viral panel / immunological approach

That's what I'm sayin'...

Nevertheless, another weapon in the arsenal.

 

Katniss perhaps you have considered the bow and arrow? are you devouring the Hunger Games?

 

First of all, my issues were more complicated than just vitamin deficiencies. I've said this many, many times.

The ENT who gave me the dx of hydrous, and then, later, Meniere's, insisted that autoimmunity had absolutely nothing to do with my symptoms,and that Meniere's has nothing to do with viruses, nothing to do with autoimmunity. He also dismissed any relationship with neck/shoulder injury. He said prednisone, low-salt, & diuretic were my only chance.

The neurotologist said, "we don't know," about viral and autoimmune relationship to MM symptoms, and utterly dismissed neck/shoulder injury and vitamin deficiency. He said my only chance was the intratympanic steroid shot that his office was conveniently doing an in-house study on, very low risk, I was the perfect candidate, blah blah blah, and he could do it right then and the odds were very, very good it would be very helpful, blah blah blah.

I refused, and asked if my thyroid should be tested, given my history. He shrugged and said, "why not?"

At my insistence, he added tests for some vitamin deficiencies to the blood work he ordered (which was AFTER the hugely expensive round of vestibular tests, MRI, etc). When they came back, the nurse called to tell me they were all fine, but when I got the numbers from her, they WEREN'T all fine.

Should we use the word "cured" to describe the fact that my symptoms completely disappeared after addressing my different underlying issues?

Honestly, I don't care what word you use. You can call it placebo, if you like, or coincidence. The fact remains, it worked.

 

With respect, Angelea, you seem to intellectualize the circumstances surrounding the plight of the Meniere's sufferer. This is a rather complete description of what it going on around the Meniere's sufferer, in an environment full of folks who have a somewhat common set of incurable ailments. But frankly, none of that really matters.

If your doctor tells you that you have an idiopathic condition for which there is no cure, time to get another doctor, or look for another approach. As much as folks justifiably depend upon their doctors, there is much more that doctors do not know than what they do know. Given that fact, waiting for science, or one's latest doctor, to offer a proven treatment for one's condition, medically defined as idiopathic, is simply a recipe for more misery.

Furthermore, listening to someone who supposedly has repaired his own symptoms, but who tells you in every possible combination and permutation of terms, that giving you the recipe for his particular success is not practical, is of absolutely no use to you.

Regarding Meniere's symptoms, as JOH has said, the only thing that matters is symptomatic relief. Any certain set of why's and wherefore's that does not lead an individual to symptomatic relief, even from supposed experts, is not helpful to achieve a successful treatment outcome.

 

I have not yet understood the meaning you give to the word science. What is science, Hank?

 

Yes and waiting for the movie! A bow and arrow to the ear would be perfect. :-D

 

Katniss? The Hunger Games? My kids devoured the series and are looking forward to the movie.

 

I didn't think I'd like it, but my book club picked it and I couldn't put it down. Thank god for Kindle as the books leave you hanging at the end, so I just downloaded the next and kept going.

Btw, going incongnito due to my employer having been taken over and the likelihood I will have to "interview" for my job.

 

Science? Well, there is a certain text book definition I suppose one could cite here. But in this context, although I would have never guessed it a few short years ago, science actually means much more. In this present context, science is also that discipline of men, which as it is practiced, claims complete sovereignty over the study of Meniere's and other idiopathic symptoms, and at the same time fails to define or understand the first of those symptoms, but which is mistakenly regarded by faith as if infallible by many who are afflicted by Meniere's and other idiopathic symptoms, very possibly, on occasion, to their own detriment.

I hope that helps.

 

It does help. Lots of people use the word science in this thread and build countless arguments based on it but it didn't seem (to me) that they (and you) were on the same page with the meaning and interpretation of the word.

Now I know what you think.

 

Or it could have been the acupuncture. It's okay for you to accept that alternative treatments can and do help some people.

 

If the man had head swelling, then obviously he should have gone to a shrink.

 

The problem with "science" is, the way they do it now, they look for ONE magic bullet as the cause of complicated symptoms, when in fact for most people, there is a whole firing squad of causes.

