Both ears, or just in front of them: pain like an icepick, one for each side. And a combination of tinnitus and hypersensitive hearing. That adds up to little additional bursts of pain at any sound with a rapid risetime.
Which explains why I am blogging wearing hearing protection this morning.
But I'll be taking Vitamin I shortly -- which reminds me. Oy. There's no winning, is there?
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
6 comments:
ROBERTA
PLEASE REFER TO "PERSCRIPTION FOR
FOR NUTRITIONAL HEALING" BY PHILLIS A BALCH CNC 5TH EDITION PAGES 474-478 DEALING WITH HEARING LOSS AND TINNITUS THERE ARE QUITE A FEW THINGS YOU CAN DO TO GET SOME RELIEF FOR PAIN CONTROL SEE PAGES 816- 830 FEEL BETTER SOON!
"no winning", well yes, and no. everything has some kind of effect.
That study, and the previous one on men, both purport to showed an increase 'self-reported' hearing loss secondary to analgesia use.
Hearing loss is the fourth most common disability to develop with ageing (more men than women).
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/Pages/begins.aspx
This was a long term (1995-2009) study with 62000 women 31-48 at the beginning ie. they already have an estimated risk of 27% of developing hearing loss, 10000 of whom self-reported 'some' loss (ie less than expected?).
Then there's the question of what was the amount (>25 dbl, 25-40 dbl, total loss?), a control group not using NSAIDS, how they statistically adjusted for other factors, etc. I'm trying to get a copy, and the time, to read the full study (that, and 'get a life').
NSAIDS and other classes of analgesics have long been known to include hearing loss as a possible side-effect, so what's new?
It's like the rest of life - make an informed choice being cognizant of the costs and benefits. With what you say about your pain (and with the usual qualifier to limit to maximum recommended dose/time), me, I'd recommend the analgesia (and using 'sound-bites' selected by the press isn't the best method as you know).
Just Sayin (not that you needed telling).
Scientific studies are just so much 'fun', there's just been a study published which shows, contrary to all the bull-excreta, smokings true effects. It was examining the lifestyles of the oldest members of the population. Guess what? Yep, most of those (both male and female) who lived >70 (and to an even greater extent in >95) not only regularly smoked, but they ate fatty and salty foods too (unfortunately there's no data on their previous preferences for personal defence weapons and carry options - this is the Nanny State after all).
Lifestyle of the oldest member selectes for the unkillable, donnit? ;)
My "no winning" line is that it seems my hearing loses either way. (At one point, the diagnosis was Munier's Syndrome, but I wasn't really dizzy enough for that. Prognosis with that'n is, it gets worse and worse until you go deaf -- at which point, the other symptoms stop.)
The article claims the study shows correlation, but then goes on to talk about causation. Dollars to donuts the study only showed correlation, and the writer lept past the perilous chasm of "correlation is not causation."
Leaps like that (if this indeed is one) remind me of the study that showed a correlation between having a night light in baby's room and the kid growing up to need glasses. There's a link, alright, but the "science" writers lept straight from link to cause, and oh no, you'll make Jenny need glasses if you put a night light next to her crib.
It turns out that parents who need glasses are much more likely to put a night light in the child's room (it being harder to see in the dark if everything is also fuzzy), _and_ parents with poor vision are more likely to have offspring with poor vision. The parent's poor vision is the cause of both the night lights and their child's poor vision.
So perhaps hearing loss in women is sometimes due to a condition that causes them to want analgesia.
Dammit!!!
"KINDLY SPEAK UP ! DONT MUMBLE ! HOW DID YOU KNOW IM A CENTERFIRE PISTOL SHOOTER ?"
Post a Comment