Talk:Tourette syndrome/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Infobox

SandyGeorgia, hi. Moving from "Minor changes" discussion above to down here. Regarding the infobox for Tourette's syndrome, why would a picture of Dr. Tourette go there? For example, would a picture of James Parkinson go in the infobox for Parkinson's disease? Would you suggest that a picture of preseniel onset should not be in the infobox for Alzheimer's disease? Thanks for your thoughts. -Susanlesch 05:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite follow this comment. Your edit removed the image, no? But infoboxes with images attract more readers than infoboxes without one. Perhaps the current image can be improved upon; can you suggest a better image, one that is freely available for use in Wikipedia? Eubulides 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Susan, we don't need to load up the History section with multiple images, GTS is the image most often associated with TS, and it would be rather difficult to include a picture of a tic. The image that is used there now is very high quality, thanks to the effort by Colin to get copyright clearance on the highest-quality resolution. The subject of the images in this article received a good amount of attention at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome, and I feel that the images are satisfactory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. I added an infobox for Dr. Tourette at Georges Gilles de la Tourette. Eubulides, hi, just to clarify. No, not removed, I had just moved him down to the History section but thought maybe he needed to appear sooner. Which happened when SandyGeorgia moved him back up to the infobox. I can try to look for some images sometime but probably not for a while. Maybe someone else will find another one. -Susanlesch 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bestowed

SandyGeorgia, hi. Also from "Minor changes" discussion above. If one types "The eponym Gilles de la Tourette syndrome was be- stowed upon the disease in 1885 by Charcot in honor of his resident" (no quotes) into Google Scholar, the result is the article "Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Further studies and thoughts" by Singer, Pepple, Ramage and Butler in the Annals of Neurology. The article says "The eponym was bestowed by Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–93) on behalf of his resident." Do you think that is a copyright problem? I really don't know much about it. -Susanlesch 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are enough differences there that this looks okay to me, but I have never studied this topic before. I would probably cite that source if it isn't already used here. I can look to see if it is. -Susanlesch 05:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Does the phrase in Google Scholar, "tic convzllsif", look like a OCR glitch? Also, maybe we could spell out Annals of Neurology at the first occurrence. We could add the publisher as well. It looks like "Wiley-Liss, Inc., A Wiley Company" is the current publisher but maybe not in 1978. Maybe that was the American Neurological Association, via Wiley Interscience or John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (interscience.wiley.com)? I love mentioning sources to a fault, sorry. -Susanlesch 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That phrase by itself is not a copyright problem and is not worth citing. You'll find similar phrases in Stubbe's 2006 book (ISBN 078177831X), in Ashwal's 1990 book (ISBN 0930405269), in Stevens's article (PMID 4941435) and I assume lots of other places. Clearly the Singer et al. paper did not originate the phrase and there's no reason to cite it here. Eubulides 06:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Eubulides. Susan, Eubulides is correct. That phrase is common throughout scores of papers and literature about TS; for common concepts, there aren't often many ways to change the phrase and no one has a copyright on common English. The item doesn't need to be cited, the Singer paper would not be a good citation in any case, and there is no copyright issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK if this is covered in the general sources that's fine. The citations follow another model than the one I am used to and I came here hoping to learn a better way. As a rule I learned in FAC that publishers are important so listed some off here but if they aren't useful that's fine with me. Maybe will take a look sometime later. Thanks very much for your replies. -Susanlesch 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

Hi, again SandyGeorgia. Is "Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: Further studies and thoughts" by Singer, Pepple, Ramage and Butler (1978) considered to be old information? That's where I got the idea Lesch-Nyhan syndrome is related to Tourette, "A possible association between the Gilles de la Tourette and Lesch-Nyhan syndromes has recently been postulated." But I only have the abstract to look at. Sorry for the error. -Susanlesch 06:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid a 1978 paper is very old in this field, unless it is sourcing the "History" section. Look at typical publication dates in Tourette syndrome #References. Eubulides 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, Eubulides, since I have limited access. If you read about the History of TS, you'll see that TS research was in its infancy in 1978, and in general,30-year-old data in rapidly evolving fields isn't usually the caliber of information we want to report. Not only is the information old, but it didn't establish that TS and LN were related. The information about TS and LN that was included in the article is quite recent. LN is a differential diagnosis item for TS; there's no indication they are related. (It's interesting, though, to see that Harvey Singer was published on TS 30 years ago.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

PANDAS

Copied from Tony's talk page... The problem sentence is

The unproven and contentious hypothesis that Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS) plays a role in the onset of tic disorders and OCD is a current focus of research.

