a mathematical association. If he would have understood how outer hair cells worked when hearing loss occurred, he'd understand the mathematical association. It's the same reason that a person with a 20 DB hearing loss doesn't need hearing aids.

Also researchers know that a person with a 20 DB hearing loss is not helped by hearing aids but don't know why. Again a very simple test tells you why.

Finally in the case where a patient under TRT therapy, not understanding what is happening where LDLs rise and fall is primarily caused by only checking the patients LDL during his/her bi-weekly appointment and then not looking at anything other than where the LDL is at. However when the LDL raises, strange things immediately occur that indicates that the person is not hearing the way he/she should if the correct tests are performed. The therapist either has to ask the right questions or the patient has to test his/her own LDL and pay very close attention to determine what is happening.

Therefore a bad theory is worst than no theory since a bad theory stifles research. Maybe that is why I could continue the research always looking for clues since I wasn't taught the bad theories.

Michael

Acoustic Shock Syndrome has become a big issue at call centers as a high number of people develop that disorder. It is believed that it is caused by screeching sounds that may occur or a connection to a FAX line. However that a fairly recent phenomenon for call centers so that theory is probably not correct so I have another theory.

However I don't fully understand what exactly happens but my research points to certain things and a simple change at the call center may be able to solve that problem. This theory doesn't perfectly fit in with other theories but something they do at call centers, I've also seen similar things happen during my research.

The big difference is that many call centers have moved to third world countries in the last 20 years. I'm not going to elaborate further but as a game, maybe you can guess what is the difference.

Lion in Winter

Don't mean to sound cynical but money is more of a motivator in this world than helping your fellow human being or even intellectual curiosity. I would recommend cultivating not university research departments but those who fund university research departments - whoever it is that would stand to make a lot of money from mass-producing/making widely available whatever your remedy is. If it's a drug, it would be a pharmaceutical company, for example, not a hospital or university. If it's based on equipment, then the potential maker of that equipment. It is proper research and experimentation that you need in order to get the larger medical community to pay attention to you, so the support you need is from those with the self-interested ability to make that research happen.

Michael

I've also thought of doing that and go to medical device makers such as Medtronic but the big money is not in the device making but in patients. Universities are some of the largest holders of patients in the world with some raking in over a billion dollars per year. Since everything can be done with off the shelf hardware but a medical device specifically designed for the process would be better and probably necessary for training the monkeys. Medical devices makers don't have any more knowledge about how audio works or the basic functioning off the ear than researchers at universities so I would probably run into similar roadblocks of finding someone who understands my document. Then even if I did find someone, I don't want them to put a 20 year patient on the process and devices and be the only producer selling equipment for $100,000 instead of $2,000.

I do have an option to get access to a university research department. It's not very well known but someone who are in charge of a research department at a university gets part of the grant money that the university gets and I know someone in that position and he is rolling in the money. I also have a relative who works for a medical device maker but he's in sales. The drawback of either of those is they have absolutely no knowledge of how audio or the ear works. There is a possibility that they know someone in the university or company that might understand that so that is a possibility but if I were to do that, I'd demand part of the action.

There is one type of company that would likely fully understand what I am talking about and I could probably approach then and make $100 million for myself but they would likely only bury it to keep them from being sued for billions of dollars.

If I was in my 20s or 30s, I'd probably approach the smartest engineer I've ever known and discuss it with her and within hours, she'd totally understand what I was talking about and know how to correctly produce the needed products even though she doesn't understand audio and then her and I would look for the businessman that could help us present the concept to venture capitalists as a business that did the research, patient the processes and devices, build the devices, and setup specialty clinics around the world. All of that would probably have to be done to have a good business plan since the Chinese would probably be building knock off products within weeks of the announcement and most of the time in the company would be spent suing the Chinese.

At one time I thought about trying to get my sons involved in this venture but it's way over their heads and at my age, I don't have the desire to run the company.

I've also looked at foundations that fund research into hearing but I doubt that the decision makers are much more than executives. There are looking at researchers from universities to present a compelling case for the grants and not an engineer that doesn't even work in the field that doesn't want grant money.

sir_eccles

Maybe talk to a patent agent get something provisional filed quickly, I don't know how much you've put in the public domain. Then when you go to someone like Medtronic they can see you've already staked your claim to something of value.

I have some involvement in medical device IP but I'm not an agent or lawyer so can't. Help directly.

Michael

Why I think I run into a brick wall with medical professionals is primarily they don't even understand the basics of sound. We've probably all been taught about sound in high school but most people seem to forget. Without that knowledge, a person can't advance to the next stage of understanding my document.

I think we all know that there are harmonics with all complex sounds but that is likely the end of our knowledge. If you are a musician, you'll likely know what timbre is. Fully understanding both of those is extremely important to understanding my document.

