Talk:Guillain–Barré syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Areflexia, hyporeflexia

anyone think that Areflexia (loss of reflexes) or hyporeflexia (diminution of reflexes) should be either listed under diagnosis or symptoms? Cal 19:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a symptom, but it is extremely important in distinguishing GBS from, say, a high-cervical cord lesion. I agree it should be listed under signs or diagnosis. JFW | T@lk 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

UK patient

The tangent on the patient from the UK, "A.L." does not fit on a scholarly article on GBS. It seems self promoting, either of the patient or of the great doctor who treated her. I don't feel comfortable with having the patient name included. The article would be better served on discussing typical disease presentation with only brief asides to anecdotal reports. It lacks a citiation to boot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnapse (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Immunization

• WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU GUYS DOING?!?! Excuse me but am I the only one who thinks it's a little drastic to make the entire Guillain-Barre page disappear because some paragraphs are being disputed for copyright infringement. This is a really important article. Get it back up here ASAP.19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not associated with immunization, at least for about 10 years or so in the UK[1]. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the claim that "Guillain-Barré syndrome may also be associated with immunizations..." This makes it sound like immunizations in general raise a risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome. I know that the Swine Flue vaccine caused cases of Guillain-Barré, but I'm not aware of a general risk. Maybe the sentence should read "Guillain-Barré syndrome may also be associated with some immunizations" or "Guillain-Barré syndrome may also be associated with some vaccines." Does anybody have more information? --75.19.110.50 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the latest edition of Harrison's Internal Medicine textbook, there are several vaccines implicated in the trigger of GBS: the swine influenza vaccine in 1976 and older types of rabies vaccine. I'm not aware of any current vaccines that poses such a risk (otherwise they would've been removed by now). Andrewr47 15:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am an alternative doc (homeopath) researching the effects of immunizations on GBS. Based upon what I have read, I suspect that the incidence of GBS would be equally as high or possibly higher in the population that actually got the swine flu over those who were immunized back in 1970s. Does anyone know of a study that compared these rates? I am off to do a PUBMED search. (Drpolich (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Answered my own question. The incidence of GBS in the vaccinated population was 0.76 % while the unvaccinated population who had flu-like symptoms was 7.6% (Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Feb 1;169(3):382-8. Epub 2008 Nov 24. Investigation of the temporal association of Guillain-Barre syndrome with influenza vaccine and influenzalike illness using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database.) Thus I conclude that you are better off getting the vaccine. See all homeopathis are not irrational! lol (Drpolich (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Guillain-Barré-Strohl?

I'm looking at a page ([2]) that lists the name as "Guillain-Barré-Strohl syndrome." Is this correct? Should this page be moved? Blast-san | Talk 14:05, 07.28.06

Here's [3] a suggestion that the reason Strohl was dropped from the name is that he left the field of Neurology and became a professor of Physiological Medicine instead. I've also seen references to Landry-Guillain-Barre-Strohl Syndrome. However, for whatever reason, the most common usage is Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Gavroche42 05:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Spread by Flu Shots in the 1970s?

Someone I know said he was paralyzed by this condition for approximately a year after receiving a flu shot in the 1970s. Another lady told me her husband died in the 1970s after such a shot while in the Coast Guard. Supposedly there was a class action suit against Squib based on this at one point but nothing became of it.Tom Cod 07:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

---

New Comment:

Given the recent conerns about the current strain of swine flu, it might be worth providing a link to the 1976 swine flu page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak ) for people to go from one to the other. 68.191.255.194 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Very Jargon-y

This article uses a lot of technical medical language, perhaps the opening para could be simplified? --jazzle 11:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the only disease-related page on Wikipedia that I've surfed to and been unable to understand. It's not just the first paragraph. Can we please simplify the language? Naptastic (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidence/Prevalence

This article could be improved with some stat on how many people are affected every year etc 159.92.30.108 09:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please improve the mention of “incidence” in the opening paragraph of the Article. It should clarify incidence after exposure to WHAT. Rahul (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What does House have to do with this disease

I don't think a description of the plot of House is necessary Vickfan 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

DaxFlame

Twice now, though separated by a significant lapse of time, I have removed DaxFlame from the Notable Patient list. Thought I would comment here why I chose to do so. First, there is a question of his notability. He doesn't have an entry on himself. Perhaps he deserves one. But I feel there's an argument that if the individual isn't notable enough to at least have a wikipedia stub, putting them on the list is clutter.

Second, and more importantly, there isn't sufficient evidence that he has/had Guillain Barre. The acronym GBS appeared on his blog. From that people have assumed he meant he has Guillain Barre Syndrome. He could have meant he was a fan of George Bernard Shaw. Other possible meanings could be derived. Three letters on a blog isn't sufficient evidence. Even if it does reference Guillain Barre, he could have meant someone he knows has it. Or even he wants people to think he does. Gavroche42 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Experience - G-BS or TM?

