View Full Version : Ts/adhd


NejcR
04-07-11, 03:09 PM
Two years ago i had strong tics, i did lot of tests and TS was not confirmed. I've also seen chinese doctor who putted me on diet plus acupuncture and it got better. So, now i have very little problems with it. I was also very nervous and now i am much calmer (compare to before).

Could it be part of ADHD or seperated thing? Because I have many symptoms of ADHD too.

I think i will go to see Doctor, but i would like to hear what you have to say about your experiences, last time doctors were very very confused when they saw me.

So, please, share your experience!

Thanks

twinieten
04-09-11, 12:40 AM
My son was recently diagnosed with ADHD and Tourette's. It is my understanding that it is not uncommon to find one with the other... they call them co-morbid conditions. Some might receive a more generic "tic disorder" diagnosis.

So to answer your question, yes, it is very possible you also have ADHD.

I never even considered TS. I had my son tested for ADHD, initially. In discussing some of my son's tics, and other issues, the doc ended up diagnosing TS as well. That's the diagnosis that really surprised me. It was because my son has had a variety of "typical" tics like nose crinkling and grimacing, that he reported that sometimes he just had to do the tic and because he never went 3 months or more without a tic. I'm sure there were other factors.

NejcR
04-10-11, 01:32 PM
Thank you for your reply.
So, he can actually go 2 or 3 months without? That's nice.

I thought maybe i don't have TS at all (Doctors couldn't confirm) and it's just part of ADHD.

twinieten
04-12-11, 09:18 PM
Thank you for your reply.
So, he can actually go 2 or 3 months without? That's nice. No, he actually can't. I guess one of the ways TS is diagnosed is if there is a break in the tic of 3 months or longer. My son has never stopped his tics for 3 months or longer, and he's had tics for at least 4 years. I guess if someone stops having tics for 3 months or longer, then they would be diagnosed with a general tic disorder and not TS.

I thought maybe i don't have TS at all (Doctors couldn't confirm) and it's just part of ADHD.From what I understand, a large percentage of people with TS have ADHD, and a small percent of people with ADHD have TS. To have both is not uncommon. And then there are the people who have ADHD and a general tic disorder that is not TS. It is likely you have something, whether it be TS or just a general tic disorder.

NejcR
04-13-11, 08:56 AM
Thanks a lot. I guess I just have Tic disorder. My tics started in high school and than i didn't have anything for about two years.

Don S.
04-15-11, 10:50 AM
"No, he actually can't. I guess one of the ways TS is diagnosed is if there is a break in the tic of 3 months or longer. My son has never stopped his tics for 3 months or longer, and he's had tics for at least 4 years. I guess if someone stops having tics for 3 months or longer, then they would be diagnosed with a general tic disorder and not TS."

— The very fact that TS is so subjectively “diagnosed” attests to the fallacy that it is an organic illness as opposed to a psychological one: inherited personality traits that have become (seemingly) hyperbolic and therefore interfere with functioning at an optimal potential. Where does one draw the line with, for example, mumps? Physicians do not decide what constitutes mumps by discussing the issue among themselves and then formulating a diagnosis by “consensus.” One either has the mumps or one does not. It is the objective disease that decides the matter and not human discourse. The definition of the mumps has not changed over the years, unlike TS.

Drawing lines between degrees of aberrant behavior is totally subjective and artificial. The degree that such personality traits manifest and interfere with proper functioning determines what if any remedial measures are warranted. When a certain point of manifestation and corresponding performance hindrance is reached, then nomenclature is invoked by way of distinction which serves practical (economic and political) concerns but not actual ones. As the immortal bard so saliently defined matters: “What’s in a name? Would not a rose…?”

Proserpina
07-02-11, 03:31 PM
— The very fact that TS is so subjectively “diagnosed” attests to the fallacy that it is an organic illness as opposed to a psychological one: inherited personality traits that have become (seemingly) hyperbolic and therefore interfere with functioning at an optimal potential. Where does one draw the line with, for example, mumps? Physicians do not decide what constitutes mumps by discussing the issue among themselves and then formulating a diagnosis by “consensus.” One either has the mumps or one does not. It is the objective disease that decides the matter and not human discourse. The definition of the mumps has not changed over the years, unlike TS.