As stated above, all complex sounds have harmonics. Of all the complex sounds, the human voice is by far the most complex. In fact it is so complex that in my opinion, it is much more complex than understanding the human eye from an engineering point of view. That has been proven out by the inability of engineers to create anything but the most rudimentary voice recognition systems but the technology of simulating the eye is far advanced where it is expected in the near future that there will be driverless cars. Voice recognition is so rudimentary that when a person is in a quiet room and speaks directly into a microphone, the voice recognition system often gets it wrong and engineers aren't even yet considering the possibility of voice recognition when 100 people are speaking at the same time. However the ear is superb at recognizing one voice when 100 people in a room are speaking.

It all has to do with harmonics, timbre, and a superb ear and brain capability that has not yet been able to be reproduced by computer hardware/software.

Before we can even try to understand the more complex part of the human voice, we have to understand the basics of the human voice. The human voice is comprised of a fundamental sound and harmonics. The fundamental sound of most adult male voices is between 100 Hz-120 Hz and the fundamental sound of most adult female voices is between 200 Hz-220 Hz. Along with the fundamental sound, the larynx produces a large number of harmonics that are an increment of the fundamental sound.

Therefore if an adult male at any one moment was speaking with a fundamental sound of 100 Hz, harmonics would be produced at 200 Hz, 300 Hz, 400 Hz, 500 Hz, 600 Hz, 700 Hz, .,.,.,.,.,., 8,000 Hz and if an adult female was speaking with a fundamental sound of 200 Hz, harmonics of 400 Hz, 600 Hz, 800 Hz, 1,000 Hz, 1,200 Hz, .,.,.,.,.,., 8,000 Hz would be produced by the larynx.

The fundamental sound produces the loudness and the harmonics produce the timbre (color or character of the voice) and clarity. The primary timbre in the human voice are the first 4-5 harmonics and the remaining harmonics are primarily for clarity. Therefore for the adult male voice that has a fundamental sound of 100 Hz, the primary timbre will be at 200 Hz, 300 Hz, 400 Hz, 500 Hz, and 600 Hz and all the other harmonics are primarily for clarity. For an adult female with a fundamental sound of 200 Hz, the primary timbre will be at 400 Hz, 600 Hz, 800 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 1,200 Hz and all the other harmonics are primarily for clarity.

If the ear perceives something wrong in the clarity harmonics, the sound is just muffled and this is what occurs for people with high frequency hearing loss but if something is perceived wrong with the timbre harmonics, the brain can get very confused because it starts to have a problem distinguishing between voices.

Therefore all the disorders are related to the timbre harmonics.

The brain also probably perceives human voices different than what you might suspect. I believe all our brains perceive Gilbert Godfrey's and Fran Dresher's voices as high pitched and annoying and their fundamental sounds are in fact higher than average. We've all hear James Earl Jones deep voice and Mel Gibson's occasionally sort of twangy voice but believe it or not, Mel Gibson's voice has a lower fundamental sound than James Earl Jones. In fact the fundamental sound for James Earl Jones is in the average range at 100 Hz but Mel Gibson's voice has a fundamental sound of 85 Hz. If you ever watched Fox News, there are a lot of bimbos with high pitched sounding voices and CNN's Erin Burnett voice appears to be fairly low pitched. All of those are in the normal range of an adult female voice and it is possible that Erin's fundamental sound is higher than the bimbos on Fox News.

Therefore from the above, you can see that timbre plays a big part in how a voice is perceived by the brain and if that is understood, then a lot of my theories make sense.

Michael

I initially considered doing that and file the patients in my son's names but decided that since it is mostly procedures, there is only one case study, it would be very boring and time consuming, and a patient attorney wouldn't be of much help other than making sure the correct forms are filed, I decided not to file patients. Also in my case, I'm not in it for the money and if I am the patient holder, it will be even more difficult to attract some university or company to invest time/money in the research and development since their potential for profit will be reduced. Also I hate paperwork unless it is of some use to someone to acquire information.

I've been involved in filing patients before for a company I worked for. Fortunately someone else did all the paperwork but we all got a bonus for filing the patient and I've received invites to corporate headquarters (all expenses paid) to honor patient writers after I retired from the company. One of the patients was so simple (it related to the VPN software that I wrote) but it took over 2 months to write the patient and this is 100x more complex.

AdobePinon

Ah, patents, not patients. ;-) Now I understand better.

You really can't sell an idea with a 40-page document. You may have more luck with a 1 to 2 page white paper and a simple quad chart. People don't want to read more than that to start. If that gets their attention, you may be asked for something longer, but don't be surprised if it's less than a dozen pages. The technical details can often be the least important part.

It's a little like a job hunt in that you really want that first document to get you a chance to talk directly with someone. More talking and less writing is usually a good thing.

Michael

Yup I got an extra letter in the word.

I partially agree but the first post is a summary and they'd think I was a nut job because there is nothing to back it up and I am someone who is not of their caliber and intelligence.