Tomorrow, on October 22, 2011, will be my 7th anniversary for my Kokonut Pundit blog. Seven years of continuous blogging. This blog is blog number 1,880. Last year's anniversary I had 1,609 blogs. This year's anniversary will have a count of 1,880 blogs. That's 279 blogs later, an increase over 198 blogs I did from 2009 - 2010, increasing my average to 0.75 blog/day. With those numbers in place I can say with confidence that I'm the one of most prolific deaf/hh blogger around with Kokonut Pundit being the most blogged blogsite ever for a deaf/hh blogger. And the most long lived deaf/hh blogger as well who continuously blogged since October 2004 (with one break lasting 4 months or so). No other deaf/hh blogs come close on the number of blogs I've produced nor the staying power.
Tomorrow Kokonut Pundit will enter its 8th year. I'm looking forward to new milestones such as my 2,000th blog and my one millionth hit with 71,000+ hits to go as seen on my Sitemeter (currently at 928,000+ hits). Year 2005 and 2006 were big years for me on the number of hits upping my number quite substantially because of links to my blogs from well known political bloggers. Those were exciting times. It's been fun and I continue to blog the many stories and opinions of mine whether it relates to deafness issues or opinions of the day. I like to thank the readers and visitors who enjoy reading my blogs made this possible. Keep coming. And thank you!
I would like to take the time to dedicate this blog to my mother-in-law who passed away yesterday after an extended illness. She never read my blog but her soul lives on in heaven with her son, Kevin. Bless her soul and wonderful memory.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The big boat
- Basically it boils down to common sense knowing that we all go through, including hearing people, our own self-awareness discovery process as part of our journey. Self-discovery about one's own deafness or hearing loss doesn't mean the person will be led into a Deaf culture life......With that philosophy in mind the overloaded dinghy in tow is in danger of capsizing while one heavy person continues to feed himself ego, hatefulness, jealousy, fear, politics and political correctness. The eating continues to slowly weigh down the little dinghy ever more so. Sailing on the larger and studier ship are people with their own private and personal journey who don't care for the same food of politics but recognize each other for who they are. There's no denying their journeys. There's no denial in my journey or my deafness or who I am. My journey involves many things which is deeply personal to begin with. No labels. None of the politically correct terminologies but simply a journey of self discovery covering many things.
- I’ve always accepted deaf and hard of hearing people for who they are and not worry about their background, signing abilities, the ability to speak or hear, or what have you. It didn’t matter to me. But to others, in many instances, did matter a lot.
- I just simply accept people for who they are since we're all basically in the same boat when it comes to equal access issues, legal rights and the narrowing of our communication gaps with hearing people and vice versa.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
For hearing people only........
My wife and I had a good time at Deaf Nation in Portland recently this Sunday where we caught up with friends, especially seeing one of my dear friend I haven't seen in person for 19 years. It was unexpected and we surprised each other by literally bumping into each other. It was great chatting with my friend catching up and swapping stories with my wife and friends. Even Joel Barish came by and chatted with me and my wife, and our friends at the table. Interesting information from Joel on how he handles jet lags. I won't tell you what it is. You'll have to ask him.
Met Ron Rice, the famous NTID swimmer, who was introduced to me because of my blog by another NTID alumnus I know:
Also, I met and sat down with Miriam Richards who is also very good friend of my friend (that I just bumped into after 19 years) which I didn't know. If you don't recognize the name Miriam Richards she is the person who is attempting to be the first deaf person to climb the 50 highest peaks in the United States. She has a book that came out earlier this year called "Highpoint of Persistence: The Miriam Richards Story." Sounds like a very interesting and adventurous book to read! Might want to take a look at it.
Oh, about the title, I thought it would get your attention. But it's funny what people think of me just because of my blog. I'm certainly not surprised on what some people think or believe about me. I can only shake my head at their sad misinformation just because of hate that blind them to say such things.
Met Ron Rice, the famous NTID swimmer, who was introduced to me because of my blog by another NTID alumnus I know:
Ron Rice was the first All-American in RIT swimming history, placing in the 200-yard freestyle at the 1974-75 NCAA Championship. He repeated a year later as part of the 400-yard freestyle relay. The first National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) student to earn All-American plaudits, the native of Warren, Mich. won 82 of 85 races during a brilliant career. He led the team in scoring all four seasons and was Most Valuable Swimmer four times. He served as tri-captain in 1976-77. Rice also set nine school records. Equally impressive are his 16 world records and 12 Gold Medals at the World Games for the Deaf. He was named World Deaf Athlete of the Year and American Athletic Association of the Deaf Athlete of the Year in 1973. Twice he was NTID Male Athlete of the Year.Ron told me about my blog and how he reads it on occasion and even commented on it a few times. He enjoys reading it. Said that people need to understand and respect other people's opinions. I agree. Nice to meet a gold medalist! Great chat.
Also, I met and sat down with Miriam Richards who is also very good friend of my friend (that I just bumped into after 19 years) which I didn't know. If you don't recognize the name Miriam Richards she is the person who is attempting to be the first deaf person to climb the 50 highest peaks in the United States. She has a book that came out earlier this year called "Highpoint of Persistence: The Miriam Richards Story." Sounds like a very interesting and adventurous book to read! Might want to take a look at it.
Oh, about the title, I thought it would get your attention. But it's funny what people think of me just because of my blog. I'm certainly not surprised on what some people think or believe about me. I can only shake my head at their sad misinformation just because of hate that blind them to say such things.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Sarah Churman's audiogram
I said previously that in time we'll know more about Sarah's hearing loss and that people need to keep an open mind about her and the YouTube video that went viral with more than 7.9 million views. That helped produce a 150 percent jump in sales inquiries for the hearing aide company Envoy Medical with more to come for Envoy Medical and Sarah Churman as well (note the bold).
A few days ago Sarah answered a few questions of her own in her own blog. Today, more questions were answered regarding the many complaints saying the whole video was fixed, for example.
And then you have the doubts that Sarah could not be deaf (well, she is, so get over it) only because she speaks so clearly or how she could hear her own voice for the first time because, darn it, it's an impossibility!
There you have it folks. Pretty much all in a nutshell with most questions answered. She's deaf. She can speak really well. The viral video isn't a fake and was never a ploy set up by Envoy Medical. And she can finally hear very well with the help of her new implantable hearing aid.
Time for people to move on and stop speculating and nitpicking, and be happy for Sarah just for once. Welcome her with open arms.
Sixteen days ago 29-year-old Sarah Churman posted a video of herself hearing her voice loud and clear for the first time after being implanted with Envoy Medical’s Esteem device. The video went viral, sales have spiked and Churman and Envoy have shared the spotlight on The Today Show, Ellen DeGeneres, Fox and Friends, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta, among others. The story was also covered on 150 local television stations, and the media attention keeps coming: MSNBC will be doing a story at Churman’s house.
Envoy already spends around $8 million to $10 million a year on radio advertising with announcers including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage. Company CEO Patrick Spearman said as a result of the video big-name celebrities have approached Envoy about getting the device. Spearman thinks that development could lead to television appearances as well as television advertising.In short, it was a good deal for Envoy Medical to help re-imburse Sarah the $30,000 she spent on the hearing aid implant and will cover for free for Sarah's second implant for her other ear. The viral video was after all basically free advertising for the company's product.
A few days ago Sarah answered a few questions of her own in her own blog. Today, more questions were answered regarding the many complaints saying the whole video was fixed, for example.
In addition to an increase in media exposure and sales, the video also led to a lot of skepticism. Critical anonymous online commenters accused Envoy of creating the video as a marketing strategy. Envoy has posted around 20 to 25 similar videos themselves in the past, though none of them had the same impact as Churman’s.
Did Envoy have something to do with it?
“Absolutely not,” Spearman said. “It was a surprise to us.”
Churman’s husband posted it to YouTube “thinking his family and friends would watch it and people were so touched by it that all of a sudden it went viral,” Spearman said.
Envoy Medical has since given Churman a free device for her other ear.
“It’s basically a reimbursement for her time,” Spearman said, pointing out that she’s been flying all over the country for television appearances.That's what I said, too, about how the video was meant for her family and didn't expect it to go viral.
And then you have the doubts that Sarah could not be deaf (well, she is, so get over it) only because she speaks so clearly or how she could hear her own voice for the first time because, darn it, it's an impossibility!
“The definition of deaf is somewhat of a range,” Spearman said. “If you have a severe hearing loss, you’re considered deaf, anything over a 70 decibel loss.
“The skepticism, you’re always going to have people who are skeptical but the reason is because she said I heard my voice for the first time. Well, what she heard was her real voice, the same way you and I hear our own voice. She could hear something [before]. Not a lot, and not very well, but she could hear tones and sounds or she wouldn’t be able to speak. And that’s where this came from, people saying, ‘Well, she’s not deaf.’
“Well, it’s just a matter of semantics and how you define deaf, but she basically has a severe hearing loss because I’ve obviously seen her audiogram. She had a 70 to 75 decibel loss at 1500 to 2000 hertz, and that’s a severe hearing loss.”Not the full detail of her audiogram but I'm happy with it though I didn't feel the need to question her so harshly or unnecessarily.
There you have it folks. Pretty much all in a nutshell with most questions answered. She's deaf. She can speak really well. The viral video isn't a fake and was never a ploy set up by Envoy Medical. And she can finally hear very well with the help of her new implantable hearing aid.
