Golden Window

[hoichi]

No it s not a sickness but just being Hoh can make life difficult. Multinationals or no when CIs work they can ease the load. No one should have a problem with that. Why any culture can't tolerate that is beyond me.

well to get an idea why we oppose what we do, you can start by reading the first paper i posted on this thread.
it gives a very good summary of why we oppose what we oppose..

 

[C-NICE]

When I was in U.S. the school hoodlums accused kids who got good grades of acting white. That is an example of the intolerance that must also be avoided. That should be part of the debate also.

 

[Jane B.]

hoichi

I think you will admit that the child that is born deaf has ears that do not work for him/her to hear with. You would keep that child from getting a CI just because some group works to keep them away from sign.

Well then what would you do about the child that is born with an eye condition, a missing limb or anything else that has a prosthesis available to help them use that part?

 

[hoichi]

hoichi

I think you will admit that the child that is born deaf has ears that do not work for him/her to hear with. You would keep that child from getting a CI just because some group works to keep them away from sign.

that is NOT what i stated. pls qoute my actual words you wish to discuss. thank you

Well then what would you do about the child that is born with an eye condition, a missing limb or anything else that has a prosthesis available to help them use that part?

that had no bearing in this discussion, again CI is far more than a simple prosthesis.
but since you asked.
if a combined system that gave that child that prosthesis actively worked to prevent that child from acquiring a language that is his and his birthright. then i would be opposed to them.
note
my opposition is NOT to the technology. ive stated it countless times..

 

[hoichi]

When I was in U.S. the school hoodlums accused kids who got good grades of acting white. That is an example of the intolerance that must also be avoided. That should be part of the debate also.

aren't you in cleveland?

why not tell them on CI fetish boards the idea that forcing someone to act a certain way should be avoided?

i agree completely

 

[C-NICE]

why not tell them on CI fetish boards the idea that forcing someone to act a certain way should be avoided?

Has it occurred to you they have CI fetish and people on them because they work for them. I have not seen any post from you recognized one CI success. There are some.

 

[hoichi]

Has it occurred to you they have CI fetish and people on them because they work for them. I have not seen any post from you recognized one CI success. There are some.

i've never stated otherwise.
never

 

[C-NICE]

If CIs did not work well in adults or in fair number of children, no amount of marketing by multinationals would get sold. The ford Easel was marketed quite heavily by for but sucked as a car and production stopped.

 

[C-NICE]

Some studies have been posted questioning CIs effectiveness. I have just tried to show there are instances where they are not a messiah but a very effective tool.

 

[Jane B.]

my opposition is NOT to the technology. I've stated it countless times..

But it has that effect! If they follow what you say to do, they are denied the use of that technology (CI).

 

[hoichi]

If CIs did not work well in adults or in fair number of children, no amount of marketing by multinationals would get sold. The ford Easel was marketed quite heavily by for but sucked as a car and production stopped.

then lets actually discuss those actual numbers. i've posted. and we can spend the next 40 pages in number and study bliss...
your just making generalised statements. and using only two arguments, in all of all of all of your posts when you actually do try to make an argument... the first is the argument of autonomous choice, (im going to do what i want its my choice to hell if it harm anyone),the second one you make though not as often is the argument of justification by presence. (the genie is out of the bottle,)..the second one is what your doing here.
both these arguments can be better explored in relation to the medical establishment and field, any bioethics courses or even a course on philosophy, (though not first or second year granted)

so lets discuss the important issues then

 

[hoichi]

Some studies have been posted questioning CIs effectiveness. I have just tried to show there are instances where they are not a messiah but a very effective tool.

those instances are NOT the norm, nor are the oral stars the norm.
yet they keep moving the goalposts to implant more even though we know the numbers aren't adding up....while actively working by policy and behaviour to DENY the children and babies who need it most , sign language acquisition

 

[hoichi]

But it has that effect! If they follow what you say to do, they are denied the use of that technology (CI).

NO
the technology is NOT denied its only differed until a later date when that human being can make their own mind up..

we do that for all sorts of things....in life a long litany but a few..
sex, drugs, living on your own, getting a car, so on so forth...

 

[C-NICE]

Here are some specifics on effectiveness from Wikipedia
Efficacy[edit]
A 2013 study on efficacy of cochlear implants in children showed that the majority of deaf children who received cochlear implants before 18 months of age had language skills similar to their hearing peers. Younger age of implantation had a positive correlation to better spoken language skills. [5]

A 2011 AHRQ review of the evidence of the effectiveness of CI in people with bilateral hearing loss - the device's primary use - found low to moderate quality data that showed: speech perception in noisy conditions was much better for people who had implants in both ears done at the same time, compared to people who had only one; that no conclusions could be drawn about changes in speech perception in quiet conditions and health-related quality-of-life. There was only one good study comparing implanting implants in both ears at the same time, to implanting them sequentially; this study found that in the sequential approach, the 2nd implantation made no change, or made things worse.[6]

A 2015 review, examining whether CI implantation to treat people with bilateral hearing loss had any effect on tinnitus, found the quality of evidence to be poor, and the results variable: overall total tinnitus suppression rates varied from 8% to 45% of people who received CI; decrease of tinnitus was seen in 25% to 72%, of people; for 0% to 36% of the people there was no change; increase of tinnitus occurred in between 0% to 25% of patients; and in between 0 - 10% of cases, people who didn't have tinnitus before the procedure, got it.[7]

A 2016 systematic review of CI for people with unilateral hearing loss found that of the studies conducted and published, none were randomized, only one evaluated a control group, and no study was blinded; after eliminated multiple uses of the same subjects, the authors found that 137 people with UHL had received a CI.[8] While acknowledging the weakness of the data, the authors found that CI in people with UHL improves sound localization compared with other treatments in people who lost hearing after they learned to speak; in the one study that examined this, CI did improve sound localization in people with UHL who lost hearing before learning to speak.[8] It appeared to improve speech perception and to reduce tinnitus.[8]

