A Cure

Status
Not open for further replies.
faire_jour said:
Why do you disagree with all of the research and scientists? (On both counts) As for the brain thing, then why do people who are deaf for longer periods of time do worse with CI's than those who were deaf for shorter periods of time (either through early implantation or hearing people who go deaf)?
Click to expand...

probably because either CI really sound like what it sounds like. Or people quit trying to improve their listening skill because whatever psychology reasons they have.
 
shel90 said:
I need a cure against those Steelers!

Anyways, was smallpox totally cured or just prevented by the vaccine?

If one comes up with a vaccine that prevents deafness, I guess that would not be a cure since it could return just like smallpox can if no vaccine?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on your view, Shel, but it's a cure via prevention; if that makes sense?
 
Wirelessly posted

PFH, how is it that you've experienced flashes of sound despite being deaf? ( I'm sorry if I missed it, am on a very small screen and typing is rough today.)
 
faire_jour said:
You are self important because you think you know me or understand anything about me or my child or life.

I don't think I would choose a cure for my child, and I certainly am not seeking one out. I was attempting to have a philosophical conversation, which clearly failed.
Click to expand...

Whoa. Defensive, much?

That aside, yes, it failed. It failed because the people on here are NOT interested in cures. I thought you'd glean that by now given how long you've been here, but I guess not.

Now, let me say again, FJ. I said at one point that I agreed with your decisions for your child. I'm not the enemy here, but you sure as heck are trying to pick some sort of fight. I'm not going for it. It's pointless.

I will state clearly once again my beliefs.

1. I support CI implantation.
2. I support wholeheartedly the right of the deaf to have ASL as their first language.
3. I support a FULL toolbox approach.

That is what I believe. If you have a problem with that, then it's your issue. I have never said I disagreed with your decisions. What I do take issue with is your defensiveness and your reactionary responses.

Newsflash, FJ. It's not just about you. It's about all deaf people.

And, with that, I'm bailing out.

Have a good day.
 
faire_jour said:
Why do you disagree with all of the research and scientists? (On both counts) As for the brain thing, then why do people who are deaf for longer periods of time do worse with CI's than those who were deaf for shorter periods of time (either through early implantation or hearing people who go deaf)?
Click to expand...
Because CI isnt natural compared to normal hearing, thus you have to learn to process that sound.. We all know that younger people learn faster.

When I say I learn sounds instantly with normal hearing, I mean BOOM, i know what that sound is.

How many hearing people do you see going to classes to learn sounds? None, because they just pick it up and associate it with whatever, learning it instantly. That is not the case for mechanical stuff.

Now about the Hair thing... I know the research shows "most" of them are from hair loss. My doubt is cast when they "say" it. I havent been exactly tested for hair damage or loss, yet ive been told its because of that and im supposed to accept what the people in white outfit says...

After hearing practically equal or better than a hearing person, I know my hair in my ear is fine....
 
deafgal001 said:
probably because either CI really sound like what it sounds like. Or people quit trying to improve their listening skill because whatever psychology reasons they have.
Click to expand...

It's because the longer you don't hear (especially in early childhood) the less able your brain becomes to process sound.
 
Again...damn this football game is making me nervous.

There is cancer preventation so does that mean cancer is cured?
 
faire_jour said:
It's because the longer you don't hear (especially in early childhood) the less able your brain becomes to process sound.
Click to expand...

That may be true, especially after a HEARING senior citizen became deaf and wore CI for the first time, and it take him a VERY long time to learn to listen with his CI despite that he already have auditory memories from being hearing all these years. And yet, a younger Hearing person who became late-deafened can relearn from CI just like that. So it could be both... the sound quality that make it sound different and a younger person can adapt easily than older person.
 
faire_jour said:
It's because the longer you don't hear (especially in early childhood) the less able your brain becomes to process sound.
Click to expand...

Thats what the modern medicine says. I doubt they have had the opportunity to check people who all of a sudden being able to hear years later out often.
 
posts from hell said:
Because CI isnt natural compared to normal hearing, thus you have to learn to process that sound.. We all know that younger people learn faster.

When I say I learn sounds instantly with normal hearing, I mean BOOM, i know what that sound is.

How many hearing people do you see going to classes to learn sounds? None, because they just pick it up and associate it with whatever, learning it instantly. That is not the case for mechanical stuff.

Now about the Hair thing... I know the research shows "most" of them are from hair loss. My doubt is cast when they "say" it. I havent been exactly tested for hair damage or loss, yet ive been told its because of that and im supposed to accept what the people in white outfit says...