Time for people to move on and stop speculating and nitpicking, and be happy for Sarah just for once. Welcome her with open arms.
Refusing to subtitle your own videos
One of the lamest excuses for a deaf or hard of hearing person to say regarding their own videos is the refusal to subtitle their own videos (whether it's voice or signing) until a good majority of videos in YouTube gets captioned or subtitled by their own authors. The funny thing is that the best way to spread awareness is to include subtitles in your own videos. Doing that tells other people that you are for inclusiveness for those who cannot hear, understand the spoken words or understand signs. Recently today, on the John Tracy Clinic Facebook page it had a historical JTC video in it that was up but had no captions or subtitles to it. I responded by saying there's no captions. A quick reply was given saying they don't have the resource or time to add subtitles. I then wrote a quick response that was respectful in nature.
I include captions/subtitles to my spoken videos but in videos where I signed in a video called "Professionalism or name calling? knowing full well I'd have an audience that do not know sign language. This includes hearing parents of deaf/hh babies! Regardless, this is the surest way to reach the widest number of people out there in YouTube land. Barry Sewell finally saw that light last year and began including captions to all of his signed videos with his first Open Letter to NAD and the Community on June 9, 2010. He has been one of the most prolific signing vloggers out there and among the very, very few who include captions. Adding subtitles to his videos are a guarantee that his videos can be watched by both signers and non-signers alike. Barry Sewell now has a huge edge over those who refuses to include subtitles to their own signing videos. If one thinks about it, 99.9% of the U.S. population does not know sign language. By including English subtitles to a signed video will ensure a capability of a captioned video to reach a majority of the U.S. population because it then becomes completely watchable.
If you have the means and capability to include subtitles or captions you should do so. Using the excuse as a reason to not include subtitles because you're waiting for the rest of the English speaking population to include their subtitles becomes a very lame one. It simply becomes a cop out excuse and a way to conveniently avoid doing any additional legwork for your signed videos and that you purposely discriminate because of a stupid ideology. For Barry and I, we don't think of it as doing extra legwork but rather the huge opportunity and potential to reach a much larger and wider non-signing population which amounts to potentially several tens of millions of people in the U.S. alone not counting many more countries outside of the U.S. who know the English language. Remember, I said "potential" and not that the figure I gave is the actual number people will watch. I encourage those who sign in their own videos who have the capability and the means to include subtitles to consider that opportunity. Inclusiveness goes both ways. Let's not be selfish about it and let stupidity be your answer.
But to focus on a very, very, very small segment of the Deaf community which amounts to potentially some 600,000 (maybe less or more) Deaf people, your non-subtitled signing videos would only reach a fraction of that 600,000 number because about half of those people are adults or older teens who can watch, and then you have an even smaller number of people who even bother or have an interest going onto the internet to watch YouTube videos or even visit DVTV (which btw continues to thrive despite a miserably failed boycott against it) and watch those signed videos.
All in all you have a potential Deaf audience of maybe 50,000 to 100,000 vs a potential audience if you include English subtitles to your signing videos will go up to perhaps several tens of millions of English speaking audience that actively use the internet. I'm just guessing on the potential side of things but assuredly the number is much, much larger on the English speaking/listening side than the signing side. No one can dispute that one bit.
So, which signing message do you think will have a better chance of getting out to the wider audience? A signed video with no subtitless, or a signed video with subtitles? Waiting for the hearing population to do the subtitles first is a losing proposition because those that do include English subtitles to their own signing videos have the distinct political advantage and leading edge over those who do not subtitle their videos in getting the word out. And it is those people whose words are the ones that get out to the general population...and not the signed videos with no subtitles. They will be the ones forever relegated to the eyes of a very small population of Deaf people. And will forever fall on, literally, deaf ears in the hearing population because they do not understand a signed video.
I caption my videos I put on my blog by listening to it. I need anywhere from an hour to three hours of my own time depending on the length of the video whether it's my own personal video or something else. I use Overstream (or physically add the captions for my own videos), for example, http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2010/10/matt-hamill-post-fight-video-interview.html, a video I captioned last year. And my video tribute to JTC (http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2010/09/video-tribute-to-john-tracy-clinic.html ).
Yet I'm hard of hearing (moderate-severe) and I took the time to do this by myself because my main audience are mostly deaf and hard of hearing. I know what it's like to be left out, so why would I do that to them even though I can understand the spoken words?
It'd be better to have video captioned first and have it ready to go rather than doing it later. Otherwise, it'd give the appearance of not caring first for people with hearing loss their consideration when it comes to accessibility. It'd be better to caption first in light of the organization's connection and name. Not doing so only serve an ironic reminder on the lack of inclusion.
Let's not use excuses and include everyone whenever a video first comes out by JTC using whatever medium format (e.g. Facebook, JTC website, YouTube, etc.).
Respectfully yours. MikeNeedless to say that video on JTC Facebook disappeared 10 minutes later. I hope they understood my message on making sure any videos put out are to be captioned. Not to be mean but just showing them the futility in trying to use the "no time" or "no resource" excuse when it comes to adding subtitles to a video. It's very easy nowadays. Nothing complex about it all. All I had to do was prove to them that including subtitles in a video does not take a whole lot of time and resources. I used my own subtitled videos as examples to prove my very point! They relented and removed the video and the comments that went with it.
I include captions/subtitles to my spoken videos but in videos where I signed in a video called "Professionalism or name calling? knowing full well I'd have an audience that do not know sign language. This includes hearing parents of deaf/hh babies! Regardless, this is the surest way to reach the widest number of people out there in YouTube land. Barry Sewell finally saw that light last year and began including captions to all of his signed videos with his first Open Letter to NAD and the Community on June 9, 2010. He has been one of the most prolific signing vloggers out there and among the very, very few who include captions. Adding subtitles to his videos are a guarantee that his videos can be watched by both signers and non-signers alike. Barry Sewell now has a huge edge over those who refuses to include subtitles to their own signing videos. If one thinks about it, 99.9% of the U.S. population does not know sign language. By including English subtitles to a signed video will ensure a capability of a captioned video to reach a majority of the U.S. population because it then becomes completely watchable.
If you have the means and capability to include subtitles or captions you should do so. Using the excuse as a reason to not include subtitles because you're waiting for the rest of the English speaking population to include their subtitles becomes a very lame one. It simply becomes a cop out excuse and a way to conveniently avoid doing any additional legwork for your signed videos and that you purposely discriminate because of a stupid ideology. For Barry and I, we don't think of it as doing extra legwork but rather the huge opportunity and potential to reach a much larger and wider non-signing population which amounts to potentially several tens of millions of people in the U.S. alone not counting many more countries outside of the U.S. who know the English language. Remember, I said "potential" and not that the figure I gave is the actual number people will watch. I encourage those who sign in their own videos who have the capability and the means to include subtitles to consider that opportunity. Inclusiveness goes both ways. Let's not be selfish about it and let stupidity be your answer.
But to focus on a very, very, very small segment of the Deaf community which amounts to potentially some 600,000 (maybe less or more) Deaf people, your non-subtitled signing videos would only reach a fraction of that 600,000 number because about half of those people are adults or older teens who can watch, and then you have an even smaller number of people who even bother or have an interest going onto the internet to watch YouTube videos or even visit DVTV (which btw continues to thrive despite a miserably failed boycott against it) and watch those signed videos.
All in all you have a potential Deaf audience of maybe 50,000 to 100,000 vs a potential audience if you include English subtitles to your signing videos will go up to perhaps several tens of millions of English speaking audience that actively use the internet. I'm just guessing on the potential side of things but assuredly the number is much, much larger on the English speaking/listening side than the signing side. No one can dispute that one bit.
So, which signing message do you think will have a better chance of getting out to the wider audience? A signed video with no subtitless, or a signed video with subtitles? Waiting for the hearing population to do the subtitles first is a losing proposition because those that do include English subtitles to their own signing videos have the distinct political advantage and leading edge over those who do not subtitle their videos in getting the word out. And it is those people whose words are the ones that get out to the general population...and not the signed videos with no subtitles. They will be the ones forever relegated to the eyes of a very small population of Deaf people. And will forever fall on, literally, deaf ears in the hearing population because they do not understand a signed video.
The problem with satire
I've no problem with satires in the political realm of things, even in deaf politics. But to be a blogger and do satires by going after known deaf people in the blog/vlogosphere for "entertainment venue" or use "sarcasm in its stories" while hiding behind a disclaimer that everything blogged is simply fictional is being dishonest if not disingenuous. By repeatedly going after certain deaf people it would become increasingly obvious a blogger, in reality, has a political disagreement and makes it known by doing these "fictional stories." Its aggressiveness begins to stand out. It'd be easier to blog and state the reason why you disagree rather than hide behind a disclaimer that blogs are simply fictional stories. By doing these so-called "fictional stories" it becomes obvious the effort to hide behind political disagreements. Sorry, using a disclaimer won't work when it has already become obvious a blogger's own political disagreements in the world of deaf politics.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Deaf Rock Singer - History 4 Sale
Here's a "hearing impaired" rock singer based out of Seattle, Washington that plays in a band called "History for Sale" or H4S for short. They play alternative, indie, and rock genre music. In a press release this summer (June 2011) it explains that the lead singer is deaf (hearing impaired):
It goes on explaining the history and the lead singer's deafness:
Despite all that it got me wondering since there are extremely few truly deaf bands such as Beethoven's Nightmare, what are some of deaf/hh people's favorite local rock bands that they like to listen to and not the big name rock bands (i.e. Billy Joel, Madonna, etc)? What's your favorite local rock bands in your area?