It is unclear at first whether it should say "plays" or "play". It seems to me that the "Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with" doesn't fit into the sentence, but has been included to introduce the acronym. The sentence is possibly overlong and could be recast. The hypothesis is that

Streptococcal infections play a role in the onset of tic disorders and OCD

In addition, the authors of this hypothesis hold the view that such disorders are (or are sometimes) autoimmune. Combining these two we get the so-called

Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS)

How about

In 2002, a team at the National Institute of Mental Health proposed a hypothesis that both obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and tic disorders may arise in childhood as a result of a poststreptococcal autoimmune process. Children who meet five diagnostic criteria are classified, according to the hypothesis, as having Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS). The hypothesis is the focus of clinical and laboratory research, but remains unproven.

Perhaps I've nicked too much from Kurlan/Kaplan? Is the preceding sentence ("Autoimmune processes may affect tic onset and exacerbation in some cases.") related or independent? If related, then it could be dropped. Colin°^Talk 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Colin's rewording, actually (barring uncomfortably close paraphrasing, I haven't read the source). The "PANDAS hypothesis" doesn't play any role; the hypothesis is that certain strep infection-associated autoimmune disorders play a role in the onset of etc. The acronym isn't fitting in. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problem. Since almost all of my favorite editors are weighing in here, and since I'm traveling, I certainly trust you all to do what's best, insert what's needed. But here are the concerns. I don't have the source here with me, but I'm fairly certain it was described as contentious (it is, *highly*, and the subject of heated debate). Also, I was initially hoping to keep mention of PANDAS to one sentence since it is *so* contentious, and it's best to keep the controversy over on the PANDAS article. The idea was to avoid too much definition in this article, mention that it's contentious and the subject of much research, and keep the rest in the PANDAS article. The preceding sentence is both related and independent; other researchers believe that *something* is may be happening with autoimmunity in perhaps as many as 20% of cases, but that the current PANDAS hypothesis may not be correctly formulated, so perhaps best not to drop that sentence. Does that help? I'd like to keep definitions to a minimum, and we do not need to mention that it's contentious. Thanks all for keeping an eye, and I'll try to catch up when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Colin's version looks fine, but I won't get over there till later to look properly. Tony 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've introduced the text, with the word "contentious". I'll have to take Sandy's word for this since I can't read Swerdlow (where I assume this is covered, given the title is "current controversies and the battlefield landscape"). You could probably get it down to one sentence if you drop the expansion of PANDAS. It is such an awkward acronym. Some difficulties with the new text:

• I wanted to avoid a passive "It has been proposed that ..." so introduced the NIMH. I assume my reading of the paper is correct—they are a team at NIMH. The problem is that, in the article, the sentence sticks out. This section is a collection of facts but I've stuck a bit of history in.
• I don't believe the PANDAS expansion is satisfactory for introducing the hypothesis since it contains an implicit assumption that these disorders are autoimmune. Therefore, I've introduced it using text based on Kurlan/Kaplan. The middle sentence is the best I could come up with that contains the expanded text. Sandy might worry about the use of the word "diagnostic" for a "condition" that may not exist. Both the Swedo et al and Kurlan/Kaplan use the word, though the latter criticise the criteria.
• The text uses the word "hypothesis" three times. Can we eliminate/replace one?

Colin°^Talk 12:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Colin, I'll dig out my sources and catch up with you tomorrow (to verify the "contentious" etc.); one thing that stands out to me is the 2002 date, since I'm almost certain PANDAS has formally been around much longer than that—where did you get that date? TimVickers did a lot of work on the PANDAS article; since I'm still behind, would you be interested in pinging him to ask him to have a look? I seem to recall long discussions with him about how to use the words diagnosis, hypothesis, theory, etc. wrt PANDAS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2002

Colin, I still can't determine the source of the 2002: I know PANDAS has been mentioned as long as I've been following TS. Kurlan's paper references Swedo's first proposal as 1998: Swedo SE, Leonard HL, Garvey M, et al. Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections: clinical description of the first 50 cases. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:264–271 Can we switch or eliminate the date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Swerdlow

Here's the Swerdlow piece (I had it saved online, it's not likely coincidental that he gets through what I consider one of the finest pieces of contemporary writing on the state of TS reserach without mentioning the acronym PANDAS):

What Causes It?

Ironically, before we can agree on what 'it' is, we may need to determine what causes 'it.' There is a growing belief that different biologic pathways may lead to the common TS endpoint. Thus, by identifying one pathway, we can parse patients based on those that did or did not take that route to tics.

