@wondering1 - YES! As a matter of fact, she said crystals in the inner ear can become dislodged and cause Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV). I had that a few years ago (not related to vibration plates), and fortunately the Epley maneuver resolved it immediately. She also discussed the potential risk of retinal tears or detachment in susceptible individuals.

One of her main criticisms was that the Osteoboost study was small (64 women in the treatment group and 64 in the placebo group), yet the marketing has been much broader than the evidence. The placebo group wore an identical belt that emitted sound but did not vibrate.

Lani's interpretation was that the belt did not build new bone or increase bone density. At best, it appeared to slow the rate of bone loss compared with doing nothing. Among participants who used the device at least three times per week, spinal bone strength declined by 0.48% over 12 months versus 2.84% in the placebo group, but both groups still lost bone.

As Margaret Martin has pointed out: "In clinical research, a trial is considered negative if it misses its main objective (the primary endpoint). In the Osteoboost trial, there was no statistically significant difference in bone density between the active group and the placebo group across the full study population."

One small caveat: the statement that the belt "doesn't build new bone" is an interpretation of the trial results rather than something the study directly proved. The trial failed to show a significant improvement in bone mineral density (its primary endpoint), but it did report some positive findings in bone strength measures among adherent users. Whether those secondary findings are clinically meaningful is where the experts disagree. I hope this helps.