Drawing lines between degrees of aberrant behavior is totally subjective and artificial. The degree that such personality traits manifest and interfere with proper functioning determines what if any remedial measures are warranted. When a certain point of manifestation and corresponding performance hindrance is reached, then nomenclature is invoked by way of distinction which serves practical (economic and political) concerns but not actual ones. As the immortal bard so saliently defined matters: “What’s in a name? Would not a rose…?”

You are correct in your observation that the lines between degrees of aberrant behavior are subjective. It is impossible to define any disorder with behavioral characteristics in an entirely objective manner. In fact, I would argue that anytime something must be defined via language instead of math, it is to some degree subjective.

The fact that something must be described in a subjective manner has nothing to do with whether the disorder has an organic or psychological cause. In fact, the veritable consensus of scientific research is that Tourette's has an organic cause. Does the fact that it has a subjective and somewhat arbitrary definition make it more difficult to accurately study? Sure. However, more subjectivity in the diagnosis is more likely to erroneously lead the study results in the direction of insignificant than significant, as long as you are dealing with large numbers of varied studies.

Don S.
07-03-11, 01:20 PM
You are correct in your observation that the lines between degrees of aberrant behavior are subjective. It is impossible to define any disorder with behavioral characteristics in an entirely objective manner. In fact, I would argue that anytime something must be defined via language instead of math, it is to some degree subjective.

The fact that something must be described in a subjective manner has nothing to do with whether the disorder has an organic or psychological cause. In fact, the veritable consensus of scientific research is that Tourette's has an organic cause. Does the fact that it has a subjective and somewhat arbitrary definition make it more difficult to accurately study? Sure. However, more subjectivity in the diagnosis is more likely to erroneously lead the study results in the direction of insignificant than significant, as long as you are dealing with large numbers of varied studies.

Oh, I most certainly do not contest that it is a veritable fact that the consensus is that TS is organic. I merely respond that said consensus is a crock.

We live in an age of what I have termed to be “agenda-driven ‘science’.” Call me cynical, if you'd like.

Here is a case in point. Chiropractors used to be on the AMA’s list of those practicing "quack” medicine. It remained as such until the former took the AMA to court in a restraint of trade action. The issue was resolved when the Supreme Court sided in favor of the chiropractors (though don't ask me how a bunch of lawyers felt qualified to make such a determination!). The medical community’s reaction was to make metaphorical lemonade out of a perceived lemon. Henceforth, many physicians would refer patients with back problems to chiropractors and the latter would refer patients to physicians for other problems: a wonderful solution based upon the principle of economic reciprocity.

However, one must ask how a legal decision can possibly “decide” whether or not there is any scientific merit to the practice of chiropractors. In effect, the answer to the question is: “What’s the ‘diff’?”

The same dynamic is at play with holding to the absurd contention that TS is organic. Now, not only can psychiatrists and psychologists feed on the TS gravy train, but neurologists as well; and, of course, the two disciplines can refer business to each other. Neat! Additionally, medical researches can also feed from the TS trough (while God only knows how many millions of dollars have been funneled through charities and governmental grants to fill and replenish such) as they have embarked on a quixotic forty years plus search for the unknown and elusive physical abnormality which is alleged to be responsible.

(And in passing, the question is raised that if TS is a physical affliction, then why is the affliction classified in DSM, an organ of the American Psychiatric Association, at all, let alone there being the seemingly perennial debate over how it is classified within.)

And how has this unholy marriage of convenience benefited those who suffer from Tourette’s?

For over forty years now, TS sufferers have been told that their tics are “inevitable” and to ignore them (while, of course, still coming to the offices of neurologists and mental health professionals for medications and doubtlessly sage advice regarding coping skills). When therapies such as cognitive behavioral intervention (basically, updated versions of habit reversal therapy) actually show demonstrative promise in mitigating the symptoms of those with TS, it is of course derided (especially by neurologists) within some segments of the medical community as constituting a threat to the lucrative paradigm that TS is organic. Why? Because if TS is organic, then how possibly could any sort of talk therapy hold any degree of efficacy in treating the affliction?

Science is (or should be!) devoted to one simple proposition: Truth. Whenever economic, political or ideological considerations enter the picture, science is orphaned.

Proserpina
07-03-11, 02:49 PM
I understand your natural skepticism. I think that I certainly agree with you on many points. Let me begin with our biggest points of agreement:

(1) People are often motivated by personal and pecuniary interests. These interests may cause them focus on the truth less, and, depending on their strength of character, lie.