Reactivated herpes zoster virus might cause an episode of shingles in some people (and not Meniere's), but in someone who has other things going on (say, B12 deficiencey and a neck injury), it might cause Meniere's symptoms.

In the same vein, someone with B12 deficiency might not have any neuro symptoms at all, but combined with a reactivated herpes zoster virus and a neck injury, they might have Meniere's symptoms as a result of the combination.

I have seen only ONE study of B12 deficiency and noise-induced hearing loss, where something like 84% of the subjects with noise-induced hearing loss also had B12 deficiency. There may certainly be more, but I've only seen one. I would have thought, with the number of musicians with noise-induced hearing loss (which threatens their careers, as they kinda need to hear), this would be under much greater scrutiny, but no, the "scientists" are too busy testing intratympanic steroid shots--which carry a 2% risk of causing permanent and complete hearing loss.

Quite a heavy risk for a professional musician, wouldn't you say?

 

You misunderstand. Taximom5 is commenting on "science", not science.

Disclaimer - I am not a "scientist"

 

Most pro musicians don't like wearing ear plugs--even musicians' ear plugs--because it does interfere with the ability to hear fine details. Classical musicians in particular hate ear plugs, but are starting to use them more as even classical concerts come with increased volume levels over years past. Orchestral pops concerts are now miked at far, far higher levels than in previous years.

Jazz and rock musicians usually think that ear plugs are "uncool," like they're a sign of weakness or something, so they don't often wear them, either.

Go to any high school marching band rehearsal, and you'll notice that none of those kids are wearing ear protection of any kind, even though decibel levels are in the 90's.

As far as B12 is concerned, I don't know anybody, musician or non-musician, who "wolfs down B12." Personally, I don't "wolf down B12" either, but I guess using those words is just your little way of trying to demean me.

Thanks for making yourself so...clear.

 

Yes, it's different in the US. Here, even professional classical musicians are usually unaware that such a thing as "musician's earplugs" exist. They are also frightfully expensive--about $180 per pair, and not covered by insurance.

 

Tell you what, Stephen, I'll just use your standard reply as my answer:

 

Among other places

http://www.menieres.org/forum/index.php/topic,25945.msg453602.html#msg453602

 

And I will add, that this unfounded, irrational faith in science has given way to a certain 'science world view,' within which 'science' is accorded all the rights and respect as any religion, and even takes the place of religion in the hearts of certain devoted, faithful followers. In this view, all reasons for existence, all foundational aspects of humanity, and creation itself, are explainable by science, the premise of that world view simply being that proposed, however untestable theory, is sufficient in the minds of the follower of the scientific world view to explain that which is normally explainable only within one's chosen religious framework.

String Theories, alternate and parallel universe theories, these are all attempts by science, revered and promulgated by the followers of the scientific world view, to explain the unexplainable, which is existence itself. Faith that science will eventually unravel the answers to existence has no particular foundation within itself, other than for the believer to maintain an expectation that because science has solved certain questions within the natural framework, that it can also solve the questions that persist respecting the natural framework itself, at its very fringe.

But whereas the answers within the natural framework that science has successfully unraveled are owed to an empirical approach tantamount to interpolation, the answers respecting the natural framework at the very fringe, require extrapolation, which inevitably points science beyond the interface, on the other side of which no data points exists. And because no data points exists beyond the boundary of the natural framework, no potential scientific conclusion can be drawn using the traditional empirical approach. At this point, this interface, conclusions can only be drawn by analyzing the trend established by the data points that lead to the interface. But nothing beyond the interface is even testable or verifiable.

And so, the validity of this science world view must be taken completely on faith in the belief that beyond the natural boundary, science can successfully project a correct answer through extrapolation. But because any conclusion of this type is unverifiable, by definition, and because any answers that science offers in these respects are therefore believed solely on faith, for all practical purposes this science world view has become its own religion, the believers of which each subscribing to the notion that science will eventually unravel and disclose all the information necessary to live a rewarding and healthy life on earth, faithfully assuming that the answers are all contained within the natural framework that science has as its purview.

This science world view has become the vehicle by which certain atheistic, socio-political and socio-economic movements promote their faith, and grow in numbers, the leaders of which working all the time to receive the vicarious perceived benefit of achieving and perpetuating a chosen standard of living within the natural world.