John, I do understand how most drug trials are funded. My question is how can one small group of Italian researchers be so well-versed in the nuances of the underlying anatomy and physiology specific to diseases as diverse as sexuality, tinnitus, mental alertness, psoriasis, venous insufficiency, hemorrhoids, atherosclerosis and athletic performance. As I said, if the group was solely focused on one (or even a couple) of these various subject matters, their objectivity would be more plausible to me. (Just my opinion...)
I plan to get some today and give it a try. Tinnitus has driven me to the edge - mentally, emotionally, and physically over the last few years. I am willing to try anything that has even the slightest chance of helping.
Why, do you suppose, your questions weren't first posed by the peer review board (PhDs, etc.) of the medical journal that published the paper? The worst thing that can happen to a scientific or medical journal is to print inaccurate or falsified studies or data. That's exactly why there is peer review before publication, so comptent external experts scrutinize and question everything that is to be published. I've done a bit of peer review myself (in a science education journal). I've scrutinized academic papers submitted for pre-publication review. I know how the process works. No one doing peer review of a submitted paper takes that task loosely. A diverse team of topic experts review the submitted paper, and when required a) ask for corrections or more substantiating data, or b) simply reject publication. Those unfamiliar with peer-reviewed scientific or medical journal articles may have the perception that articles like the one in this thread are like advertisements, where the sponsoring company threw some data together to make their product look good, and then just paid the journal to have it printed. Not so. The findings of the research must be thoroughly substantiated and parsed by numerous external, expert parties. --John of Ohio
There's one more thing I want to add. When a study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, the authors are required to disclose any financial relationship they have with the pertinent pharmaceutical company. That requirement is in place for a reason. It allows the study's readers to decide for themselves the relevance of the relationship and to consider the objectivity of the findings. The PubMed abstracts do not provide for such a disclosure (or so I believe). So, in general, it's difficult for the average PubMed searcher to ascertain such a relationship. That's why I pointed it out. I am certainly not saying that the pycnogenol researchers were not forth-right and objective in their findings, but, in my opinion, it's important for people here to be aware of said relationship. I, too, hope that the results of the pycnogenol tinnitus study can be replicated by forum members. If people that we "know" here on the forum start sharing positive results, I'll be next in line to try it myself! Oh, and does anyone know anything about the publication "Minerva?" I haven't heard of it before myself (but that doesn't necessarily mean anything...).
Sorry... just saw your response, John. Since many of their studies were published early in 2014 in various journals, I wonder if the peer review boards were aware of all the studies due to be published in their competitors' publications. It seems they all came out in different journals around the same time. Do you know if the authors are required to disclose this information in the journal peer review process? I know the peer review process takes quite a bit of time, and I would imagine the authors would have been required to continue to update disclosures regarding submissions made to other journals up to the time of publication?? To make it clear, I have no bone to pick with the researchers. I'm sure they are fine and honest authors. And I appreciate any and all research done to help improve the study of Meniere's and tinnitus.
Good luck imasteeler. I hope it gives you some relief. And then if there are good reports here I will definitely give it a try after I finish nursing my son.
Those of you who are trying this out, are you taking one 150mg pill a day or are you taking three 50mg pills spread throughout the day? I see there are 50mg, 100mg, and 150mg options when looking on Amazon.
got mine in yesterday took dosage before bed(two 100mg tablets) took one this a.m. am so drowsy and my right ear is freaking out. had a decent day yesterday, can't imagine anything else making me feel so crappy and sleepy getting off it and see what happens good luck to everybody else
VitaCost sells two forms of pycnogenol, an original formulation, apparently from the French originator of the supplement (http://www.vitacost.com/vitacost-pycnogenol), and it's own formulation (http://www.vitacost.com/vitacost-pine-bark-extract-standardized-to-95-polyphenols/?ntt=844197014507). Both are derived from the source plant, Pinus pisaster, the maritime pine. --John of Ohio
Are there any other updates from those trying Pycnogenol? I realize it is very, very early as relief could take a long time. But I was just wondering if anyone else noticed anything either good or bad, or maybe nothing at all so far? I am still definitely going to try it once my son is weaned completely.
tomorrow will mark 2 full weeks of 3x50 mg daily for me. I bought the Vitamin Shoppe 50mg: PYCNOGENOL (FRENCH MARITIME PINE BARK EXTRACT (BARK) PROVIDING 65-75% PROCYANIDINS (32.5 MG - 37.5 MG)) I have seen no significant difference in my tinnitus thus far, but I do not expect a miracle from this. I think it will need a lot more time before I might expect any improvement.
I don't know how much of the extract is in this product but make sure you are not allergic to pine before you take it.
6 weeks into this new supplement, 3x50mg daily... no appreciable difference in the tinnitus. Went for my semi-annual checkup today at Baylor. My hearing is marginally better than in February, but we surmised this is probably due to February having been a "bad" month for me. The hearing test guy said my word recognition has improved quite some over last time, 68% as compared to 50% in Feb., so that's a plus. ENT/OTO says a hearing aid may be a good idea for me.
Thanks so much for your updates. Do you think the herb had something to do with your word recognition improvement?
Well, honestly I do not know. My MM ear goes in and out, today was a better day than many - but on average it was about the same as what I've been feeling over the last couple of weeks. If I went back tomorrow for another test, I might see different results. That drives me nuts... The ENT/OTO's test me every 6 months, the result depends on how I am feeling at that specific moment - they cannot account for anything but what they measure at the time. They cannot measure how I felt two weeks ago, clearly. I will say this - I feel better now than I did 6 weeks ago. Is that due to the Pycnogenol or is it due to something else? Can't tell really - too many variables and no accurate way to measure most of them. Stress, diet, exercise, weather, hormones - all these make a difference day to day. ENT/OTO's charge a significant fee to tell me stuff I already know, most of the time. But I feel better... that's the main thing, I think? I am keeping it in my daily rotation for now...
An 18% improvement is good. It would be nice to attribute it to the supp but who knows? Good luck and post updates.