Contents

Talk:Seizure

Medicine: Neurology Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as High-importance).

I am not a professional in the medical field and I found this article way too confusing to follow. For now I'll go elsewhere to gather information. However most Wikipedia articles I have had no trouble following-- even if I am not a subject matter expert for whatever topic the article is covering.

For someone who has the aptitude I think the whole page would benefit from a re-write.

Erik

Seconded. For a reader who just wants to know what a seizure is, this is a hopeless article. These jargony medical articles really are the scourge of Wikipedia.

• I think the entire reason people have a problem with this is they come to this page with the mistaken idea that seizures are just something that make you shake, types of seizures, and not all result in convulsions or tremors, with a note to scroll down would appease those who are looking for a simple explanation rather than an explanation of what a seizure actually is

There is a question whether "temporal lobe epilepsy" (the more common term these days is "partial complex") is actually overdiagnosed in surrealists and individuals sympathetic to surrealism who are self-consciously attempting to practice surrealist theory, particularly as regards the interictal aspects of TLE (though the notion of an "interictal personality" has come under some question). The practice of automatism, for instance, tends by its nature to result in hypergraphia, and, moreover, the founder of surrealism, Andre Breton, wrote that "here as elsewhere, quality becomes a function of quantity" and "there is no subject upon which one should refuse to speak and write voluminously."

Brand X.

Daniel C. Boyer

Mention of automatisms in particular should bring up question about existence of the Pre-automatic dictatorship. --Daniel C. Boyer

• • Daniel,

How do these surrealists manage to fool the EEG into recording epileptical activity if they don't really have EEG. Even NES don't show up as epileptical activity

I noticed that petit mal seizure has its own article, and assumed that the link provided at the bottom there for grand mal seizure meant that the latter also has a seperate article. Oops. siafu 18:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps petit mal seizure should be merged here. JFW | T@lk 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The terms petit mal and grand mal (as well as a few others) have fallen into disuse. The accepted medical phrasiology is used almost exclusively now. The seizure types article goes into detail about this. sinewave^Talk   23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've largely replaced the text here. The phrase "semi supine position" is probably unintelligable to 99% of the population and the recovery position is well known and recommended. In addition, the advice to "apply strong upward pression on the chin" goes against recommended treatment and is potentially dangerous. Finally, the need to call paramedics is overstated, causing additional embarrasment to those with epilepsy who have a typical seizure.

I am aware the Wikipedia is not a First Aid Manual. However, removing this section will merely perpetuate the ignorance of the general public in treating seizures. The section "Responding to a seizure" in epilepsy covers similar ground. IMO, the focus of the two articles is not currently well defined, with the epilepsy article covering much that should be in the seizure article. --Colin 21:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure, but I heard of a treatment in psychology class where there was some kind of left-brain right-brain ectomy to stop some kind of seizure. I'm not familiar with the term, but it involved cutting the connections that where between the left and right brain. Just wondering if anyone knew the info. I'll look through my old notes just to make sure I'm simply remembering something else from psych.

Have a look at epilepsy – surgical treatment. You are probably thinking of callosotomy --Colin 09:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of a hemispherectomy. They are performed mostly in kids because their brains can recover. They also do resecting and lobectomies in adults. -SP

I think the bit at the end about animals sensing seizures before they happen is at best controversial. -paul 22/4/06

It is extremely controversial and actually ridiculous. -Rob 30 May 06

Agreed: unnecessary, bordering on ridiculous. Preacherdoc 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Preacherdoc[reply]

Well, have a look at seizure response dog, follow the links/references. (Note: I have modified this article since the above comments were made) Colin°^Talk 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first aid treatment for sezure is don't touch or press the patient, don't put any thing into the patient's mouth and remove all dangerous stuff away from the patient. When the patient finished with the fit, put the patient into a recovery position, by put one hand under the patient's head and another hand acroos over the body,the led of the side that the arm across over also across the body so that the patient will have a good airway and won't roll around, if the patient is unconscious. Then call the ambulance if there's injuries to the patient or the fit lasted for more than 5 minutes or another fit start. Fist aider of St. John Ambulance