(2) At least as it stands now, the legal field is in a very very very poor position to deal with science. Sometimes those areas of law that inevitably intersect with science are dealt with in a way that is as true to each very different discipline as is possible, and sometimes, well, it's just disappointing.

Now, as to where I disagree, it is certainly the case that people are often motivated by truth, interest, and a sense of wonder for the world. However, I am very much an advocate for modern scientific research, although I do not believe that the system is perfect.

I would submit to you and anybody else that reads this post (although we can agree to disagree :) ) that individuals engaged in basic science research are particularly motivated by a sense of wonder and interest. Especially those who are not clinicians. These people are nerds. Introverts. People who love to think things out in their own minds. People who, if they are good, love to prove themselves wrong. Why do I think this? I did, for a time, work in basic science research - in the area of neuroscience. I came by it from a life long fascination with the human brain. Most of the others that I worked with, from the techs to the PhDs, came by it the same way.

And yes, they are also motivated by the possibility of personal success. So let me use this as my example, because it uses as its premise a point that we agree on:

I have this friend who used to have a discussion with me about his conspiracy theory involving a cure for AIDS. He said that he thought that there was one, but that nobody would admit it because there was no money to be made from a cure that was not drug related, and therefore would not produce income for people.

I always countered with this: If any person found a cure or cause for any disease that would not produce money for them, their institution, or private companies . . . there would still be a mad dash to publish and publicize it. Why? Again, self-interest plays a role here. Fame. Notoriety. Prestige. The fact that any time you got another research idea, people would fall all over themselves to fund you.

I worked on studies funded by private companies. We were not results oriented.

I worked on studies funded by government grants. Once again, we were not results oriented.

I worked in different laboratories. Never came across any unethical science. Not to say that there is not unethical science out there, there most certainly is. But it is not the norm. If you go to many different doctors, you will find that some are good, and some are bad. Hire many different carpenters, some are good, some are bad. Even lawyers ;) - some are good, some are bad.

It is much more compelling to believe that there is some great negative force out there purposely discarding the real interest of the public. I think the much more difficult truth is that everything is more complicated and chaotic than it seems. When we are dealing with that much complexity and chaos, we often choose the wrong path - one that would not provide as many benefits as another.

Don S.
07-03-11, 03:51 PM
Thank you for your response.

I wish to emphasize that I am not a “conspiracy theorist.” That is not the scenario that I envision or meant to imply. I simply meant that individuals often turn a blind eye (even if they know in their hearts where truth lies) to truth from self-interest.

“I don’t care how strong the evidence is against my son, I know him and he’s innocent!”

<FONT face=Arial><?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p< font>The parents of this hypothetical accused man don’t consult with each other in their refusal to entertain the truth of the matter. They just do.
<FONT face=Arial><O:p< font>
In regard to TS, the problem is that I (and any who might agree with me) am, under the current paradigm, asked to prove a negative. I cannot “prove” that God does not exist nor can I prove that there is not some physical anomaly within the central nervous system that causes TS. That is not incumbent upon me, and that is the not the scientific way. It is incumbent upon those who put forth the positive hypothesis to provide proof. They have had over forty years now and have thus far failed to do so notwithstanding continual efforts to that effect.

As I stated before, I too love to be proven wrong! Why? Because for me to accept that I have been wrong with an idea constitutes absolute proof in my mind that I have arrived at truth: which is far more important to me than merely having been right! So I can appreciate your point here and accept that there are indeed many within the scientific community who share that cherished ideal..

<O:p< font>I have made a standing offer that I shall publicly retract my views if and when TS can be diagnosed by some objective means such as a brain scan (provided such is proven on a blind basis with rigorous controls to guard against collusion and the test can be replciated).

Thanks again for your reply.

<O:p<O:pBest regards,

<O:p< font><O:p< font>Don. .<O:p< font>
</O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<O:p</O:p<></O:p<>
</O:p<>

desiree1958
01-23-12, 06:57 PM
My son is 16 and has add/tourettes. He was on Strattera 80 mg daily and Guanfacine 4 mg daily.

Our new neurologist just uped his Strattera dosage to 100mg daily and Intuniv extended release 2 mg daily.

My question: Is the old Guanfacine of 4 mg daily equal to the new Intuniv dosage? Or does the dosaging of Intuniv work differently?

We have been through so many neurologists since he was diagnosed at age 7, that I do not trust their judgement any longer.