Although monozygotic concordance rates suggest that genes must play a central role in causing some forms of TS, this evidence comes from small samples of special cases that may not reflect broader TS populations. At the very least least, the adage that TS follows autosomal dominant inheritance has not been validated by numerous findings that clearly favor a model of multiple susceptibility loci. A shift from certainty (one gene equals one disorder) to probability prompts a search for triggers. Interestingly, this shift also impacts the Huntington's phenotype, which is now believed to follow probabilistic rules based on repeat sequence lengths rather than binary rules based on the presence or absence of a gene. In this vein, perhaps the most controversial putative TS trigger is exposure to streptococcal infections. The ubiquity of strep throats, the tremendous societal implications of over-treatment (eg, antibiotic resistance or immunosuppressant side effects) versus medical implications of under-treatment (eg, potentially irreversible autoimmune neurologic injury) are serious matters. With the level of desperation among Internet-armed parents, this controversy has sparked contentious disagreements, too often lacking both objectivity and civility.

Kurlan has much more to say, and Singer has been a prolific writer on PANDAS as well. Encephalon started to rewrite the PANDAS article years ago with me, but he disappeared. TimVickers has done some work on it. I have most of the important full-text articles if needed. As to Colin's specific question, I've not encountered any researcher disagreeing that there is possibly an autoimmune process at play in a subset of TS patients (that is, as an exacerbating factor, not causative), so I'm OK with the "autoimmune" word. The PANDAS hypothesis involves an autoimmune reaction to the strep. With PANDAS, the trick is to find a way to link over to that article, without too much detail here, since the detail quickly becomes overwhelming, tehcnical, and contentious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the one that says "In 2002, a team at the National Institute of Mental Health proposed a hypothesis..." Clear and avoids any controversial statements. Tim Vickers 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any slack in the current three sentences. So shortening them would require some information loss, which is of course a choice to make. BTW: The same sentence appears in the Causes and origins page. IMO the detail isn't too much for the weight we should give this topic. After all, it was proposed by folk working in a notable research org (not just any old cranks), gets lots of Google hits and is controversial.

I think I get your point about "autoimmune" aspects being considered by those who don't necessarily agree with PANDAS. The bit I didn't like about the expanded text was using the words "Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders" might imply these Pediatric Neuropsychiatric Disorders (tics/OCD) are Autoimmune. That is why I wanted to make it clear that phrase was part of the hypothesis rather than just WP body-text that just so happens to correspond nicely to the acronym. Does that make sense? Colin°^Talk 17:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that problem. It can probably be fixed by adjusting this sentence:

• In 2002, a team at the National Institute of Mental Health proposed a hypothesis that both obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and tic disorders may arise in childhood as a result of a poststreptococcal autoimmune process.

to include mention that this hypothesis applies to only a small *subset* of TS/OCD cases ("proposed a hypothesis that <qualifying statement like "a small subset of"> both ... ". I can't recall if the Kurlan or Swedo or Singer papers discuss just how small this subset is; I'll have to dig into all the sources, unless you have something at hand to define that qualifying clause. The 20% number I have in my notes from a research seminar applies to *all* autoimmune hypotheses (brackets PANDAS), and I don't know if it's a published number. The current sentence doesn't make it clear that this hypothesis, even in the event some piece of it is eventually proven correct as currently formulated (no piece of the hypothesis has yet been validated or enjoys medical consensus), applies only to a small minority. Swerdlow's wording about Internet-armed parents helps explain why the hypothesis is so contentious and still has legs even though it has not panned out under research scrutiny: some parents 1) want to believe there is a non-genetic explanation for their children's tics and 2) hope their children's tics can be "fixed" with antibiotics. That's where it gets dangerous, and the TSA and NIH together issued a joint warning about the prophylactic use of antibiotics and other unproven and potentially dangerous methodologies like IVIG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking the sources, I can't find any quantification of how small the subset is (unfortunately, because it is small). The NIH Pandas info merely quantifies it as a "subset", as do other sources, so I'll just add that wording until/unless I can find a better quantification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Query statement in the lead

"Between 1 and 11 children per 1,000 have Tourette's; as many as one in a hundred people may have tic disorders,[2][3]"

Here's something awkward: I suspect these figures are extrapolations to the US population—both publications appear to be in American journals (not that it proves anything). Does anyone know whether the statement should be constrained by the type of population? (Is it true in Mali and Mongolia, too? Tony 13:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know nobody has done detailed epidemiological studies in Mali or Mongolia, but there isn't that much variation in racial or ethnic groups, so the western estimates are assumed to be valid elsewhere. The range of variation of estimates (1 to 11) is probably due more to other factors (including diagnostic practices) than to type of population. There is obviously some guesswork going on here, as is usual in epidemiology. Eubulides 16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eubulides. TS has been studied in a huge number of countries (not Mali and Mongolia) and there don't appear to be differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On ABC's Medical Mysteries tonight - Tourette treatment

This may not be the regular type of entry, but hope it is not totally inappropriate.