The terms here are out-of-date. Phrases such as "petit-mal" and "grand-mal" were consigned to the medical history books long ago. The International League Against Epilepsy have classified seizures and defined the terms used by doctors today. This section would be much improved if it was more complete and used the modern terms. There is duplication here with the epilepsy article section "Types of Seizures". I think the section belongs here and the epilepsy article should concentrate on seizure disorders, associated diseases and chronic management of the condition. --Colin 21:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. Epilepsy classification by etiology and syndrome; seizure classification by clinical semiology; up-to-date ILAE terminology in either case; with 'grand mal' and 'petit mal' defined for historical reasons. I'll undertake to do this sometime when I have 4 or 5 hours free unless there are further objections. -Ikkyu2 21:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so, Ikkyu2. I think you're qualified enough for that monumental task. References especially welcome. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the parenthetical references to grand mal and petit mal throughout. I included a brief statement about them falling into disuse after 1970, and encouraged readers to visit the Seizure types main article for details. Fracture^Talk   08:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be an uninformed person here, but can anyone exactly say what a seizure is. I had some in 2004 so I really still do not understand any of the information provided. Send the info to my chat box if anyone knows it. Is it a cause in a person's attitude, a change of mentallity, a sexual thing that occurs from certain sensations, or a taste of liquids?--Zhang Liao 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where else to say this, but I got rid of the "seizure warning" section on this page, because this could make EVERYONE sick by watching it. That is not a good idea to have a site such as that there, I might have a tiny tiny bit of med-induced seizure side effects, but watching that for a split second made me sick, and I had to cover my eyes just to close the link. For everyone's safety, and particularly for epileptics, I deleted that section.

In a seizure, the pistons expand from too much heat, become too big for the walls of the cylinders, seize them, melt to them sometimes, and lock the engine and rear wheel and start the whole cycle into a skid. -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

I didn't see a place to put this, so I'm going to put it here. Maybe there will be a disambiguation page created one day. -- Sy / ^(talk) 17:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

This is an attributable entry and the facts contained herein are non-negotiable and such fact cannot be hotly disputed. It is not a strong view, just a presentation of fact. It is NOT original thought nor opinion.

I have responded unfavorably to (hope this has been resolved on my talk page) Jfdwolff who demanded the following:

"Unless you can demonstrate unequivocally that the professional societies approve the use of cannabis for seizures, or you can demonstrate that a very large subgroup of epilepsy patients uses cannabis specifically to prevent seizures, I'd very much like you to keep this material out of Wikipedia."

None of that is required nor part of Wikipedia's standard (but was really only about original thought) WP:NPOV WP:ATT

Tampering with this entry constitutes

• An act contrary to Wikipedia's standard
• A strong view contrary to referenced and attributable fact
• Conspiracy to withhold referenced information from the public
• An illogical bias towards a medical profession of proven malice for profit
• A malicious action against sick people that carries liability for that action

Therefore I have every right to add referenced Federation Proceedings AND everyone has the right to view referenced Federation Proceedings

I have removed the "Federation Proceedings" section from the article. There have been literally thousands of trials of drugs for their anticonvulsant effect. Even aspirin has been shown to have anticonvulsant properties. The study that had been added was over 50 years old and involved only 5 very sick children. It is not statistically relevant. There is modern research that indicates some anticonvulsant effect from cannabis and its ingredients. However, it may make some seizure types worse and the side effects may be worse than other established drugs. This research may one day lead to an effective treatment for some seizure types. We are not there yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. See [1] and [2] for some lay comment and [3] for a professional review. There is no "conspiracy" of WP editors. Colin°^Talk 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and stop making personal attacks. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack is when someone is forced to take poisons you support and demand are the only treatment in existence. That is a personal attack on everyone that does harm and personal injury. In preventing the dissemination of real information you attack AND harm thousands and deserve any response of words that comes your way as a result. Alphaquad 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information of trials showing a treatment that produced results that were unachievable with traditional treatment is a threat to your agenda and is a threat to the credibility of the ludicrous medical profession of symptom assassination and its ignorance of proper treatment, nothing more than a cover-up.

You would jump at the chance to present the information if you actually cared about people. Clearly your agenda is more important than the health of others, which fits within the definition of conspiracy to present only your biased position. This is demonstrated by the invention of unwritten guidelines. Such was as length remark in Talk:Anticonvulsant. It does not go unnoticed.

When the written guidelines are not in dispute, you invent unwritten guidelines to fit your agenda of conspiracy to withhold this vital information.

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Federation Proceedings is not only a significant viewpoint but also references more than a single trial. If you actually read it, in an unbiased fashion, you might see that. It is not of only 5 children as suggested.

The unprofitable drugs of traditional medicine, is connected to trials far older than 50 years. The suggestion that "it may make some seizure types worse..." is only another invented opinion presented to validate your weak and limited position, has no basis in fact and is without reference. Clearly more drivel contrary to guidelines. You harp about guidelines but cannot adhere to them.

Deletion of the entry "Federation Proceedings" is in conflict with the WP:NPOV#Undue weight of the Seizure article. The real undue weight is on the part of presenting only what you want to see.

Calling you on your act of conspiracy is not a personal attack but a description of your biased behavior.

The verifiable info is here for readers to be the judge since you continue to block its proper use in the article to fit an agenda.

Jean P. Davis M.D., and H.H. Ramsey, M.D.