As for History for Sale, good luck to them and many successes. The rock band business is a brutal one. You can listen to their music here and tell me what you think of the music and the lead singer.
AFTER A TRYING 2010 THE DEAF SINGER LEADS 'HISTORY for SALE' IN RELEASE OF "THE FUTURE":
SEATTLE, WA June 17, 2011 - HISTORY for SALE seems to know the frequency needed to speak their voice in a time of musical chaos. From the land of gray skies and an every evolving music scene that is Seattle, Washington, HISTORY for SALE has placed the task squarely on the shoulders of hearing impaired lead singer Mark Young by pushing him to the front of the mix. His searing vocals and R&B inspired staccato delivery give flight to the sounds, but give no indication to the fact that he is wearing hearing aids while doing so. Though a self titled debut effort from the band has been previously released, it is on this sophomore 8 track effort that HISTORY for SALE (H4S) seem to have become a singular entity. A gelled mass of musical substance that has found that speaking in volumes and taking listeners on a journey of musical exploration and virtuosity is something only life experienced artists who make honest music can do.
It goes on explaining the history and the lead singer's deafness:
Sound is something that is taken for granted every day, but not by the hearing challenged singer. "I was born with a partially flattened stirrup and thus couldn't resonate certain frequencies" Young contends. "Through high school in Yakima it was all about EPMD, Public Enemy, DJ QUIK, and how loud you could play your music. Basically everything your parents tell you not to do" he added. Given his loss, it is hard to imagine that someone with so great a hearing deficiency requiring hearing aids could aspire to lead a rock band into the fray of the current day music scene, and do so effectively, but listening to the tracks on "The Future" it seems that task is but just a small one.
Behind Frans Laulainen's inventive and metronome like drumming, Doug Warren's walking and driving bass lines, and Keefe O'neill's Edge and Gilmour like guitar melodies HISTORY for SALE have created a album that is not small, is not local, and does not suggest something shallow or narrow in space. What they have created is an anthemic crying voice of "HEAR ME NOW". A message that even a deaf man could hear.Here we have a deaf/hearing impaired/hard of hearing lead singer and let's not get into this whole "he's not really deaf nonsense sort of deal a la Sarah Churman" because it serves no purpose. If he wants to be identified as a deaf singer, let him.
Despite all that it got me wondering since there are extremely few truly deaf bands such as Beethoven's Nightmare, what are some of deaf/hh people's favorite local rock bands that they like to listen to and not the big name rock bands (i.e. Billy Joel, Madonna, etc)? What's your favorite local rock bands in your area?
As for History for Sale, good luck to them and many successes. The rock band business is a brutal one. You can listen to their music here and tell me what you think of the music and the lead singer.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Deaf YouVideo
Interesting to see this blog piece pointing to my blog,"When haters gonna still hate....and the clueless ones continue to be clueless," on what it appears to be on assumptions that I was attacking deaf/hh/Deaf people for making those rude comments in YouTube. Quite the contrary. It was people in general I was noting who made those rude comments. No where did I mention Deaf/deaf/hh people as my target in my blog but rather the people who did the commenting in Sarah Churman's YouTube and elsewhere the links I provided where you can find those demeaning, hateful or clueless comments (e.g. deaf people cannot talk clearly). No where in my blog did I imply or say that the majority of degenerating comments came from "hearing impaired" people. Common sense tells you that one cannot tell whether those comments in YouTube came from a hearing person or a deaf/hh person simply by reading them.
Next time, look both ways before crossing a busy road, people.
UPDATE: Name calling such as "Mikey Mouse" is a sign of defensiveness. Not sure what the owner of Deaf YouVideo big deal was and the need to respond. This blog update was a clarification to readers (and not to Deaf YouVideo) who may have assumed that I was attacking deaf/hh/Deaf people in my haters blog piece but that was never the case as you can clearly see.
UPDATE II: The author of DYV removed a section that contained the name calling as you can see in my screen capture below. My story remains. What I see is the continued misapplication and misunderstanding by people who want to read what they want to read in my blog. Reason for this varies. I've made it clear what my blog was about in my first update for those who misread my blog. Secondly, bringing up the issue of rapes, for example, at Gallaudet is not sensationalism nor attacking Gallaudet University but forcing people to confront the issues. If people choose to bury their heads and pretend they never happened, then they choose that action. Name another blog that have covered this serious issue and I can pretty much guarantee you not one ever did in all these years going back in 2006 when I first covered it. Calling it "sensationalism" such as the issue of rape or alcoholism shows a desire to ignore such seriousness. People would prefer to sweep such issues under the carpet and I find that appalling and sad.
Next time, look both ways before crossing a busy road, people.
UPDATE: Name calling such as "Mikey Mouse" is a sign of defensiveness. Not sure what the owner of Deaf YouVideo big deal was and the need to respond. This blog update was a clarification to readers (and not to Deaf YouVideo) who may have assumed that I was attacking deaf/hh/Deaf people in my haters blog piece but that was never the case as you can clearly see.
UPDATE II: The author of DYV removed a section that contained the name calling as you can see in my screen capture below. My story remains. What I see is the continued misapplication and misunderstanding by people who want to read what they want to read in my blog. Reason for this varies. I've made it clear what my blog was about in my first update for those who misread my blog. Secondly, bringing up the issue of rapes, for example, at Gallaudet is not sensationalism nor attacking Gallaudet University but forcing people to confront the issues. If people choose to bury their heads and pretend they never happened, then they choose that action. Name another blog that have covered this serious issue and I can pretty much guarantee you not one ever did in all these years going back in 2006 when I first covered it. Calling it "sensationalism" such as the issue of rape or alcoholism shows a desire to ignore such seriousness. People would prefer to sweep such issues under the carpet and I find that appalling and sad.
Sarah Churman responds to questions....
It was a matter of time until Sarah found the time to answer some questions pertaining to her ability to speak clearly and how she hears before and after getting her implantable hearing aid. It is really astounding to read comments from people saying how it's an impossibility for one to develop a clear voice with no deaf accent. Here's Sarah Churman's money shot on one of the most asked question,"How do you know how to talk?":
It's pretty galling to see people dismiss the very notion that deaf people cannot have the ability to speak clearly. I don't think the motto "deaf/hh people can do anything except hear" precludes the ability to speak clearly. Some require more intense speech therapy and training while others not so much. It all depends on amount of hearing loss, types of frequency loss, early intervention, amount of speech therapy and probably the most important of all is the love to talk constantly and not be afraid to find ways to improve speech diction. Although I believe that we can have the ability to hear just not close to the level of a hearing person but that Esteem implantable hearing aid sure comes pretty close.
Anyway, everyone is different. Everyone heals differently, everyone learns differently, and everyone excels at different things. I personally have always LOVED to read and write. English and Grammar have always been something I have enjoyed. I also enjoy talking! (Big shocker to those who know me huh? NOT! Lol.) I have worked very hard to overcome and to speak well. I went to deaf ed school when I was very young, then on to public school where I took speech classes and therapy. I don't think people realize how intently I read lips. When you read lips, you are studying how people move their mouths, where they place their tongue (and for those of you with tongue rings, yes, you trip me up) and their teeth. It's a skill I have had 29 years to hone.Next question: "How did she know what the doc was saying without looking at her mouth?"
Um. I got my ear turned on :) How do YOU know what people are saying? You HEAR them. I don't mean to be rude, but really? I don't know, I can't explain the brain or how it works. I just know my ear works and I heard her clear as a bell. (which was awesome) I've always been able to hear some noise if it was loud enough with my hearing aids, just not able to make a distinction as to what people were actually saying. If you covered your mouth, I couldn't read your lips. The best way I know to explain it is like this.; if you went to a foreign country and someone spoke to you, you'd know they were talking because you can hear something, but you have no idea what they are actually saying. Hope that helps.With hearing aids, noise distortion is always an issue which is why sometimes hearing people talk can get muddled. Sounds are electronically amplified but gets distorted. But with the Esteem implantable hearing aid this distortion gets eliminated because it uses the ear's "eardrum as a natural microphone, picking up sounds through the ear canal, thereby using the body’s natural anatomy to reduce the background noise, distortion, and acoustic feedback that people experience with conventional hearing aids."
It's pretty galling to see people dismiss the very notion that deaf people cannot have the ability to speak clearly. I don't think the motto "deaf/hh people can do anything except hear" precludes the ability to speak clearly. Some require more intense speech therapy and training while others not so much. It all depends on amount of hearing loss, types of frequency loss, early intervention, amount of speech therapy and probably the most important of all is the love to talk constantly and not be afraid to find ways to improve speech diction. Although I believe that we can have the ability to hear just not close to the level of a hearing person but that Esteem implantable hearing aid sure comes pretty close.
The elimination of a scourge....
An organization in New Zealand is setting out to eradicate this scourge that affects an estimated 284 million people worldwide. Approximately 80% of the cases are due to causes which could have been prevented, treated or cured in the first place. This scourge cost the New Zealand society some $2.8 billion dollars in 2009. Multiply this cost in all of the countries worldwide and you'll see how exacting this condition affects society. This organization makes a point that this "is a scourge to be avoided at all costs." Just like the scourge of polio that is now a thing of the past. The irony here is that no outrage will be directed at this organization's ultimate goal in New Zealand on finding ways to eliminate this "scourge."
