Talk:Spasmodic dysphonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spasmodic dysphonia article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] DAF

One person with spasmodic dysphonia reported that a delayed auditory feedback (DAF) anti-stuttering device improved his speech. Tdkehoe 03:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reports

There are instances reported in which singers have been diagnosed with spasmodic dysphonia in the singing voice, but not in the speaking voice--Krsbar 01:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring

I am restoring the subsection on abductor spasmodic dysphonia, removed by 67.188.121.101 on 3 October. No reason was given for its removal and it leaves a conspicuous abscence. Redglasses 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Adams

a link to watch: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/good_news_day.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.98.10.169 (talk • contribs) .

Has it been confirmed that Scott Adams is the first person in history to recover from this? It looks like it's just hearsay from his doctor, who may have just told him candidly that he doesn't know of anyone who has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.210.54.122 (talk • contribs) .

He hasn't recovered. He still has a severe voice problem. What people say in writing and how they sound in person might SHOCK you.

I am going to add the word "known" in front of it for now. Kyle824 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added a {{self-published}} tag, since we are using a primary source. As soon as a reliable secondary source appears (not some blog, please!), replace it and remove the template. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording to reflect the possible unreliability of the source (and removed the self-published tag)Gjc8 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a rather fascinating update: [1]. Should something be added to the article about Dr. Morton Cooper's treatment methods and his allegations that the NSDA is biased because it receives funding from Allergan, the company that sells Botox? Esn 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I just did it. These are, of course, rather serious claims and allegations, so it will be interesting to see what happens now. Esn 06:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Morton Cooper was once asked by voice specialists to verify his treatment results. That is, simply send their patients to these doctors, no charge. Seems simple, wouldn't you say? He wholeheartedly refuses. He also charges each patient $20,000 - $30,000 for his "cure" and not a SINGLE case has been verified as cured after treatment. He just talks and talks about them being diagnosed by all these macho hoopla doctors. But shies away real fast when asked for legitimate confirmation. It's awful he prays on such an innocent community.

If it looks like a duck...

Although Dr. Cooper has been known to be somewhat eccentric, I disagree with the last statement. My wife was diagnosed with SD in the late 90's and paid for a week's session with Dr. Cooper. She aggressively applied his techniques and today speaks and sings wonderfully. The misconception seems to be that Dr. Cooper is offering a "cure", as opposed to a "technique" that requires the patient to apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.117.173 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If Mr. Cooper had a cure or a treatment "technique" that worked, he would PROVE the results through blinded, objective ratings of post-treatment voices by outside specialists in the field. Come on, it's been years he's been claiming to "cure", "help" people, etc. How hard is it to do some double-blinded objective ratings of these supposed results? The that he doesn't and won't means he does not care at all about SD patients. Oh wait, that also might make him lose the shred of credibility he has among the desperate. Testimonials sell better as the general population is mildly naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DebENT (talk • contribs) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a blatant advertising tag for this treatment section. It reads like an ad, directs to his web site, and the ad copy appears to original research by Cooper himself.Jas public (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarized?

Much of this article appears to have been copied/paraphrased from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13856 . -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.229.241 (talk • contribs)

  • I've removed the plagiarized sections, keeping only the most obvious statements. Although the article is now in tatters, it shouldn't be deleted as there is plenty of opportunity for improvement. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clipping out the offending content. I'd rather have the article improved than deleted myself. --Aarktica 12:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the first version of this article is marked: "text from http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/spasdysp.asp U.S. National Institute on Deafness and Communication Disorders Publication No. 97-4214 {{PD-USGov}}". Anything on that page can be put back here. Also, it is possible that the medterms page has been copied for here. -- RHaworth 00:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sciencewatcher

Wikipedians, I'm not sure how we should handle the contributions of Sciencewatcher. He seems to troll Wikipedia stating that medical diagnoses are psychiatric (for example, see Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - discussion). This behavior seems to be meanspirited. Anyone else have any thoughts on how to handle this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E4043 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. I update articles to remove urban folklore, correct misinformation, or add alternative mainstream viewpoints to controversial articles which have a POV bias. POV bias happens quite a lot for psychosomatic illnesses, because many patients do not like a psychosomatic diagnosis. However that is not a good enough reason for blocking the information.
With SD (and CFS) there is sufficient evidence to say that the illness could be psychogenic or psychosomatic in nature, and many doctors and researchers share that view, so it really should be included in the article. You might not like it, but that is not a reason to block the information from the article, as you seem to be doing.
If you look at the reference I added, you'll see that SD patients have higher psychiatric diagnoses than patients with a similar organic voice disorder, so that would suggest that psychiatric symptoms in SD patients are not purely secondary to having a chronic illness. --Sciencewatcher 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. You present a biased selection of articles that argue your point that patients with medical conditions are nuts, instead of presenting all of the data, most of which supports an organic cause to these conditions. I can't help but question your motivation and sense a malignancy behind your motives. I also can't help but question whether you carry a psychiatric diagnosis. Your behavior seems rather "pot calling the kettle black." E4043 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is calling patients "nuts" apart from you, and that comment alone shows your motivation for wanting to remove the information.
I don't carry a psychiatric diagnosis (and it is rude of you to even suggest so), and my motivation is in giving patients all of the relevant information, which you seem to be wanting to deny them.
I agree that the psychiatric cormorbidity studies show incompatible results. However there is no actual evidence that SD is organic - no physical abnormalities have ever been found. And there is other other evidence to suggest that SD could be a psychiatric condition. --Sciencewatcher 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you can use whatever linguistic spin you want to justify your position, but the bottom line is that when you push aggressively for a "psychogenic" or "psychiatric" etiology to a condition, you are doing nothing less than stating that the patients are nuts. I have no desire to deny patients any information -- as you can see I resisted deleting your silly article from Swiss Medicine Weekly -- I just think it's inappropriate that you have a propensity to push for a psychiatric diagnosis instead of being unbiased in light of conflicting information that supports an organic (medical) diagnosis. User:E4043 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you a doctor? What kind of doctor tells his patients they are "nuts"?! And calling the review "silly" just because you don't agree with it and saying the Swiss Medicine Weekly is "not a respected source" when it is a respected peer-reviewed medical journal certainly doesn't help your case.
All of the evidence you put in for a neurological basis is purely circumstantial. As I said, there is no definitive evidence. I'm not pushing for a psychiatric view - I'm merely putting in the information that you seem to want to keep of the article because you apparently believe that your psychiatric patients are all "nuts". There is no clear evidence either way, so the best we can do is to put all of the information in for both viewpoints. --Sciencewatcher 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symptoms?

Can someone please add a section on symptoms? It would help round out information on this disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.24.226 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)