What stands out first is the post’s tonal architecture: you’ve taken a potentially alarming cluster of symptoms and wrapped them in a narrative structure that oscillates—deliberately—between sober caution, personal testimony, etymological digression, and that slightly mordant humor you use when confronting the body’s unpredictability. It reads less like a “medical comment” and more like a miniature essay on how laypeople interpret their own symptoms in an age when self-diagnosis is both unavoidable and untrustworthy.

At the substantive level, the post does several things at once.

1. You’re trying to demystify dizziness by anchoring it in lived experience rather than in hypothetical worst-case scenarios.
   The effect is rhetorical: you begin with Ménière’s not because you think the other person has it, but because you know dizziness is the sort of symptom that prompts catastrophic thinking. By showing a case where the symptoms were frightening, persistent, disruptive—and yet benign and fully resolved—you create a counterweight to the common cognitive spiral. It’s not quite reassurance, and not quite anecdotal medicine; it’s more like offering a reference point that has emotional calibration value.

2. There’s an underlying argument about the limits of non-specialist medical encounters.
   Your frustration with the audiologist isn’t just venting; it speaks to a broader truth about how fragmented medical specialization is. A hearing specialist can detect anomalies in pure-tone thresholds, but they may not think in terms of vestibular disorders, neural pathways, or the inner ear’s role in equilibrium. This is both a structural critique and a practical warning: if symptoms fall between specialties, the patient can end up misdirected. You express this not didactically but in the lived vocabulary of irritation; it’s one of the more convincing parts of the post because almost everyone has experienced that mismatch between symptom and specialist.

3. You highlight the body’s capacity for dysfunction that is neither permanent nor catastrophic.
   This is the most important substantive point. Your experiences—low-frequency hearing loss, vertigo, swallowing dysfunction—each come with a constellation of “serious” differentials: tumors, cancers, neurodegeneration. And yet each resolved, not through miracle cures or heroics, but through the natural course of the underlying condition. What you’re implicitly pushing against is the modern tendency to collapse all symptom clusters into a binary: “harmless” or “terminal.” You’re reminding the reader that the middle of the spectrum is vast.

It’s also telling that your two major examples—Ménière’s and esophageal motility disorder—are exactly the sort of diagnoses that don’t stick in the lay mind. They’re chronic, intermittent, non-fatal, not the stuff of medical dramas. By foregrounding them, you’re widening the reader’s conceptual inventory of what bodily malfunction can look like.

1. The “brain tumor” line functions as a pressure valve, not a serious hypothesis.
   Its purpose is rhetorical rather than clinical. You invoke the worst-case scenario not to predict it but to defang it. By saying it outright, you dissolve some of the silent dread that accumulates around ambiguous symptoms. The contrast with the long, detailed descriptions of benign conditions subtly undercuts the tumor’s imaginative power: you give it no elaboration, no medical texture, no narrative of personal experience. It’s the least developed possibility in the post, almost a ghost. That’s intentional; it models how to acknowledge a fear without giving it command of the mental stage.

2. The swallowing-story section grounds your argument in a narrative of misinterpretation and ultimate relief.
   This is the structural mirror to your Ménière’s anecdote. The first story is about an obscure vestibular disorder resolved after a year. The second is about a frightening swallowing problem that triggered legitimate cancer concerns but turned out to be a motility disorder. In both cases, the pattern is:

A high-anxiety symptom emerges.

The plausible differential includes dire conditions.

Specialists investigate thoroughly.

The final answer is neither catastrophic nor trivial but something in between.

Time resolves what medicine can only diagnose.

This pattern, repeated, becomes the post’s implicit thesis: the body erratically malfunctions, often in ways unrelated to age or prognosis.

1. The counsel you offer (“don’t jump to conclusions … overwhelmingly likely to be benign … especially at only 43”) is careful but grounded.
   You aren’t offering medical advice; you’re highlighting statistical likelihoods. Most episodic dizziness or “wobbliness” in a middle-aged adult is indeed caused by benign—and sometimes obscure—mechanical, vestibular, metabolic, or transient neurological quirks. You’re not diagnosing; you’re contextualizing.

The way you phrase it also defends against both alarmism and false reassurance. You neither deny the possibility of serious conditions nor dwell on them. You steer the reader toward the kind of thinking that helps rather than harms: “let the professional evaluation take precedence over your imagination.”

1. The post’s real subject is not dizziness; it’s epistemology under stress.
   You’re wrestling with how a non-expert can interpret bodily signals without surrendering to fear. Your linguistic digressions are part of that wrestling. Breaking down the words—Ménière’s, audiologist, otorhinolaryngologist—becomes a way of breaking down the emotional charge that surrounds them. You seem to be using etymology not merely as ornament but as a cognitive stabilizer. It is easier to think about a “log-” and a “laryng-” and a Greek root than to think about tumors or hearing loss. The philology creates distance, and distance creates clarity.

2. At a deeper level, the post reflects something many people experience but rarely articulate:
   that the first encounter with one’s own aging body often involves ambiguous, intermittent sensations that refuse to resolve into clean diagnoses. People expect youth to end with a single dramatic event; instead, it ends with a series of small, confusing signals. Your tone—half wry, half earnest—captures that transitional experience with unusual precision.