And then you have Dimity Dornan who says that deafness is scourge and that one day it will disappear just like polio. Yet you have some Deaf people in an outrage over this attempt at eradicating the condition of hearing loss whether it's mild or profound hearing loss.
Funny thing, if you were born with a hearing loss or became deaf pre-lingually and later in life as an adult you lose your vision completely but you'd be the first one to step up to have your eye-sight restored once a cure for vision loss becomes available. The irony would be that you'd object to a cure and the eradication for hearing loss but not for eradicating vision loss. Me think some people out there are hyperventilating a wee bit too much.
And then you have Dimity Dornan who says that deafness is scourge and that one day it will disappear just like polio. Yet you have some Deaf people in an outrage over this attempt at eradicating the condition of hearing loss whether it's mild or profound hearing loss.
Funny thing, if you were born with a hearing loss or became deaf pre-lingually and later in life as an adult you lose your vision completely but you'd be the first one to step up to have your eye-sight restored once a cure for vision loss becomes available. The irony would be that you'd object to a cure and the eradication for hearing loss but not for eradicating vision loss. Me think some people out there are hyperventilating a wee bit too much.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
An example of a successful hearing loss organization
If you haven't heard of Hearing Loss Association of America you will now. This is an organization that has been around awhile since 1979 when they were known as SHHH (Self Help for Hard of Hearing) aimed at mostly the hard of hearing segment of society. It has grown today into a nationally known organization that is representative of the hearing loss population seen in the United States with 36 million people with hearing loss. In 2006, they began a Walk4Hearing project as way to raise funds. In it's first year it was a smashing success surpassing expectations on the money raised when they hoped to get $25,000 and instead got $300, 000 that year. This year their goal is to raise $1.2 million dollars and they are already on track to reach that goal with $1.07 million dollars already raised so far. A remarkable feat in such a short time. A testament to their marketing skills, support and advocacy. The Walk4Hearing is national event that takes place in 24 cities throughout the year providing constant awareness about hearing loss and their organization. It is the largest walk of its kind in the country that raises awareness and helps to eradicate the stigma associated with hearing loss.
The organization's mission is to help people rather than create enemies. Their organization's leaders do not disparage people, create an oppressive "political atmosphere," attack companies, mess around with their bylaws or go after organizations because of a philosophical difference. Their philosophy is different. Their goals are different. Their mission is to is to open the world of communication to people with hearing loss by providing information, education, support and advocacy. Because of that people become receptive of that approach in seeking their support and help.
On one end you have deaf organizations (e.g. CAD, NAD, DeafNation, etc) that are completely and exclusively for the most part Deaf people that have a totally different way of interacting socially and with a different mindset. Now, if you have ever attended Hearing Loss Association of America workshops, visited their chapters (like I have) or conventions and met people there you'd find out it to be a completely different environment because you'll come across people with all forms of hearing loss from mild to profound wearing hearing aids or cochlear implants. Many of them do know sign language while a majority of them are people who speak and listen. This is especially noticeable at the Walk4Hearing if you ever get a chance to participate and interact with them. It's an almost completely different social camaraderie atmosphere compared to an exclusively Deaf environment. Those at Walk4Hearing are people that are representative of the hearing loss population in the U.S.
Watch this captioned video about the Walk4Hearing and the people involved. There are some signers in this video, too.
The organization's mission is to help people rather than create enemies. Their organization's leaders do not disparage people, create an oppressive "political atmosphere," attack companies, mess around with their bylaws or go after organizations because of a philosophical difference. Their philosophy is different. Their goals are different. Their mission is to is to open the world of communication to people with hearing loss by providing information, education, support and advocacy. Because of that people become receptive of that approach in seeking their support and help.
On one end you have deaf organizations (e.g. CAD, NAD, DeafNation, etc) that are completely and exclusively for the most part Deaf people that have a totally different way of interacting socially and with a different mindset. Now, if you have ever attended Hearing Loss Association of America workshops, visited their chapters (like I have) or conventions and met people there you'd find out it to be a completely different environment because you'll come across people with all forms of hearing loss from mild to profound wearing hearing aids or cochlear implants. Many of them do know sign language while a majority of them are people who speak and listen. This is especially noticeable at the Walk4Hearing if you ever get a chance to participate and interact with them. It's an almost completely different social camaraderie atmosphere compared to an exclusively Deaf environment. Those at Walk4Hearing are people that are representative of the hearing loss population in the U.S.
Watch this captioned video about the Walk4Hearing and the people involved. There are some signers in this video, too.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Deafhood? No Thanks.... revisited
People continue misunderstand about this loosely affiliated "group" on FB called "Deafhood? No Thanks" thinking it's based on the denial about ourselves regarding our hearing loss and who we are.
That's the furthest from the truth.
Rather it's our polite way of telling people that we do not subscribe to a closed society's approach using peer pressure, the incorporation of 'deaf power' movement or the flavor of it, the 'one communication option' approach, or using the movement to bully others through fear or use of oppressive tactics. Yet probably the most important of all is that we don't subscribe to playing the perennial victim card. Subscribing to those approaches is a sure way to alienate further hearing parents of deaf/hh children, hard of hearing and deaf people, and even Deaf people. We don't subscribe to a victim mentality. We don't subscribe to the philosophy of exclusion and judgements regarding deafness. We don't subscribe to going after parents who make alternative decisions for their deaf or hard of hearing children. We favor open society approaches such as equality for all deaf and hard of hearing people regardless of their backgrounds, communication methods and technology options. We invite anyone and make no judgements when it comes to deafness and their choices.We give them our support regardless the choices they make on deafness related issues.
We don't go around and mock other people's ability to speak calling it "yowling." We support them if they prefer to use their voice or not. Sign or not. Cued speech or not. Use of pen and paper or not. Use SEE or not. Use ASL or not. Use CI or not. Use implantable hearing aid or not. Prefer a hearing society over a deaf society. We don't go around wishing people harm or death because of philosophical difference or disagreement regarding deafness or their communication preferences. We don't harass people and sic the CPS on them. Or call their employers. And most important of all, we don't see ourselves as victims lamenting about the cruel fate of life, the unfairness of it all. The woe is me shtick. We don't need more labels. We don't need the stereotypes. We define it for ourselves as each of us see fit. Our journey is already deeply personal to begin with. A mere label doesn't do justice. And many of us simply do not care for it. While others may like the label and use it as they see personally fit, which is fine but I leave a caveat.
You may say it's simply a journey when it comes to "deafhood" but to go further by tacking on that label with a political ideology will only serve to alienate people further. Using the term to advance a political agenda and a springboard to attack individuals or companies while hiding behind an obvious facade. Hypocrisy shines through when those things happen. We may be deaf or hard of hearing but we ain't blind. The concept of "deafhood" has de-evolved away from the concept of diversity and simple acceptance into the maws of power, politics and even greed. If it were about diversity and simple acceptance it would have been plainly obvious for all to see. But the mask has long since fallen off.
The term "deafhood" will never be accepted by the larger population of people with hearing loss. This is a population with some 33 million people with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound hearing loss. The majority of people are those with mild and moderate hearing loss. A smaller percentage of that population are people with severe to profound hearing loss. Smaller still are people considered to be culturally deaf with ASL that makes up roughly about 2 percent of the total population of people with hearing loss (~600,000 or so).
It's like trying to incorporate "blindhood" and say that it's for all people with any kind of vision impairment who are undergoing their own journey, even those with easily correctable vision. But ask them if they are blind and they'll emphatically say they are not while others with more serious vision loss or impairment may say they're legally blind to those who have no vision at all are completely blind. The same with "deafhood" when it comes to people with mild or even moderate hearing loss who function fine with hearing aids (or even in some cases without hearing aids) and ask them if they are deaf and they will emphatically say they are not. Hard of hearing sure. Some hearing impairment? Sure. Have a hearing loss? Sure. But don't tell them they're deaf. That is the reality. That is how they wish to identify themselves as. I'm not in the position to tell those people that they are wrong if they see themselves as deaf, hard of hearing, Deaf, partially deaf, partially hearing, hearing impaired or simply a person with a hearing loss. It's an individual thing. Respect that.
That's the furthest from the truth.
Rather it's our polite way of telling people that we do not subscribe to a closed society's approach using peer pressure, the incorporation of 'deaf power' movement or the flavor of it, the 'one communication option' approach, or using the movement to bully others through fear or use of oppressive tactics. Yet probably the most important of all is that we don't subscribe to playing the perennial victim card. Subscribing to those approaches is a sure way to alienate further hearing parents of deaf/hh children, hard of hearing and deaf people, and even Deaf people. We don't subscribe to a victim mentality. We don't subscribe to the philosophy of exclusion and judgements regarding deafness. We don't subscribe to going after parents who make alternative decisions for their deaf or hard of hearing children. We favor open society approaches such as equality for all deaf and hard of hearing people regardless of their backgrounds, communication methods and technology options. We invite anyone and make no judgements when it comes to deafness and their choices.We give them our support regardless the choices they make on deafness related issues.
We don't go around and mock other people's ability to speak calling it "yowling." We support them if they prefer to use their voice or not. Sign or not. Cued speech or not. Use of pen and paper or not. Use SEE or not. Use ASL or not. Use CI or not. Use implantable hearing aid or not. Prefer a hearing society over a deaf society. We don't go around wishing people harm or death because of philosophical difference or disagreement regarding deafness or their communication preferences. We don't harass people and sic the CPS on them. Or call their employers. And most important of all, we don't see ourselves as victims lamenting about the cruel fate of life, the unfairness of it all. The woe is me shtick. We don't need more labels. We don't need the stereotypes. We define it for ourselves as each of us see fit. Our journey is already deeply personal to begin with. A mere label doesn't do justice. And many of us simply do not care for it. While others may like the label and use it as they see personally fit, which is fine but I leave a caveat.