ABC's Medical Mysteries, Wednesday Sept 19. (not a rerun) Exploring Tourette's syndrome, and deep-brain stimulation as a means of treating it. Kiwi 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually sensationalized, I personally won't even bother with it, not mainstream or close to becoming yet, mentioned at Treatment of Tourette syndrome, never likely to become a significant treatment since most TS isn't severe enough to warrant dangerous brain surgery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. My TS is mild, but I tend to knock things over by gross bodily motions that I cannot control (I'm clumsy). I've never had coprolalia, but know where it comes from (but nonetheless have a wickedly dirty sense of humor... um howabout Condi Rice and Mary Cheney (bull dyke daughter of VP Cheney) as the 2008 Republican ticket (listen in your head to what the usual rednecks say, and you'll hear me)). ADHD has been with me all my life (I turn 58 this month). Asperger's is probably the primary diagnosis, as, after nearly 58 years of life, I still remain clueless about many human interactions (one watches, diagrams, explains, but remain clueless when you are on the hotseat). I am also reclusive (AS boys don't need human interaction, though we like it because it stimulates our need for entertainment). I call my diagnosis a conic section of undetermined neurological curiousity. The internet is an ideal AS forum, as one can be stimulated without having to deal with others.--Ace Telephone 14:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

well, i think in my non professional opinion that this treatment might work. i have TS (mild. i have a normal life. thank GOD i dont have coprolalia. that's got to suck) and i think that the problem is caused by my brain going through a loop, which doesn't solve the problem. like an enigma. my brain keeps jamming, and i do whatever motion to clear the jam, but the clearing only brings it back a few seconds later. its kind of like a heart arrhythmya, and how they fix that is shock the heart to make it all one charge, which clears the swirling loops and eddies of electrical current that are the arrhythmea. maybe brain stimulation would do something similar.

The movies - John's Not Mad, I Have Tourette's But Tourette's Doesn't Have Me, and The Tic Code

There should be a "Level 2 headline" of listed movies that are about "Tourette Syndrome." The ones on the "Level 2 headline." And there should also be a "Level 2 headline" on a list of people with Tourette's. Can someone add this. Thanx! Maybe User:SandyGeorgia. She's preety good at doing this stuff.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.193.106 (talk • contribs)

Those are mentioned at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome and don't really belong in the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Slightly OT)

Massive thanks to all the editors on this page. I am a person that has TS, and am about to start a family with my partner. The article (even though not medical advice) is helping us understand what might happen in terms of Genetics along side consulting our GP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.129.176 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

tourettes

I believe that tourettes is a birth defect that can not be controlled. It is not very common in people but can be passed to many —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.182.252 (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really important but mention that South Park covered this in a episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.29.170.125 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Already covered at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome; not appropriate to thsi article per WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wayback machine references?

I have what may be a dumb question. This August change replaced a URL to http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbp/v27n1/23707.pdf by a URL to archive.org. But the scielo.br URL works (at least for me). Shouldn't we prefer the actual source to its archive.org mirror? Or was there some problem accessing the original source at some point? (Similarly for the other archive.org references in this article.) Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In that particular case, I can't recall; it must have been temporarily unavailable when I changed it to the archive? Moving it back to the original source would be fine, although I did come across a recommendation somewhere sometime to link to permanent versions whenever one could. I don't know where that was. In the other cases, it's a different story. The TSA, for a reason I can't fathom, changes its URLs quite regularly—sometimes every few months. Rather than having dead links throughout the article, we moved them all to internet archive links that can be checked and updated less frequently. I am hoping that someday it will become apparent why the TSA is doing this. Do they not want people to link to their site? Do they have a volunteer working on upgrading their site, so that the changes are sporadic? I don't know. Until their site stabilizes, I'd like to leave the links to the archive. I'd rather check and update them every six months than every month. If I knew a "friend of the TSA", I'd ask someone to inquire why they are doing this, but the TSA isn't good at returning phone calls, and I don't know anyone who can get a straight answer as to why they don't use stable URLs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't run across references to the Wayback Machine that often in Wikipedia, and I'm a bit surprised that it would be recommended in general. Typically I'd want to encourage people to explore the current state of a external site, and not look back at a frozen and possibly outdated snapshot. I can certainly understand why the TSA might be a special case, though. Eubulides (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I did notice one other usage of the Wayback Machine: the citation to Peterson & Cohen 1998 (PMID 9448671). This one is a bit dicier than the TSA: if J Clin Psychiatry purposely withdrew that article from free access, we probably shouldn't bypass that by going to the Wayback Machine. Eubulides (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been so long since I picked up the notion of linking to the internet archive somewhere on Wiki that there's no chance I'll remember where I came across it. Interesting point on the J Clin Psychiatry, and I wonder what Wiki policy/guideline or copyright law would say. I don't care if we delete that link, but there was actually someone (about a year ago) who aggressively challenged the sentence it is citing, which is why I dug up the full-text back then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT #Linking to copyrighted works says, "It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine," but it also says, "… if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The J Clin Psychiatry website says that you need to be a Gold member to access supplements (Peterson & Cohen 1998 was in a supplement), and that you can become a Gold member for free but registration is required. It also says that many supplements are available to the general public for a limited time. A plausible scenario is that the article was purposely available to the general public only for a limited time. If so, I suspect that we shouldn't link to the Wayback Machine's copy; being the cautious type, I removed the link. Eubulides (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good; the kinds of statements that were challenged a year or so ago are now more widely accepted and available in many sources, so I hope I won't have to back up that one again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Life expectancy