I had this several years back - full recovery after 2 years. (Putting an architect in a wheelchair for two months is no bad thing!) I was admitted to a teaching hospital where there was some discussion about whether it was Transverse Myelitis (I think it was called) or GBS. They elected to call it G-BS just to put it in a box, I think. But I wonder if TM should get a mention?Salisian 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed bold paragraph

I removed this paragraph:

The majority of patients experience GBS as the frightening illness it is. Patients may be almost completely paralysed for a while. In very serious cases, the entire body can be paralysed, even including the eye muscles. GBS can, very rarely, present with coma and absent brainstem reflexes. Such patients are NOT brain dead; their brains and sense of hearing and smell work perfectly well, and the patient is alert and conscious of what is going on around him or her. But he/she may literally not be able to move a muscle in response. Some such patients are proceded to organ retrieval despite respiratory efforts (breathing spontaneously) and despite physical findings, ie bowel sounds and anatomic reflexex (tachycardia and hypertension) which support normal subcortical functions inconsistent with 'whole brain death'. Understanding GBS is to see it for the nightmare that it really is.

I think it is probably innapropriate. Certainly the bold face is. If this is to go back in I think the style needs to be changed. I also believe that most of this information already appears in the article. Sewebster 16:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right to remove this. It has the tone of sub-tabloid journalism rather than science and is completely un-referenced. There are currently no reports of patients who have been declared brain-stem dead surviving more than a few days even with the best medical therapy. Anyone who was breathing spontaneously by definition could not be declared brain-stem dead and therefore could not go for organ retrieval. Nonsense. andymar 15:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I don't have access to the cited journal, but the article read like a journal entry for patient diagnosis and treatment.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was your complete blanking of the article part of some official administrative action? I ask because I'm the editor who put the {{copyvio}} tag on the article (and on one other heavily enhanced by the same editor) back on 26 July. Yours is the first corrective action of any kind I've seen since then, but I'm not sure it's the right one because if indeed a copyvio is decided/declared, the article can be reverted to its state before the editor in question got involved. --CliffC 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the blanking editor's talk page but have had no response thus far. We can't leave a blank article about so serious a subject in place, so I'm removing the {{copyvio}} notice and reverting all the way back to 18 May 2007, just before the string "Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy is about as bulky and awkward a name as there is" appeared. --CliffC 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me awhile to get back to you, I had to go out of town suddenly. If there is a question of copyright it is customary to blank the questionable content or revert to an original version. If you have already done so then there shouldn't be a problem. Cheers —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to see someone who had never edited the article come along and blank it in such a casual and disruptive manner. Please give the consequences some more thought the next time you chance upon a copyvio tag. --CliffC 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The right action was taken, when you encounter a copyvio you report it and blank the article. Otherwise people will keep editing the article which then will be even more based on a copyvio. Or revert it to a non-copvio version but that wasn't that obvious in this article. Garion96 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I had never reported a copyvio before, and since I saw copyvio as a very serious allegation I tried to follow the instructions scrupulously. I added the one-line notice generated in the expanded copyvio notice to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_July_27/Articles , which page provides no further advice. Seeing the text "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue" and "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing" in the expanded notice, I sat back and waited for the authorities to arrive with an official decision as to whether a violation existed. I see that Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions gives further instructions (including how to notify the violating user); perhaps the copyvio template needs some "what to do next" instructions linking to those instructions. Anyway, now I know, although I'm not sure that the next editor will. I stand by my belief that blanking, without discussion, an article bearing a copyvio tag placed days earlier by another editor is not the right thing to do. --CliffC 14:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations - an update

An IP user introduced a stream of undetected copyright violations to Guillain-Barré syndrome and other medical articles over three months from May 18, 2007 to August 18, 2007, creating such a tangled mess that three months of edits by every contributor to this article had to be purged. For the record, that user was 208.101.102.186, a WHOIS shows the user to be located in the Ontario area.

A similar copyright violation was posted to the article yesterday by 208.101.116.108, also in the Ontario area. Let's all keep our eyes peeled to avoid losing our edits again. --CliffC (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, another copyvio today, 208.101.87.27, also Ontario area. --CliffC (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

dumb stuff

Excuse me--should the fourth word in this article--the one with the "4" footnote--be "etc" rather than "ect"? Perhaps my judgment is clouded because I am recovering from a 1 September 2007 attack of Guillain-Barre myself; if I missed something in this debate forgive my physical and mental limitations for that reason. Oh--by the way--all of you who are complaining about or wanting to delete the "emotional" paragraph in this article really make me want to wish this disease on each of you. Its onset scares the living hell out of you. Edit the emotionalism out of this paragraph if you wish but don't lose its underlying awareness of the terror one feels in going from "healthy" to "totally paralyzed" in 45 minutes. Wikipedia brings out the best and worst in its contributors, it seems to med; best wishes to all you confreres! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay2 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

dumb stuff

Excuse me--should the fourth word in this article--the one with the "4" footnote--be "etc" rather than "ect"? Perhaps my judgment is clouded because I am recovering from a 1 September 2007 attack of Guillain-Barre myself; if I missed something in this debate forgive my physical and mental limitations for that reason. Oh--by the way--all of you who are complaining about or wanting to delete the "emotional" paragraph in this article really make me want to wish this disease on each of you. Its onset scares the living hell out of you. Edit the emotionalism out of this paragraph if you wish but don't lose its underlying awareness of the terror one feels in going from "healthy" to "totally paralyzed" in 45 minutes. Wikipedia brings out the best and worst in its contributors, it seems to me; best wishes to my contributing confreres (most of whom can type much faster than I can now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay2 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)