You may say it's simply a journey when it comes to "deafhood" but to go further by tacking on that label with a political ideology will only serve to alienate people further. Using the term to advance a political agenda and a springboard to attack individuals or companies while hiding behind an obvious facade. Hypocrisy shines through when those things happen. We may be deaf or hard of hearing but we ain't blind. The concept of "deafhood" has de-evolved away from the concept of diversity and simple acceptance into the maws of power, politics and even greed. If it were about diversity and simple acceptance it would have been plainly obvious for all to see. But the mask has long since fallen off.
The term "deafhood" will never be accepted by the larger population of people with hearing loss. This is a population with some 33 million people with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound hearing loss. The majority of people are those with mild and moderate hearing loss. A smaller percentage of that population are people with severe to profound hearing loss. Smaller still are people considered to be culturally deaf with ASL that makes up roughly about 2 percent of the total population of people with hearing loss (~600,000 or so).
It's like trying to incorporate "blindhood" and say that it's for all people with any kind of vision impairment who are undergoing their own journey, even those with easily correctable vision. But ask them if they are blind and they'll emphatically say they are not while others with more serious vision loss or impairment may say they're legally blind to those who have no vision at all are completely blind. The same with "deafhood" when it comes to people with mild or even moderate hearing loss who function fine with hearing aids (or even in some cases without hearing aids) and ask them if they are deaf and they will emphatically say they are not. Hard of hearing sure. Some hearing impairment? Sure. Have a hearing loss? Sure. But don't tell them they're deaf. That is the reality. That is how they wish to identify themselves as. I'm not in the position to tell those people that they are wrong if they see themselves as deaf, hard of hearing, Deaf, partially deaf, partially hearing, hearing impaired or simply a person with a hearing loss. It's an individual thing. Respect that.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
New CAD by-laws continues to discriminate and profile?
Without much fanfare or notice to the public the California Association of the Deaf (a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, incorporated in the State of California) managed to slip in their newly updated and redacted CAD bylaws dated August 13, 2011. The old CAD Bylaws (link is no good but I do have a copy if you want to look at it) in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 (see archived bylaws here) mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.
The new CAD by-laws appears to favor culturally deaf people, again, only because the term "Deaf" (upper case "D") is not defined and there are profiling and discrimination questions as well. The term "Deaf" is used almost exclusively throughout the new by-laws.
For example:
In the August 2011 CAD by-laws Policy and Procedures Guidelines it uses both terms "Deaf" and "hard of hearing" but offered no definitions or meanings for those terms. The only definition offered in the new CAD by-laws is "Deafhood."
Seeing all this would make it appear that CAD is in an exclusive organization aimed at Deaf people rather than those who are not culturally affiliated (e.g. deaf, hard of hearing), those who do not know sign, or those who prefer to communicate by talking and listening and are comfortable in a hearing community. The California Association of the Deaf needs to re-think, again, their language as it is written currently in their by-laws so as to keep their credibility intact and be taken seriously once and for all.
Section 25.3 Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents. Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years. And because of that change Barry produced a video thanking CAD for the revision. CAD may have changed its language in the new by-laws because of the recommendation from the California Department of Justice or from somewhere else. It doesn't matter. What matters is that CAD made the effort to correct a past mistake, however.
The new CAD by-laws appears to favor culturally deaf people, again, only because the term "Deaf" (upper case "D") is not defined and there are profiling and discrimination questions as well. The term "Deaf" is used almost exclusively throughout the new by-laws.
For example:
Section 2.1 PURPOSE
The mission and advocacy of California Association of the Deaf is the promotion, preservation and protection of the civil rights, social, cultural, health, educational and economic well-being of the Deaf.
Section 3.1 MEMBERSHIP, DUES, AND TERMS
The Association is a membership organization with members having either voting or non-voting privileges and shall be open to all subgroups within the Deaf Community without discrimination as per Article II, Section 2.1 Purpose.
Section 3.3 HONORARY
Persons eminent for distinguished services to the Deaf may be made honorary members of the Association. They shall be entitled to all privileges of the Association.
Section 7.1.10: Communications/PR CommitteeOver the past few years notable people in the Deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people. According to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:
Communications/PR Committee shall support Association purposes with informational activities and increase public awareness of Deaf issues; inform members, as well as the general public, of developments in legislation and administration programs; promote communication and coordination between other organizations affecting Deaf issues; and work with Public Policy Committee on any announcements pertaining to advocacy issues. Shall also work to ensure that Deaf individuals living throughout California who may not know about the Association become familiar with who we are and what we do so that they may consider becoming a member and participating in the various activities that are offered.
We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.What is obvious is that there are deaf people who may not know sign language, are not affiliated with Deaf culture, have other preferred means to communicate such as speaking, use Cued speech, or use Signing Exact English.
In the August 2011 CAD by-laws Policy and Procedures Guidelines it uses both terms "Deaf" and "hard of hearing" but offered no definitions or meanings for those terms. The only definition offered in the new CAD by-laws is "Deafhood."
PPG:1:2011 Definition of Deafhood:In the past CAD omitted the terms "deaf" and "hard of hearing" in favor of using the newly invented term "Deafhood" in their 2005 CAD by-laws. It was a term not found in an approved dictionary (e.g. Merriam-Webster). It was a term that could not be enforced should it get legally challenged because there is no legal definition. In the new CAD by-laws update the upper case "D"eaf is used extensively throughout its by-laws language as the dominant term used. This alone gives the appearance of profiling and discrimination that favors heavily culturally deaf people or Deaf people. In my opinion, CAD needs to redact or revise their August 2011 by-laws and provide the proper definition or clarification for terms "Deaf," deaf, and" hard of hearing." Not doing so will undoubtedly assure that the CAD by-laws will continue to favor heavily Deaf (culturally deaf) people. Even the CAD's Mission Statement as seen currently in their website,
The phrase “Deafhood” was coined by Paddy Ladd and was adopted by the membership of this Association in 2007. First posted as a counter to deafness, it describes the life-long process by which Deaf identity can be cultivated, maintained and deepened. It is a philosophical search for Deaf community and culture.
The mission of the California Association of the Deaf is to protect the civil rights of the movement (empowerment) of Deafhood and promote the social (American Sign Language), cultural, health, educational, and economic well being of the Deaf (Californians) Community in the state of California.is exactly the same one used in the old 2005 CAD by-laws but not used in current and new 2011 CAD by-laws with the exception that the old 2005 CAD bylaws use the term "hard of hearing" throughout. The new 2011 bylaws does not.
Seeing all this would make it appear that CAD is in an exclusive organization aimed at Deaf people rather than those who are not culturally affiliated (e.g. deaf, hard of hearing), those who do not know sign, or those who prefer to communicate by talking and listening and are comfortable in a hearing community. The California Association of the Deaf needs to re-think, again, their language as it is written currently in their by-laws so as to keep their credibility intact and be taken seriously once and for all.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
The Sarah Churman Saga Continues.....
Since I am unable to contribute on Deaf Echo (for their petty reasons that's seven months old) and respond to comments over there I will do so here on my blog regarding what Mishkazena said:
Having said that, people with high frequency hearing loss can and do have a harder time hearing one's own voice, especially if the person is a female such as in probably the case for Sarah Churman. I don't know. Instead of saying it's an impossibility that she could speak so clearly and say she's deaf consider the option of keeping an open mind. Sarah already explained to Ellen DeGeneres that she cannot explain completely why she can speak so well and gets asked with that question all the time. She told Ellen that she accredited her good speech to deaf ed, speech therapy and her love to talk alot. But somehow people seem to try and paint her as a liar and not telling the truth.
Next we have Dianrez's blog who continues to misunderstand and even twist on what I've said in the past.
There's no doubt that Sage is hard of hearing but then again she's deaf, too.
As for the Chaikof sisters (Rachel Chaikof that runs her own website Cochlear Implant Online) they never made the claims of living as "hearing people" but rather they have the ability to interact and associate with hearing people solely because of the early intervention with cochlear implant and speech therapies made it possible today to interact. Just as I can interact easily with hearing people but I'm certainly not a hearing person. They know they are deaf but see themselves as hard of hearing. Let's not twist words, Dianrez.
Another twist by Dianrez about what I said.
"i'm glad for sarah churman. i wish her the best of luck. however, the title 'hearing her voice for the first time' is misleading. many people deny this, insisting one can develop a clear voice with no deaf accent without hearing one's voice in the past. it's an impossibility. yet our experiences and knowledge are dismissed. we're ridiculed and painted an anti implant group by the adoring and awe-struck hearing audience. this had been reinforced by several deaf people with a chip on their shoulders against culturally deaf people taking this as yet another opportunity to attack these deaf people."I think it all boils down to the missing context of that YouTube title which says, "29 years old and hearing myself for the 1st time!" which could have been meant to say "29 years old and hearing myself clearly and loudly for the first time." We don't know who put that title in but it was Sarah's husband who videotaped her. It was her husband who put that video on YouTube which means it was probably most likely her husband who wrote down that title. But what we don't know is that there could be some truth to that title that Sarah was hearing her own voice for the first time. Unless you have her audiogram and a complete picture of her history, I suggest people withhold judgement until it becomes clear on Sarah's hearing loss.
