@Mikhael Re: Restored hearing "miracle"

(This may get a little lengthy, folks. Just letting you know...)

Hey, Mikhael, you seem to be terribly concerned about how somebody who was supposedly deaf could possibly have their hearing restored. Maybe it would help you a little bit to understand how a true and proper modern-day medical evaluation works. Having been a combat medic in the Army, hopefully I can shed a little light on that for you that will allow you to better "judge" these supposed "medical miracles".

For starters, somebody would have to PROVE to me without a doubt that the nun was deaf in the first place. And that is not as easy to do as you might imagine, even with today's advances in medical technology. And, if I am not mistaken, this supposed "miracle" of which we speak took place somewhere in the mid-seventies? In Japan? With the Catholic church calling the shots and deciding who did the hearing "evaluations" on the nun?... Hmmmm.... Dude, just from that ALONE, my bullshit alarms are ringing off the hook. So, let's determine why, shall we?...

Now, before I get started, it might interest you to know that the evaluation method I am about to describe did not get developed until around the early 70's by an American doctor. Therefore, it is highly unlikely this advanced method was used by the Catholic church in Japan by the mid-70's. Anyway, it is called S.O.A.P. Notes, and it is a very simple and consistent method of determining a clinical patient's problem(s) and the best course of action to take. (Different method(s) used for emergency trauma patients, by the way. Just so you know.) Here is what it stands for...

S. (Subjective information) - This is the information provided by the patient telling the medic/doc what is bothering them.

O. (Objective information) - This is what the medic/doc actually observes by looking at the patient and noticing any obvious physical marks/deformities and the patient's overall behavior. Physical exams and testing is done during this stage.

A. (Assessment) - Based on what the patient has told the medic/doc, what the medic/doc observed, and on whatever test results were obtained, this is where the medic/doc determines what is truly wrong with the patient. (Believe it or not, patients sometimes lie about what their true problem might be.)

P. (Plan) - This is where the medic/doc decides what course of action to take such as administering meds, or suggesting therapy, or surgery, or any combination thereof, depending on the assessment.

Granted, I have simplified this just a tad, but you get the idea. So, with this in mind, let us see how this is actually put into practice if I were to evaluate your nun if she had entered my aid station complaining of hearing loss. Starting with the Subjective, the first thing I would do would be to ask her a few questions. When did you first notice your hearing loss? What were you doing at that time of and/or shortly before the time of your hearing loss? Were you around any loud noises at the time of loss or shortly before? Was your head submerged in water at any time shortly before or during the loss? When was the last time you traveled by plane? Have you bumped/injured your head recently or at any time in the past? Do you have any seasonal allergies? Any pain in your ears or head or around your face/nose/eyes? If so, what type? Is it local, or does it radiate to other areas? What makes the pain better or worse? Is the pain constant or intermittent? Do you feel dizzy or lightheaded? Have you had any sinus problems lately? Had a cold or similar illness recently? If so, are you taking any medications for it? If so, what type of meds? Do you hear anything at all, no matter how faint, or are you totally unable to hear any sound at all? Any internal "ringing" noise? (And maybe a few other questions here and there depending on the answers I get from her.)

Notice, I have not yet even started an actual physical examination. Although, the entire time I am questioning her I am looking at her demeanor and how she reacts to certain questions and how she reacts to her surroundings. Obviously, if she claims to be totally deaf, we will be communicating by improvised methods, of course. And even that can reveal important information if closely observed. (I stress again, that patients will often lie about what is truly wrong with them. But that could be an entire other discussion on its own.) Also, at this point, all I have is what she is TELLING ME. And it is up to me to determine how much could be true, how much is half-truth, and how much is simply downright bullshit. Hence the term Subjective Information. But that is where the next part comes in... The Objective information.

Actual testing. Very first thing... check her ears for any type of obstructions, injury, or infections. Simple procedure. Just use an otoscope to look into her ears. Much you can learn from that. Then check her nose, sinuses, and eyes. Check the inside of her mouth and the back of her throat. Maybe even feel her head for bruises, bumps, and swollen areas. Something else I might do during the exam would be to make a couple of sudden loud noises behind her at random and watch closely for a reaction. Maybe even get a co-worker to do the same while I am in front of her. Sneaky, but effective. After all of that, it is likely I would send her to a facility that has an actual hearing lab to have her hearing tested by a specialist. Then I wait for the results and make my Assessment. And depending on what that Assessment is, I would then determine the Plan to fit the Assessment.

Again, I have simplified this considerably for the sake of easy understanding. And that alone should tell you something right there. Because this is pretty much just a very BASIC routine/standard procedure used by all modern-day U.S. military medics to help treat just a standard patient with a standard complaint. And, believe me, the medical world was MUCH MUCH different back in the mid-70's compared to practices and procedures of today. (Meaning they were not nearly as practical or thorough back then.) Furthermore, if you happened to notice some of the questions I asked during the Subjective part of the exam, you might realize there are MANY things that can cause abrupt/gradual hearing loss, and many of those causes can be fixed to help return the hearing to the patient. For that matter, a few of those problems can even correct themselves over time. But even with today's MRI's and CAT scan abilities, without seeing visible physical injury/trauma to the inner ear or related mechanisms, being able to determine if somebody is truly totally deaf is not an exact science. Sometimes you just have to take the patient's word for it. And, yes, deafness CAN BE faked. And even if a person IS genuinely totally deaf, there are a few causes for it that can be self-correcting over time. No miracles necessary. Hope this helps you in some way.