After hearing practically equal or better than a hearing person, I know my hair in my ear is fine....
Click to expand...

I disagree with the bolded. My daughter was born hearing and had hearing aids for 4 years. She could not understand speech with her damaged hairs cells (yes her's were damaged) plus the amplification of the hearing aid. But, the same day she was activated she began to be able to hear and understand, including having speech understanding.
 
shel90 said:
Again...damn this football game is making me nervous.

There is cancer preventation so does that mean cancer is cured?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think cure means there was something, and then you fix it.
 
YES!!!!!! BALTIMORE OWNED STEELERS!!!!!!!



hehehehe...

I guess Botts' definition makes the most sense so far.
 
shel90 said:
YES!!!!!! BALTIMORE OWNED STEELERS!!!!!!!



hehehehe...

I guess Botts' definition makes the most sense so far.
Click to expand...

yes, especially when it come to deafness. Everyone is concerned about the language in deaf children.
 
faire_jour said:
You are self important because you think you know me or understand anything about me or my child or life.

I don't think I would choose a cure for my child, and I certainly am not seeking one out. I was attempting to have a philosophical conversation, which clearly failed.
Click to expand...

It's just such a tough discussion, because it seems to me that to debate or to consider a"cure", you have to define deafness around the function of the damaged portion of the ear, when as you pointed out, deafness also impacts the way the brain develops. Which means that repairing a few hair cells or transplanting entirely new cochlea, or taking a magic pill to cure the damage to the ear will have no effect on what's already changed in the brain. And those changes occur so rapidly in little ones. So, a cure may not result in much change for many deaf.

I read one MRI-driven neurological study that showed that without hearing, that physical location in the brain previously assigned to language (spoken and written) was taken over by sense of smell -- and flashed on the MRI when smells were being triggered rather than when conversing or writing. I've asked our surgeon if they know whether or not CI kids reallocate this part of the brain to spoken language or if yet another bit of brain matter real estate is being commandeered for the newly acquired sense of hearing. He didn't think that had yet been studied.
 
GrendelQ said:
It's just such a tough discussion, because it seems to me that to debate or to consider a"cure", you have to define deafness around the function of the damaged portion of the ear, when as you pointed out, deafness also impacts the way the brain develops. Which means that repairing a few hair cells or transplanting entirely new cochlea, or taking a magic pill to cure the damage to the ear will have no effect on what's already changed in the brain. And those changes occur so rapidly in little ones. So, a cure may not result in much change for many deaf.

I read one MRI-driven neurological study that showed that without hearing, that physical location in the brain previously assigned to language (spoken and written) was taken over by sense of smell -- and flashed on the MRI when smells were being triggered rather than when conversing or writing. I've asked our surgeon if they know whether or not CI kids reallocate this part of the brain to spoken language or if yet another bit of brain matter real estate is being commandeered for the newly acquired sense of hearing. He didn't think that had yet been studied.
Click to expand...

I saw a study that showed that early implants do change it back. I read that the brain scans of kids who were implanted young are the same as hearing kids, not deaf unimplanted kids. I'll look around for it.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Whoa. Defensive, much?

That aside, yes, it failed. It failed because the people on here are NOT interested in cures. I thought you'd glean that by now given how long you've been here, but I guess not.
Click to expand...

It's also not about you. But we each bring our direct experiences to bear in the conversation. So speak for yourself when you say people are not interested. I may not think a "cure" is the right solution, but I'm interested in discussing what a cure might be -- it gets at a tricky thing that seems obvious but really isn;t: what exactly is deafness (a nonfunctioning bundle of hair cells, a brain processing issue, or a systemic alternative to the norm).
 
PFH, auditory nereopathy maybe?
Oceanbreeze, right on!!!! Disabilty Rights is a movement that very closely follows Deaf Rights.
That is it advocates for a FULL toolbox, so that the person can function both with and WITHOUT special methologies or special equiptment. It does not have a hyperfocus on only functioning like a "healthy normal" person.
faire joure, granted a dhh person couldn't hear in a crowd or other not perfect listening sitution, but those who know ASL and speechreading could function a lot better then those who only had listening skills. Heck, ASL fluent people could carry on a signed conversation....even unilateral dhh folks have a lot of difficulty in crowd situtions!
 
@ Oceanbreeze :hug: I like you here too. I never realized you were hearing - wow. That is pretty cool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top