Having said that, people with high frequency hearing loss can and do have a harder time hearing one's own voice, especially if the person is a female such as in probably the case for Sarah Churman. I don't know. Instead of saying it's an impossibility that she could speak so clearly and say she's deaf consider the option of keeping an open mind. Sarah already explained to Ellen DeGeneres that she cannot explain completely why she can speak so well and gets asked with that question all the time. She told Ellen that she accredited her good speech to deaf ed, speech therapy and her love to talk alot. But somehow people seem to try and paint her as a liar and not telling the truth.
Next we have Dianrez's blog who continues to misunderstand and even twist on what I've said in the past.
People who have even a slight amount of hearing at some point, or who were born with hearing, are able to make the most of it in many cases and these are the ones most helped by hearing aids or later cochlear implants or the new implantable middle-ear device. Those with excellent auditory memory do the best of all. That the media and some bloggers continue to categorize them as "deaf" is misleading: these people are not, NOT deaf.
There are so many different types of hearing LOSS. I used this word deliberately. They are people with auditory memory going way back, even unconsciously; they have brain pathways in the speech range that worked at one time, and may still work. Then they "suffered" a LOSS. The memory traces are still there, however.
Hard of hearing people have this, too. McConnell, himself hard-of-hearing, acknowledges that there are different types of hearing LOSS, but he makes the mistake of lumping profoundly deaf people into this group. These are people without any auditory memory from birth, and even with early cochlear implants, may not always develop useful hearing as Heuer points out in his article.
A few profoundly deaf people have cochlear implants and are said to be living as hearing people, such as the Chaikof sisters of Cochlearimplantonline.com. Many, as all of us personally know, do not hear as well and as many stash them in drawers as those that use them. (Heuer)I discussed in my blogs on the key to early intervention in conjunction with using current hearing technology to make it work, even for those who are profoundly deaf using cochlear implant, and make use of the auditory cortex during those crucial 4 years window of opportunity. I made my point about early intervention numerous times in my blogs, especially on cochlear implants, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many more going back a few years in my blog. The phrase "hard of hearing" does not pertain to db loss nowadays simply because of the advent of cochlear implant technology. It's the ability to discriminate words, understand environmental sounds and speak intelligibly with the help of current hearing technology along with audio and speech therapies. Cochlear implants make it possible nowadays for those born profoundly deaf get implanted at such a young age and develop the ability to discriminate the spoken words (without looking) and be able to speak extremely well. The key has always been early intervention (rather than "auditory memory") using the existing hearing technology with lots of supports and encouragements. Not every instances are a success for various reasons but successes there are. In fact, Dianrez's own suggestion at the end of her blog supports my argument about profoundly deaf people can be put into the category of "hard of hearing":
Deaf: having little usable hearing for speech. Having little usable hearing for environmental sounds. Having little usable hearing even with devices.You have profoundly deaf people who were born profoundly deaf whose hearing (what's left of it) is considered still usable only because of the existence of cochlear implant makes it possible to bridge that gap. Young deaf children have usable hearing for listening and speech development if cochlear implant is considered. It still usable hearing when it comes to environmental sounds. In a word, that would fit the definition of hard of hearing for prelingually (profoundly) deaf people who end up benefitting greatly from cochlear implants. Not all would fit into the category as hard of hearing people but many do. Even Jamie Berke of About.com Deafness admitted how the cochlear implant technology changed the meaning of the term "hard of hearing" for profoundly deaf people.
What is the difference between being hard of hearing and being deaf? The answer is not simple, and is getting even harder to define with the growth of cochlear implants.You have cochlear implant wearers who consider themselves as deaf and hard of hearing just like you have hearing aid users who consider themselves as deaf and hard of hearing, just like me. Turn the device off, you're deaf. Turn it on, you're hard of hearing. Just like Sage in this captioned video below when she was 16 years old who was outfitted with a cochlear implant at age 22 months speaks about her cochlear implant.
There's no doubt that Sage is hard of hearing but then again she's deaf, too.
As for the Chaikof sisters (Rachel Chaikof that runs her own website Cochlear Implant Online) they never made the claims of living as "hearing people" but rather they have the ability to interact and associate with hearing people solely because of the early intervention with cochlear implant and speech therapies made it possible today to interact. Just as I can interact easily with hearing people but I'm certainly not a hearing person. They know they are deaf but see themselves as hard of hearing. Let's not twist words, Dianrez.
Another twist by Dianrez about what I said.
Then we have people who defend the people who are involved in the quest to hear again. Mike McConnell is one. Immediately he jumps on people who point out the flaws in such cures by way of electronic and mechanical devices: "Why is it so hard to congratulate a grown deaf adult seeing the immediate (and emotional) success from her implantable hearing aid in a video?" He has written several consecutive blogs, each insisting that Sarah is deaf four different ways and is still deaf when she turns off the implant. He adds, "Those people need to take their brains out of the gutter and stop with the stereotyping of what deaf people can or cannot do, especially on the ability to speak well. This is especially true coming from deaf people themselves which serves only an ironic and hypocritical reminder. Yet people continue with this conspiracy theory thinking something's afoot. Practically insinuating that she is not deaf because there is no way she can speak that well. No way!! Well, get over it folks, she is deaf."I've not described nor insisted that Sarah is deaf in four different ways. Please stop with the disingenuous hyperbole and dishonesty, Dianez. I've already explained in the above about the terms "deaf" and "hard of hearing." Secondly, my comment asking why is it so hard to congratulate Sarah Churman's implantable hearing aid success was taken out of a paragraph I wrote while leaving the rest behind that explains my questioning which had nothing to do with about jumping on "people who point out flaws in such cures" (because implantable hearing aids are not a cure). Rather my comment had to do with people lamenting about one's own history struggling with his/her hearing aid wishing his/her story was video-taped and had gone viral, too. Instead of being happy for her you hear lamentations, the whole nine-yards "woe-is-me."
Oppressive Deaf Space?
Something I read (and watched) on YouTube by spdundas37 concerning the a-wordism at Gallaudet University and about "Deaf Space." Now I understand this concept of "Deaf Space" especially when it revolves around hearing people on the campus of Gallaudet University and even more so while in classrooms. Although I have serious reservations about going after a group of hearing people at a table who are having a private conversation in Gallaudet University cafe dinning room who were signing and talking at the same time (SimCom). I don't know if all of the hearing people knew sign or if they were all students at Gallaudet or there were a few hearing people who didn't know sign which could probably explain the reason for this CODA SimComming. Such information was limited given by spdundas37. If it's a group of people having their own private and quiet conversations at a table and no one is complaining at that table, what right does spdundas37 have from across the room to tell them to stop using SimCom?
Moving on. Let's change the picture some. I have other questions about this "Deaf Space" concept described by spdundas37 when it comes to deaf and hard of hearing students who do regularly sign and use their voice at the same time on campus. Back in my days at Gallaudet University from 1988 to 1991 myself and many of my friends and their friends signed and talked at the same time. Many of us signed and mouthed the words at the same time, sometimes completely or partially. Many of us simply signed with some mouth movements or none at all. Most of these conversations took place at Gallaudet University cafeteria where we all naturally segregated ourselves into our respective tables and have these conversations. Nobody objected because these were private conversations and we were all in our own very special "Deaf Space" based on our comfort level with each other and our tolerance when it came to communicating. I'm sure today this is still true that many deaf/hh students do regularly sign and talk to each other at the same time while on campus at Gallaudet University outside of the classrooms. I don't know if this would be the minority or majority of the campus population but the point is that it still continues today.
I believe spdundas37 was wrong to intrude onto a private conversation at another table by telling a group of hearing people to stop using their voice while signing. If that CODA person actually screamed and attacked spdundas37 then that CODA person was wrong to do that but then again I wasn't there and so I don't have the full picture of what really went on. Although spdundas37 made it clear that this group of hearing people was at another table across the room using SimCom which clearly tells us that this was a group of people having a private conversation amongst themselves and to no one else. It wouldn't matter if they were hearing, deaf or hard of hearing. What matters is that they were having a private conversation and bothering nobody. If they were SimComming then what does it matter if they signed and mouthed the same exact words instead without voicing? What does it matter if you cannot hear their voices? Simply put, it was a private conversation that got interrupted because of political correctness.
Moving on. Let's change the picture some. I have other questions about this "Deaf Space" concept described by spdundas37 when it comes to deaf and hard of hearing students who do regularly sign and use their voice at the same time on campus. Back in my days at Gallaudet University from 1988 to 1991 myself and many of my friends and their friends signed and talked at the same time. Many of us signed and mouthed the words at the same time, sometimes completely or partially. Many of us simply signed with some mouth movements or none at all. Most of these conversations took place at Gallaudet University cafeteria where we all naturally segregated ourselves into our respective tables and have these conversations. Nobody objected because these were private conversations and we were all in our own very special "Deaf Space" based on our comfort level with each other and our tolerance when it came to communicating. I'm sure today this is still true that many deaf/hh students do regularly sign and talk to each other at the same time while on campus at Gallaudet University outside of the classrooms. I don't know if this would be the minority or majority of the campus population but the point is that it still continues today.