I'm not sure that one can assert that life expectancy is 'normal' with Tourette syndrome. It only takes one person whose life has been shortened due to bodily harm inflicted because of an mis-interpreted inappropriate comment or action for this not to be correct! Talltim (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Life expectancy stats are not, to my knowledge, affected by such anecdotal incidents. Please try to keep discussion serious. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely life expectancy stats would be affected by anything that affects life expectancy? you would say that life expectancy of someone on a battlefield was reduced, yet that is anecdotal. Having any condition that may put you at a disadvantage (or even at an advantage) socially can affect your life expectancy, just not necessarily in a direct way such as in my first post. And why should discussion be serious? Talltim (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Classification

"Tics are sudden, repetitive, stereotyped, nonrhythmic movements (motor tics) and utterances (phonic tics) that involve discrete muscle groups." I can see all of these being valid medical descriptors except for 'stereotyped.' This word just doesn't fit in this sentence. I am not saying tics are not stereotyped, just that it doesn't belong in the description. Entbark (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain why it doesn't fit? It fits grammatically (it's an adjective) and it fits semantically (stereotypy is close to repetitiveness). Tic gives "sudden, repetitive, stereotyped, nonrhythmic movement" as part of its definition. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also correct per a multitude of references. No idea why someone would remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone knows what 'stereotyped' means in medical jargon. Someone probably read it and thought it had something to do with race or gender (e.g., playing with dolls is a (socially) stereotypical behavior for girls). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rage epilepsy?

Someone has created a new article at Rage Epilepsy, which is supposedly connected to TS. It looks suspect to me (like someone is using Wikipedia to publish a new theory), but I don't know much about this area. If some of the regular editors for this article would please take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First, there's no such thing as either "rage epilepsy" or "rage attacks". Second, what has come to be colloquially referred to as "rage" by some parents has never been shown to be related to Tourette syndrome by any study. That article needs to be AfD'd, it is not based on any reliable sources, and there is no such entity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Between 1 and 11 children per 1,000 have Tourette's; as many as one in a hundred people may have tic disorders

1/100 == 10/1000. 11/1000>10/1000. There need to be better statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.19.242 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I made this change to use the same denominator in both cases, so that it's easier to compare the numbers. The denominators are different (one is 1,000 children; the other is 1,000 people), so there is no contradictoin that 11/1000>10/1000. Eubulides (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

tourette's guy

Should we add something about the tourette's guy? He is pretty famous on youtube--Dlo2012 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MEDMOS; not only did he not likely have TS, he has no relevance to enduring perceptions of the condition. And, TSguy was the subject of about four AfD's on Wiki; not notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help to cleanup related article

Hello. I just stumbled on Teaching Students with Tourette Syndrome through the uncategorized projects. The content seems to be taken from another wiki (with a compatible license) but it's a bizarre article. At the very least it needs to be wikified but, currently, it does not read like an encyclopedia article. Nevertheless, there's a lot of salvageable content and I think a cleanup would be well worth the effort. I myself have no background in psychology so I'm hoping to find some competent, motivated editor(s) here. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm. I'll go have a look. I highly doubt that it's notable. Thanks, Pichpich. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, three links to commercial stores buried among a lot of fluff. Troubling that I'm also finding issues with pushing the books, products and website of Carol Gray, http://www.thegraycenter.org in other articles on Wiki, like social stories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)