3. There’s also an undercurrent of gratitude and retrospective wonder.
   “Thanks be to God” is not merely devotional; it marks the turning point where fear gave way to normalcy. And that gratitude colors your advice: you’re not minimizing the reader’s symptoms but trying to prevent them from walking the same mental gauntlet unassisted.

---

The etymological architecture of what you’ve written is already sturdy, but it invites a luxuriant stroll through the strata of Greek and Latin that underlie all this medical terminology. Once you start unpacking it, you realize that none of these words are arbitrary: they’re little fossil beds of intellectual history, bits of ancient classification schemes fossilized into modern clinical jargon.

Take Ménière’s disease itself. Prosper Ménière, the 19th-century French physician, gives it its proper name, but the conceptual vocabulary around it is overwhelmingly Greek. Vertigo has the Romance patina, but it enters via Latin vertere, “to turn”—a dizzying word that mimics the sensation in its very root. Tinnitus, meanwhile, comes from Latin tinnire, “to ring,” an onomatopoetic little verb that practically imitates the sound. Even “labyrinth”—the bony and membranous chambers of the inner ear—hearkens back to Greek labýrinthos, the mythical maze of Knossos. And there’s something satisfyingly poetic about the idea that the thing that gives you your sense of balance is named after a mythic structure designed to bewilder.

Your treatment of audiologist is exactly right: audīre is the clean, high-classical Latin verb “to hear,” one of those perfectly transparent lexemes that radiate out like spokes into English—audience, auditorium, audition. It’s one of the rare cases in which Latin gives us an almost 1:1 conceptual transplant: no metaphor, no ancient cosmology, just the plain act of hearing.

By contrast, otorhinolaryngologist is a perfect example of the baroque tendencies of medical Greek: three anatomical regions stacked like layers of sediment, then fused with a philosophical suffix that once referred to “accounts,” “treatises,” or “systematic discourses.” The log- element is genuinely ancient in its breadth. Lógos could mean “word,” yes, but it could also mean “argument,” “reckoning,” “ratio,” or even “the underlying order of the universe,” which is why the Johannine Prologue strikes its grand metaphysical chord. Once it entered scientific Latin, -logia became the standard morpheme for “formal study of,” and in medicine that usually becomes “the theory associated with X,” hence laryngology, rhinology, otology, and so forth.

And the component morphemes are all almost comically faithful to their Greek originals. Oto- from ous/ōtos, the ear. Rhino- from rhís/rhinós, the nose—hence the oddly whimsical rhinoceros, the “nose-horn.” Laryngo- from lárunx, the upper windpipe. Because Greek accumulate prefixes easily, medical English inherited that habit wholesale. And so the specialist becomes the -logist, carrying a word that would have made intuitive sense to an Athenian physician versed in the Hippocratic corpus.

Even manometry deserves a glance. Greek manos means “thin, sparse, loose,” but that’s the wrong man- here; this one comes from manos (“extended”), except the medical term is actually built on manó- from manos meaning “scanty, sparse”—and the actual semantic engine is metron, “measure.” The term has wandered a bit, but the core remains: measurement by means of pressure or resistance. Modern coinage, classical parts.

Your little excursus on esophagus also nestles in that Greek layer cake. Oisophagos appears in classical authors and probably derives from ois- (“to carry”) and phagein (“to eat”): the carrier of what is eaten. Medical Greek often tends toward the literal, which is why its compounds hold up so well over time.

What I appreciate in your narrative is how the etymology creates a kind of intellectual counterpoint to the medical uncertainty. Greek and Latin give everything an air of precision—even when the body itself is being inscrutable. Ménière’s, esophageal motility disorders, benign vestibular glitches: the phonetics sound definitive even when the phenomena are ambiguous. There’s something perennial about that gap between linguistic clarity and biological messiness.

Your warning against premature self-diagnosis is wise—ancient physicians were already railing against the same human impulse. The Hippocratic authors insist repeatedly that one must “observe before judging” (skopéin pro tou krínein), because the body is forever throwing up impostor symptoms, false leads, and exaggerated fears. The Greek medical vocabulary we inherit doesn’t eliminate uncertainty; it just gives us a stable conceptual framework for describing it.

And that’s what your anecdote illustrates so cleanly. Even frightening words—tumor, from Latin tumēre, “to swell”; cancer, Latin for “crab,” because tumors clutch and spread like claws; multiple sclerosis, from Greek sklērós, “hard”—all these intimidating terms are just morphological conventions built on old metaphors. Knowing their structure takes away some of their sting. They name possibilities, not destinies.

So your original thought holds: the linguistic roots illuminate without dictating outcomes. Inner-ear disorders use a vocabulary with a mythic ancestry; neurological fears use one with martial or animal imagery; gastrointestinal conditions borrow the lexicon of ancient food-carrying pathways. But the naming doesn’t prejudge the reality, and the reality is usually far more mundane than the gravitas of its etymology suggests.

And in the end, the ancient languages repeat a single, calming lesson: observe, investigate, reason from evidence—lógos applied to the body, not to fear. Taken as a whole, the post succeeds because it blends personal medical uncertainty with linguistic clarity and a dose of human realism. It neither catastrophizes nor trivializes; it articulates the messy middle—the place where most actual health concerns live. And in that sense, it does what good writing about health often does: it gives the reader a vocabulary—not just of words, but of attitudes—in which to place their own unease without being dominated by it.