I believe spdundas37 was wrong to intrude onto a private conversation at another table by telling a group of hearing people to stop using their voice while signing. If that CODA person actually screamed and attacked spdundas37 then that CODA person was wrong to do that but then again I wasn't there and so I don't have the full picture of what really went on. Although spdundas37 made it clear that this group of hearing people was at another table across the room using SimCom which clearly tells us that this was a group of people having a private conversation amongst themselves and to no one else. It wouldn't matter if they were hearing, deaf or hard of hearing. What matters is that they were having a private conversation and bothering nobody. If they were SimComming then what does it matter if they signed and mouthed the same exact words instead without voicing? What does it matter if you cannot hear their voices? Simply put, it was a private conversation that got interrupted because of political correctness.
Echoing Sentiments
Chris Heuer produced a piece in Deaf Echo basically lamenting over Sarah Churman's YouTube video that went viral by going over his own little history and hinting that he may just take back his sincerity about Sarah Churman.
Strange world indeed.
Why is it so hard to congratulate a grown deaf adult seeing the immediate (and emotional) success from her implantable hearing aid in a video? A result that took Sarah by surprise at the clarity of sound that was coming in. Why reserve such congratulations to her and instead lament about one's own history struggling with his hearing aid wishing his story was video-taped and had gone viral, too? Had Sarah Churman's video received only 2000 views, all of this would've been essentially a "non-story." But instead it churned out some 7.2 million views/hits so far in less than two weeks.
Of course, I don't expect that everybody will share the same sentiments echoing mine when it comes to congratulating Sarah on her successful use of her implantable hearing aid. My approach is to separate myself from Sarah's and leave it at that because I recognize that each of us is different when it comes to our hearing loss, our experience, our upbringing, our preferences to communicate, and whether we successfully used our hearing aids, cochlear implants, other implantable hearing devices (e.g. Baha, Envoy, etc) or none at all (e.g. signing) to our benefits.
Off topic:
I'm disappointed and sad to report this but I am left with no recourse but to report this behavior and continued misunderstanding.
I left a comment at Deaf Echo on a blog piece about Sarah Churman just a few minutes ago. I went back to see if any responses came up (Patti's came up) only to see that my comment was once again removed. I am guessing this has to do with a disagreement and misunderstanding over what I wrote, my opinion several months back (and here) in Febuary 2011. But I wasn't sure if I was still on the banned list (seven months later) and made a screen copy of my comment submission just in case. Sure enough, I'm persona non grata (the new commenting rules can be seen here while the old seen on Feb 2, 2011 can be seen here) for petty reasons, I suppose.
Before at 9:50 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):
Removed at approximately 10:10 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):
As you can see my comment was deleted. Nothing demeaning, hateful, derogatory, or abusive about it as you can clearly see from what I wrote seen in the screen capture. No ad-hominem attacks. No foul language. And certainly not a spam. I think whoever removed my comment needs to have the cojones to look past his/her own petty feelings when it comes to a difference of opinions instead of hiding behind claims of "abusive comments" as reason for the continued blocking. Incredibly, the moderator(s) still refuse to point out exactly which or what comment of mine back in February 2011 was considered as an "abusive comment" which can, frankly, be anything they would want it to be and call it justified. All of my comments have not been abusive nor disrespectful as Candy pointed out before as a witness to this whole charade. Clearly my recent comment seen in the screen capture above is not abusive nor disrespectful at all. Folks, let's learn to let go such pettiness since after all Bobby (one of the moderator of Deaf Echo) said:
Sarah Churman, if you’re reading this, let me start out with a disclaimer. What I’m about to write isn’t about you. If your implanted hearing aid works for you, that’s great. For the moment I say this with all sincerity.
Some of you, including Sarah Churman, might be wondering what I mean by that remark: “…for the moment.” By way of an explanation, let me tell you a story.The one thing that many, many people continue to forget about the viral YouTube video of Sarah Churman was that the Churmans never expected it to go viral in the first place. In the first 8 days since YouTube aired, she has been on the Today Show with Matt Lauer and the Ellen DeGeneres show, and was featured on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Webwise, she was all over the place as well. Pretty good in just a few days time. Technically it'd been about 5 or 6 days time rather than 8 days because it took a few days before the video went viral and that's when the media caught wind of it, both the web and on TV. It went viral with no fault of Sarah's own. She didn't put the video up, her husband did with the encouragement of his mother so that their families and friends would be able to witness Sarah's reaction to her implant being turned on. The video captured accurately that Sarah was hearing herself for the first time. And now some people are heaping scorn at her for a variety of reasons.
Strange world indeed.
Why is it so hard to congratulate a grown deaf adult seeing the immediate (and emotional) success from her implantable hearing aid in a video? A result that took Sarah by surprise at the clarity of sound that was coming in. Why reserve such congratulations to her and instead lament about one's own history struggling with his hearing aid wishing his story was video-taped and had gone viral, too? Had Sarah Churman's video received only 2000 views, all of this would've been essentially a "non-story." But instead it churned out some 7.2 million views/hits so far in less than two weeks.
Of course, I don't expect that everybody will share the same sentiments echoing mine when it comes to congratulating Sarah on her successful use of her implantable hearing aid. My approach is to separate myself from Sarah's and leave it at that because I recognize that each of us is different when it comes to our hearing loss, our experience, our upbringing, our preferences to communicate, and whether we successfully used our hearing aids, cochlear implants, other implantable hearing devices (e.g. Baha, Envoy, etc) or none at all (e.g. signing) to our benefits.
Off topic:
I'm disappointed and sad to report this but I am left with no recourse but to report this behavior and continued misunderstanding.
I left a comment at Deaf Echo on a blog piece about Sarah Churman just a few minutes ago. I went back to see if any responses came up (Patti's came up) only to see that my comment was once again removed. I am guessing this has to do with a disagreement and misunderstanding over what I wrote, my opinion several months back (and here) in Febuary 2011. But I wasn't sure if I was still on the banned list (seven months later) and made a screen copy of my comment submission just in case. Sure enough, I'm persona non grata (the new commenting rules can be seen here while the old seen on Feb 2, 2011 can be seen here) for petty reasons, I suppose.
Before at 9:50 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):
Removed at approximately 10:10 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):
As you can see my comment was deleted. Nothing demeaning, hateful, derogatory, or abusive about it as you can clearly see from what I wrote seen in the screen capture. No ad-hominem attacks. No foul language. And certainly not a spam. I think whoever removed my comment needs to have the cojones to look past his/her own petty feelings when it comes to a difference of opinions instead of hiding behind claims of "abusive comments" as reason for the continued blocking. Incredibly, the moderator(s) still refuse to point out exactly which or what comment of mine back in February 2011 was considered as an "abusive comment" which can, frankly, be anything they would want it to be and call it justified. All of my comments have not been abusive nor disrespectful as Candy pointed out before as a witness to this whole charade. Clearly my recent comment seen in the screen capture above is not abusive nor disrespectful at all. Folks, let's learn to let go such pettiness since after all Bobby (one of the moderator of Deaf Echo) said:
We love a good discussion that drives things forward, and we act aggressively to maintain a good environment for our readers and writers.I've always loved having a good discussion that drives things forward in my blog and in other discussion forums, too. Nothing in my responses were shown to breach that "good environment for our readers and writers" as you can see in my latest comment that was conveniently deleted. But then again, it's their blog and they have every right to do what they feel is right even if it means letting misunderstanding getting the better of them. Yet, I find all this incredulously humorous. And I certainly have a right to blog my opinions on people who simply cannot accept alternative viewpoints and opinions who are unable to simply agree to disagree. Agreeing to disagree is a show of professionalism. Pettiness is not.
Friday, October 07, 2011
Captioned Video: The Doubters of Sarah Churman
Remember the phrase people, deaf people can do anything...even speak really, really well just like Sarah Churman. Even hear pretty good, too! But we still have a hearing loss at the end of the day when we turn off our hearing aids or cochlear implant.
Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Churman
I predicted this would happen a few days ago that Rush Limbaugh would discuss about the YouTube viral sensation of Sarah Churman and the Esteem implantable hearing aid remarkable result and impact on her and to the rest of the viewers. I heard Rush discussed the whole thing over my radio this morning. And his transcript can now be seen on his website.
Congratulations, Sarah!
The video of it on YouTube has gone viral. Millions of people are watching it. They got one thing wrong. She was not deaf. For the Esteem to work, you have to have some hearing. If you're a hundred percent deaf it won't work because it restores your natural hearing using your own eardrum. It's a prosthetic hearing implant, just became available last year, totally invisible. If you were to meet her today you would not see it. The Esteem works with her natural hearing to restore it to near optimum levels. The video I mentioned, you can actually see Sarah, the minute the Esteem is turned on she can hear herself laugh for the first time. She can hear her own voice clearly for the first time. She's so overwhelmed by all of this, something that we all take for granted, that she starts to cry.One thing Rush got wrong was that, yes, Sarah was born deaf. Maybe Rush was thinking in the context as stone deaf but yes, she's deaf and even hard of hearing, too. And now, she's easily hard of hearing to the point when people would automatically assume her to be hearing the way she would speak so clearly.
Now, the video's only a minute and a half long, but it's a couple-Kleenex video. She's crying and laughing so hard, she goes through several tissues. Her husband, Sloan Churman, videotaped the moment for her, and he posts it for family and friends to see that could not be with her in the doctor's office when they turned the thing on. So one person tells another, the video starts to go viral and a week later six and a half million people have seen it or there have been six and a half million views of the video and what made it all possible was the Esteem from Envoy Medical. Now, you can see the video on YouTube, and we're gonna post it at RushLimbaugh.com, too. You can see the Esteem at EnvoyMedical.com, or call them, 800-518-7320.