The demonstration of anticonvulsant activity of the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cogeners by laboratory tests (Loewe and Goodman, Federation Proc. 6:352, 1947) prompted clinical trial in five institutionalized epileptic children. All of them had symptomatic grand mal epilepsy with retardation; three has cerebral palsy in addition. EEG tracings were grossly abnormal in the entire group; three has focal seizure activity. Their attacks had been inadequately controlled on 0.13 gm. of Phenobarbital daily, combined with 0.3 gm. of Dilantin per day in two of the patients, and in a third, with 0.2 gm. of Mesantoin daily.

Two isomeric 3(1,2-dimethyl heptyl) homologs of THC were tested, numbers 122 and 125A, with ataxia potencies 50 and 8 times, respectively, that of natural Marijuana principles. Number 122 was given to 2 patients for 3 weeks and to 3 patients for 7 weeks. 3 responded at least as well to previous therapy; the 4th became almost completely and the 5th entirely seizure free. One patient transferred to 125A after 3 weeks, had prompt exacerbation of seizures during the ensuing 4 weeks, despite dosages up to 4 mg. daily. The 2nd patient transferred to 125A was adequately controlled on this dosage, except for a brief period of paranoid behavior three and a half weeks later; similar episodes had occurred prior to cannabinol therapy. Other psychic disturbances or toxic reactions were not manifested during the periods of treatment. Blood counts were normal. The cannabinoids herein reported deserve further trial in non-institutionalized epileptics. Reprinted from Federation Proceedings, Federation of American Society for Experimental Biology, vol 8, 1949, p.284.

These proceedings demonstrate unequivocally the Anticonvulsant properties of cannabinoids. This is not opinion but fact and is therefore "absolute and non-negotiable" in accordance with WP:NPOV.

Your true colors have been seen and can only be covered up through improper deletion of this talk page entry. Will that be your next act of conspiracy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alphaquad (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The above trial did not involve "traditional treatment". There is no tradition of use, nor are "isomeric 3(1,2-dimethyl heptyl) homologs of THC" anything other than the precise products of the pharmaceutical industry. Colin°^Talk 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you cant understand English text? The "traditional treatment" it involved (it has to be spelled out for you), was that of "Their attacks had been inadequately controlled on 0.13 gm. of Phenobarbital daily, combined with 0.3 gm. of Dilantin per day in two of the patients, and in a third, with 0.2 gm. of Mesantoin daily". In layman's terms, it did not work. "... products of the pharmaceutical industry". What's your point? It was working and they used marijuana has their guide. You're really starting to sound somewhat challenged in your ability to understand the text.

What is acceptable to the FDA is fraud, conspiracy (since 1937, what was then the "FBNDD" Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) and poison, and should in no way be used as a measuring device of acceptability. This is perfectly UNreasonable criterion. Small minds can only wonder.

There is no tradition. Duh of course not. Not since the 1937 Hemp Tax Transfer Law – a conspiracy of worshipping at the alter of Mammon and here as well. This alone would wake a caring person enough to the see the light as it were. Seems we must exclude you from that group huh? "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"

Note of confirmation for this: From clandestine research Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, Dr. Sim reported to Medical World News: "Marijuana… is probably the most potent anti-epileptic known to medicine today". Marijuana Medical Handbook, Todd Mikuriya, M.D. And we should ignore this public announcement for what reason, because of the media manipulations of disinformation inducing a lack of tradition and for the conspiracy of the FDA/DEA in blocking all research? "I don't think so Tim" Alphaquad 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I misinterpreted your use of the phrase "traditional treatment" which is often used wrt "traditional remedies" ie. plants. Apologies. The opinion of one pro-Marijuana MD who managed to get a book published by a minor publisher isn't notable enough. He's clearly exaggerating since there haven't been enough studies and what there have been haven't shown such spectacular results. However, as I've indicated previously, there is research on this issue. Have a look at this paper. I'll have a think about this and may incorporate something very brief into the epilepsy article where is more applicable than this article. It isn't likely to deviate from the conclusions in that paper. Colin°^Talk 12:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Insufficiently controlled" may well mean that seizure frequency is reduced but not a lot. Modern anti-epileptics are really quite good.

