[log in to unmask] writes:

>Many researchers believe that Beethoven's hearing may have been affected
>by the treatments he sought out, rather than the actual Syphilis, because
>he didn't have it long enough for the late manifestations to present
>themselves with enough power to affect his hearing.  He definitely knew
>he had the disease, but he most likely tried to cure himself with the
>assistance of doctors and charlatans while he was in the secondary stage.

With all due respect I have a hard time with the phrase "many researchers."
Same goes for phrases like 'medical science is divided on Beethoven
deafness' or modern specialists agree Beethoven had (pick any disease you
so choose) oto-sclerosis of the mix type.  It sounds impressive but when
one takes the end of the rope and try to follow where it starts it becomes
less impressive.  Some might take offense to my "bizarre weird way of
reasoning" that was referred to me, but I am seeing a lot of smoke but
no fire.  For example, most biographies seem to agree that Beethoven was
deaf at the end of his life.  If I read that an expert says Beethoven had
oto-sclerosis, where is the expert reasoning that justifies the statement.
If the statement is in error, it needs to be corrected.  So being deaf is
a very key piece of evidence that absolutely refutes the oto-sclerosis
theory of middle ear disease yet in many books and web sites this is still
mention as a possibility.

This reminds me of the statement I read in magazines that scientists say
humans use only 15% of their brain.  What scientists? Where? Where is the
proof? I hear people say that we'd be like Einstein but that doesn't ring
too impressive to me but it certainly lacks scientific reasoning.

Glenn Miller