But you should see this video. The moment it's turned on for the first time in her life she can hear, and it's an amazing thing. If you've never lost your hearing you have no clue what it's like and it's just an amazing thing to see, and it's a fabulous product, and when I saw the video, I said, "That's it! That's the Esteem, that's our client, that's our sponsor." I was proud as I could be, as we only associate with the best.
Congratulations, Sarah!
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
The Sarah Churman Effect
It was amazing to watch a YouTube video of Sarah Churman having her implantable hearing aid called the Esteem turned on for the first time and see her reaction to the clarity of sound around her. Her husband, Sloan, video taped the whole thing and was reluctant to put it on YouTube since it was supposed to be a private moment like getting married or having a baby as Sloan said.
There are one of three things I'm seeing in YouTube comments and elsewhere from people who objected to the whole video taping thing:
1) It's fake. The whole thing was acted out in order to help promote the Esteem implantable hearing aid.
2) The title of the YouTube video was "misleading" and that she didn't really hear her voice for the first time.
3) Her voice sounded too "hearing-like" and could be heard clearly raising questions if her hearing loss is really severe.
First off, check out Sarah Churman's first blog soon after her Esteem was activated describing her awareness about the new sound around here.
Secondly, about people who objected to the title of Sarah's YouTube video need to chill since her hearing loss precluded her from hearing anything of clarity and loudness, especially her own voice, despite wearing a regular hearing aid. We don't even know exactly the kind of frequency loss she has (one guy is asking for the whole nine yard requesting more hearing loss details from her). She could have a higher frequency hearing loss which may prevent her from hearing her own voice and would hear better at a lower frequency such as a male's voice, hence her picking up a Texan accent. I don't know but this is not really a case worth arguing over the title of her YouTube video. Some people are just plain picky and overly demanding.
Thirdly, her voice sounded too much like a "hearing person"? So what? She obtained her hearing aid at age two enabling her an early start on acquiring sound around her. Her speech training must've gone extremely well and with family support. Until more details come forth I'm not overly concerned on how well she speaks. What's surprising is to hear from people who are basically saying that it's impossible for a deaf person to speak to clearly and well that one wouldn't tell if the person is deaf. Those people need to take their brains out of the gutter and stop with the stereotyping of what deaf people can or cannot do, especially on the ability to speak well. This is especially true coming from deaf people themselves which serves only an ironic and hypocritical reminder. Yet people continue with this conspiracy theory thinking something's afoot. Practically insinuating that she is not deaf because there is no way she can speak that well. No way!! Well, get over it folks, she is deaf. She speaks very well. And she has a slight Texan accent. And she wears a $30,000 implantable hearing aid. Her life has improved dramatically with the Envoy Esteem implantable hearing aid allowing her to her the sound around her with increased clarity for the first time in her 29 years of her life.
Congratulations, Sarah!
There are one of three things I'm seeing in YouTube comments and elsewhere from people who objected to the whole video taping thing:
1) It's fake. The whole thing was acted out in order to help promote the Esteem implantable hearing aid.
2) The title of the YouTube video was "misleading" and that she didn't really hear her voice for the first time.
3) Her voice sounded too "hearing-like" and could be heard clearly raising questions if her hearing loss is really severe.
First off, check out Sarah Churman's first blog soon after her Esteem was activated describing her awareness about the new sound around here.
Anyway, I'm supposed to hold the remote up to the device implanted in my skull to activate it and I kept moving it which delayed it being turned on. Just about fainted, then 'viola!' it was on. For you mothers out there.......it was like that moment where time stands still as your baby slips into this world.......I just started crying, then crying more because I could hear myself crying. Then laughing, then freaking out over my laugh. That lead to the shakes and partial hyperventillating. Sloan's boisterous laugh and the grins from the docs was the icing on the cake. Then the tapping of the keys as the nurse lady did something on the computer, followed by the remote being set down on the counter.......I could HEAR it!!! Felt like quite the idiot as I left the center (OMG, Sloan just sneezed in the shower, too funny!) grinning ear to ear.........worse case of 'perma-grin' I've ever had! Stepped outside while Sloan was telling me I was whispering, and walked to the car taking it all in. Foot steps, car doors, engine starting, already tired of hearing myself swallow. Lol. I kept asking "Is this normal? Do you hear that? Does that always do that? Is there a cup rattling around in the back of the car? (WHOA). Made my first phone calls. Called Lari and immediately heard the girls in the background. *Let me take this time to apologize to anyone I've ever called while the girls were chattering..............how the heck do you 'normal folks' hear anything with them in the background?!? Lol. She had Oli tell me "I love you Mommy", then Elise said "I ove you".......I started bawling and had to hand the phone off to Sloan. THAT was an awesome moment. Called my Mom and she was like "Are you talking to me now with the new ear?!?" Called my Dad and if I'm not mistaken I think I heard him get a little choked up. Got to Outback to eat with Alexis and was blindsided by the road noise upon stepping out of the car. The place was on a service road and WOW the highway is NOISY! Hurried up and got inside to get relief from the noise. Could actually hear the servers speaking instead of doing my usual routine of smiling politely and praying to God that they haven't said something I've ignored or not answered. When the waitress brought our drinks on the table I asked Sloan "Do you think she'd find it funny if I asked her to stop slamming the cups and plates on the table?" (I of course knew she wasn't actually slamming anything, I just found it amusing) Real shocker was when she brought my salad and I started to eat. WOW was that loud..........eating a crouton is like fireworks going off. I was certain people 5 tables over were thinking 'you hear that cow chewing?' Sloan and Alexis assured me that no one could hear me chew. Sloan got much satisfaction out of the fact that I promptly started eating with my mouth closed. I've been an avid 'smacker' my whole life.........Her blog description of sound around her and her reaction on YouTube video doesn't strike me as a fake video or that Sarah is faking it. What's interesting is that those noise she's hearing are in the higher frequency range.
Secondly, about people who objected to the title of Sarah's YouTube video need to chill since her hearing loss precluded her from hearing anything of clarity and loudness, especially her own voice, despite wearing a regular hearing aid. We don't even know exactly the kind of frequency loss she has (one guy is asking for the whole nine yard requesting more hearing loss details from her). She could have a higher frequency hearing loss which may prevent her from hearing her own voice and would hear better at a lower frequency such as a male's voice, hence her picking up a Texan accent. I don't know but this is not really a case worth arguing over the title of her YouTube video. Some people are just plain picky and overly demanding.
Thirdly, her voice sounded too much like a "hearing person"? So what? She obtained her hearing aid at age two enabling her an early start on acquiring sound around her. Her speech training must've gone extremely well and with family support. Until more details come forth I'm not overly concerned on how well she speaks. What's surprising is to hear from people who are basically saying that it's impossible for a deaf person to speak to clearly and well that one wouldn't tell if the person is deaf. Those people need to take their brains out of the gutter and stop with the stereotyping of what deaf people can or cannot do, especially on the ability to speak well. This is especially true coming from deaf people themselves which serves only an ironic and hypocritical reminder. Yet people continue with this conspiracy theory thinking something's afoot. Practically insinuating that she is not deaf because there is no way she can speak that well. No way!! Well, get over it folks, she is deaf. She speaks very well. And she has a slight Texan accent. And she wears a $30,000 implantable hearing aid. Her life has improved dramatically with the Envoy Esteem implantable hearing aid allowing her to her the sound around her with increased clarity for the first time in her 29 years of her life.
Congratulations, Sarah!
Monday, October 03, 2011
Dream Team of Scientists Collaborate on Cure for Hearing Loss in Ten Years
Looks like a goal is set by a dream team of stem cell scientists and researchers for hearing loss that sensorineural (nerve deafness) hearing loss would be cured through biological means in ten years from now.
The Hearing Restoration Project (HRP) is a Consortium made up of some of the most talented, creative, inspired researchers in the area of cell regeneration in the ear, both mid-level and senior-level investigators whose work has already contributed significantly to the field. The Consortium is an alliance of scientists working collaboratively and interactively with the goal of developing a biologic cure for severe sensorineural hearing loss in the next decade. At the Summit, experts discussed an area of particular promise: hair cell regeneration in humans.In fact, a summit was held in New York city today.
"Hearing Health Foundation understands that it is important to invest in researchers who are working in hair cell regeneration as this will be an important component in the next wave of hearing treatments," said Andrea Boidman, Executive Director of Hearing Health Foundation. "Hearing research needs to be a national priority, and people need to know that there are treatments on the horizon that could really impact their lives."
Hearing Restoration Initiative 2011 SummitThat's pretty ambitious to say that a biological cure using stem cells for sensorineural hearing loss would happen in ten years time. Certainly would be loads better than an Esteem implantable hearing aid.
The Promise of Cell Regeneration
On Monday, October 3, 2011, DRF will host a Summit on Hearing Restoration at the New York Academy of Medicine, at 103rd Street and 5th Avenue in New York City. As a part of DRF's Hearing Restoration Initiative, this landmark summit brings together the leaders in the field of cell regeneration research in the ear to discuss what it is, where it is going and how one day soon a therapy for cell regeneration in the ear will be a reality.
Doors open at 12pm.
Exhibit Hall hours 12pm to 6pm
Exhibitors include:
- AARP - Caption Call - Caption First
This event is open to the public. Online registration has closed, but you will be able to register on-site.
ASL and CART services will be provided.
For more information, please contact Melody Seiling at mseiling@drf.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)