I would not take the Marijuana Medical Handbook to be a reliable source. Conspiracies are only encyclopedic if they are confirmed conspiracies, not just some theory by someone. JFW | T@lk 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean as in convicted criminals of conspiracy then, when there is no way they are going to convict their selves. If we go by that then we are lambs to slaughter without opinion. And whose opinion is the only valid one, yours? This is so ridiculous and absurd that I must question once again intent to conceal. Anything presenting opposing opinion to your own is not a reliable source. Quite evident to me what is going on here. Alphaquad 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As JFW says, modern drugs are good. However, for decades there have been a stubborn 30% who don't fully respond and all the latest drugs haven't "made a dent" in that figure (see WebMD reporting on tomorrow's Lancet). I'd love that situation to change. Colin°^Talk 12:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're both Doctors of Internal Medicine? Then I demand you discuss all adverse reactions with patients before deciding together course of treatment, including all remedies regardless of law, and should be easy for you since you seem to agree on the unethical nature of pharmaceutical companies and the government, respecting patient opinion regardless of your own, otherwise your actions become unethical. This seems a quite informative page. You owe it to everyone to know the reality of the situation, especially to that 30% who don't fully respond to poison. Also cases you claim as a success are certainly not monitored for any significant duration, only as long as you are signing the prescription pad. It would no doubt be enlightening to see where the majority of them end up. Scary thought indeed. But if you're here everyday editing wiki, then there must be few patients for you to kill or turn into Sulphur and Fluorine crazed zombies. Somewhat of a relief. Thank you for your time, it has been a pleasure discussing all this but truly sad for those who wont get correct information on the usually read pages for your effort or lack thereof. Alphaquad 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a doctor of anything. Epilepsy patients are monitored long-term, whether by their GP or a neurologist. It isn't a "here's a prescription, now off you go..." type of condition. Colin°^Talk 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is personal experience I relate. It is exactly that, "here's a prescription, now off you go...", and I will produce the records to prove it. The monitoring stops when the epileptic stops returning. In this case information finally got to them about real medicine and his or her seizures stopped immediately. You really must think ill of my knowledge, but may not be the case since I think you said you are not in America. This is America and 911 should be your first clue, we just don't care; well far too many of us, myself not included of course. Maybe things are done differently from where you write.

Also I returned to add: As case after case demonstrates, money is god in America and government is at odds with reality over this false god. All companies involved with large sums of money should be the first source deemed unreliable, and the little guy like Dr. Mikuriya should be considered gold. Peace and health my brothers.

Urgent note to Colin relating to my departing theme and comes from a real reporter: The demonizing of Iran has begun in the media, dont miss this article. Alphaquad 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't ask what a month's old news on Iran has to do with the Seizure article, and why it should be "urgent". I truly don't want to know. My participation in this discussion ends now. We've both said our piece. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 16:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i wonder what the safety procedures are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerowolf9 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this part is explained well enough. Lay people reading this article will not understand the terminology used to explain the study. DanMcScience (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was at work, and one of my customers told me she has epileptic siezures. She looks like she is older than me, I'm 22, so I'd guess she is 25-30, but I could be wrong. She lives on her own, apparently her 10 year old son moved out (most likley to his dad's or her parents or something). Anyways, I knew somewhat what this is about, I knew she could drop and shake violently without notice. But then I started to feel a bit concerned about her after I left. I was wondering if someone with this condition should be left alone... Because I did read off this wikipedia that if its less than 5 minutes no help is required, and if its longer than that 911 should be called. If this is the case, couldn't she go under for 30 minutes, smashing whatever body parts into anything around her at that time?

I don't have a login to this wikipedia, so if you could notify me of a response by emailing me at wikipedia@codinggroundz.com that would be great!

Thanks!
Shawn

72.39.167.100 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between having epilepsy, and having poorly, or uncontrolled epilepsy. And there are differences in the types of seizures people have. I have seizures daily, but I'm legally allowed to drive- I never have the type of seizure you are talking about without several hours warning. It would be ridiculous to have someone stay with me 24/7 because 3 hours might not be enough to call someone and let them know what will be happening. And I've only had a handful of tonic clonic seizures in my life time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.184.14 (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so, is it a seizure when someone is pretty much just waking up and when they do their whole body gets tingly (sorry for poor use of words, it's the only way I can explain it)as if the whole body has fallen asleep like a leg or arm falling asleep. they cant move their body at all, sometimes can't breathe but has prety much has full conciousness of what's going on... they'd have to really struggle to be able to get out of this type of "episode". So is that a seizure, and if not what could it be??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.129.182 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a doctor, but just for fun I'll play one on television :-) It almost sounds like a hypnagogic spell. Except I dont' know about the "tingly" part. 209.244.30.221 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is sleep paralysis. --71.205.100.59 (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convulsion redirects to this page. As you can see from the "what links here", there are many articles linking to convulsion, but in this article there is hardly any mention of the term "convulsion". As a medical layman I have no idea whether a convulsion is a synonym for an epileptic seizure, or a non-epileptic seizure, or something that looks like a seizure. Maybe someone with a better background could explain the term "convulsion" here or replace the redirect page by a short article. Han-Kwang (t) 14:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convulsions are a type of seizure. They can occur in either epileptic or NES. Many people mistakenly think that a seizure means you will convulse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.191.142 (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should have info about seizures caused by red lights flashing really fast.66.72.205.132 (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do the number and intensity change over time, with age, or is it fairly constant? Or, does it depend on the individual? I don't know, but it'd be good to include.209.244.187.155 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]