A 2015 literature review on the use of CI for people with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder found that description and diagnosis of the condition was too heterogeneous as of that date, to make clear claims about whether CI is a safe and effective way to manage it.[9]

 

[hoichi]

Here are some specifics on effectiveness from Wikipedia
Efficacy[edit]
A 2013 study on efficacy of cochlear implants in children showed that the majority of deaf children who received cochlear implants before 18 months of age had language skills similar to their hearing peers. Younger age of implantation had a positive correlation to better spoken language skills. [5]

this is one study and has been challenged and refuted by others, as i posted and ill post about allot more gimme a few though
in the meantime i'm happy to discuss the numbers i provided...and of course discuss them in relation to the study here your number 5 cite in the wiki.

A 2011 AHRQ review of the evidence of the effectiveness of CI in people with bilateral hearing loss - the device's primary use - found low to moderate quality data that showed: speech perception in noisy conditions was much better for people who had implants in both ears done at the same time, compared to people who had only one; that no conclusions could be drawn about changes in speech perception in quiet conditions and health-related quality-of-life. There was only one good study comparing implanting implants in both ears at the same time, to implanting them sequentially; this study found that in the sequential approach, the 2nd implantation made no change, or made things worse.[6]

A 2015 review, examining whether CI implantation to treat people with bilateral hearing loss had any effect on tinnitus, found the quality of evidence to be poor, and the results variable: overall total tinnitus suppression rates varied from 8% to 45% of people who received CI; decrease of tinnitus was seen in 25% to 72%, of people; for 0% to 36% of the people there was no change; increase of tinnitus occurred in between 0% to 25% of patients; and in between 0 - 10% of cases, people who didn't have tinnitus before the procedure, got it.[7]

A 2016 systematic review of CI for people with unilateral hearing loss found that of the studies conducted and published, none were randomized, only one evaluated a control group, and no study was blinded; after eliminated multiple uses of the same subjects, the authors found that 137 people with UHL had received a CI.[8] While acknowledging the weakness of the data, the authors found that CI in people with UHL improves sound localization compared with other treatments in people who lost hearing after they learned to speak; in the one study that examined this, CI did improve sound localization in people with UHL who lost hearing before learning to speak.[8] It appeared to improve speech perception and to reduce tinnitus.[8]

A 2015 literature review on the use of CI for people with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder found that description and diagnosis of the condition was too heterogeneous as of that date, to make clear claims about whether CI is a safe and effective way to manage it.[9]

the rest is irelavant as it does not address babies or children.

 

[hoichi]

ive bolded soem points to help further the discussion, and also pay attention to the bolded points and see how they relate to yoru wiki stub

[QUOTE="infants and children with hearing loss need early language access. ncbi.]

Speech alone, however, is not sufficient language input for a deaf child. Although CI is available for children who have bilateral severe to profound hearing loss that is unresponsive to amplification, and it typically shows strong success with children implanted before 18 months,52 individual variation is pervasive.53 For instance, research reports that successful CI outcomes best correlate with higher socioeconomic status and parental speech characteristics, specifically mean-length of utterance.54 In contrast, a persistent 21 percent of implanted children receive no linguistic benefits from CI (instead, they perceive only noise).55 For the 79 percent of implanted children who range from receiving minimal to substantial linguistic input from CI (that is, from being able to recognize alarm bells and fire engine sirens but not speech sounds, to being able to use the telephone), the device still neither restores nor effects normal hearing. Even a skilled recipient of CI receives no benefit when an implant malfunctions or when an external apparatus must be removed, such as for sports events or sleeping (which can be interrupted by an emergency that requires communication). Thus, their communication abilities need to be supplemented by contextual clues and speechreading, which makes language a constant task that requires focused attention and substantial effort. All these children need, and deserve, a language that they can use with ease, just as hearing children do.

Further, there is a growing body of evidence that CI, as a technology, presents no advantage to a deaf child over a hearing aid (HA) or other form of assistance with respect to the development of cognitive abilities such as executive function. Executive function has been found to be less well developed in children with CI or HA than it is in hearing children.56
[/QUOTE]

 

[C-NICE]

One study can say yea one can say ney. That is why I prefer individual stories they are more definitive.

 

[C-NICE]

Sound & Fury Update Reality not propaganda

 

[hoichi]

One study can say yea one can say ney. That is why I prefer individual stories they are more definitive.

this why it snot just about one study but even so
lets go with yoru statement
so you prefer individual stories?
ive cited over 13 works from different authors you ignore...
i cited a study with links to multiple other syou inore

i myself have stated my experiences you ignore
other Deaf on here have also told you theirs you ignore..

again ive stated this before and it hold true now

eventually there will coem a time when your going o have to ask yourself this question
"they cant all be lying"

its the same statements with white san natives..

native shave stated for years decades the issue and plms they face on the rex an doff..
and whites response is usually "they don't knwo what they're on about"
"white knwos whats best for them on their land"

i ask
how is ignoring the vast majority of a culture and community helpful in addressing the issue?

maybe it has to do with the idea as you posted form yoru favorite author in this topic that we are less human then those implanted?

maybe a plm lies at the start with that fundamental principle?

mmmm

 

[hoichi]

Sound & Fury Update Reality not propaganda

ive seen that...more than once.
did i state this was propaganda? (that's not a question for cnice, i knwo he wont answer its for others who read this for clarity's sake)

but
she wasn't prelingually implanted.
so i'm not sure how this video matches your claims