Talk:Guillain–Barré syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Areflexia, hyporeflexia[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Immunization[edit]

  • 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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

DaxFlame[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

dumb stuff[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Treatment section - "should fall on the family"?[edit]

Not an editor here, but this paragraph of the Teatment section sounds like opinion to me, and is unsourced:

A fundamental part of hospital treatment should fall on the family. As hospitals reduce healthcare it becomes impossible to care for patients around the clock. Patients that reach total paralysis are unable to signal or call for help and this is where family care becomes so important. Family members provide care and support that patients desperately need and medical staff sometimes don't understand or are unable to provide. Due to inactivity the body loses tone and flexibility. It's suggested that learning Range of Motion from medical staff and using stretches and keeping the joints pliable will aid the patient to recover sooner than letting them lay in a vegetative position. This also helps with circulation and the onset of bedsores. Bedsore prevention mattresses provide comfort to the patient if the family is unable to maintain 24 hour care. This is important because hospital recovery from Guillain-Barre can last from weeks to months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.244.105.190 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same and have gone ahead and removed this paragraph. "As hospitals reduce healthcare" - Which hospitals? What type of healthcare? In what regions/ countries? "It's suggested" - by whom? "should fall" is normative.

While I would be happy to see a statement about the beneficial effects of non-clinical provision of care and support to Guillain-Barre patients, this paragraph is not acceptable. If anyone wants to rewrite it or put something in its place that would be great. Varchoel (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Differential diagnosis[edit]

Perhaps Conversion Disorder could fall under this category?192.88.165.35 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Why? JFW | T@lk 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Miller-Fischer[edit]

Redirected "Miller-Fischer" and "Miller Fischer" here. Anyone please feel free to make seperate pages, but as long as these don't exist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzaman79 (talkcontribs) 12:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pathophysiology[edit]

The Pathophysiology section has no citations and made some rather dubious statements which conflict with NPOV (particularly the sentence that goes 'Vaccines, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and "virus in stealth" ... are themselves an onslaught on the immune system...'). I've deleted this sentence and the one which follows, and added a note requesting citations. Procrastinator supreme (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are now something like five citations in this section, so I have removed the Wiki warning about lack of citations.Jack B108 (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

I am puzzled by the first English pronunciation given: "in English pronounced /ˈɡiːlæn ˈbɑreɪ/[3], /ɡiːˈæn bəˈreɪ/,[4]". Ok, English speakers make a mess of the vowels when they try to pronounce a French name, but they get a G right. So what is the ˈɡ? I don't see that symbol on the Wikipedia:IPA for English page. The source cited says "(pronounced Ghee-lan Bar-ray)". My guess is that someone has taken "Gh" to indicate a voiced velar fricative. I don't think that was the intention, I think it just indicates an ordinary g sound, with the h there to keep the g hard.

Unless someone has a different explanation, I propose replacing that ˈɡ by a g. Maproom (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
ˈɡ is two symbols: a stress mark and a "g" (voiced velar plosive). The IPA for English page has the stress marks (high vertical line for primary stress, low vertical line for secondary stress) near the bottom of the page, the box marked "Stress". (Voiced velar fricative would be ɣ.) -- pne (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Signs and Symptoms[edit]

The first line of the following passage concerns me. I am not a neurologist, but this seems to be a statement that needs to be made elsewhere or toned down, as it is probably not how most neurologists would describe the paralysis to their patients (is it??):

Acute paralysis in Guillain-Barre syndrome is usually related to sodium channel blocking factor in the cerebrospinal fluid. Morbid and iatrogenic events involving IV salt and water may occur unpredictably in this patient group, resulting in SIADH. SIADH is often the first symptom of Guillain–Barré syndrome. Sodium overload is almost always iatrogenic. Rapid correction of hyponatraemia can cause central pontine demyelination.[citation needed]

I thought the paralysis was generally described as caused by extensive peripheral nerve damage (myelin loss and even axonal destruction). There are studies of high-quality that mention something about relation between paralysis and Na+ channel blocking in the cerebrospinal fluid, but this seems like a side issue and too detailed for a Wiki entry, IMHO. And again too much jargon. Comments? Neuro`s in the house?Jack B108 (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I had Gillian Barre Syndrome in 1982[edit]

I was walking with my husband in Atlantic City and I clasped to the floor. My legs were just trembling and it felt like needles were just pinching me. We went back home that same day to New York. It just got worse and I was taken to the doctors office. He said it could be Mono and I was like isn't that a kissing disease?? I can't lift my left to walk I have no feeling in my arms and it's getting worse. It can't be just Mono we all said. Once I was admitted to the hosiptal I became a ginny pig to all the doctors. As I was in a wheel chair they pinch me with needles every where to see if I had a reaction to the pain. I had so many spinal taps done and I was so scared that I would stay paralized. Thanks Be to God between Prayers and Godspell music and tapes on Sermons. I was able to leave the hospital in less than a month. They couldn't give me any medicine I slept with patches on my eyes because they wouldn't close and I had no tears. They had to put tear drops in my eyes daily. My hair was like Brillo we couldn't get the knots out. My body was just died no movement at all. The doctor said if I could wiggle my toes he would send me home. Well I work hard on that since my feet had to be held up with a board at the end of my bed. I had no reflexes I had no control of my body it was the worse 2-3 months of my life. Well that year my body was cleansed of every thing including my birth control bills and in 1983 I had my first daughter. She is healthy Thanks Be to God and so are my other two girls. I have 3 healthy and beautiful girls. I still do not have my relexes back my face still feels stift but I'm healthy. BUT, now I'm feeling a little weird again and I was wondering can this virus come back? I took this sleeping pill about two weeks ago Abien I believe is the name. I felt and walk like I was drunk and I had no control of my body. I kept falling a sleep while talking it was horrible. Then just this past Sunday we went to the Redskins game and we did a lot of walking. We just about ran up 2 flights of a very long ramp. My thighs hurt so much and I still have this numbness in my thighs. My face has been feeling tight the last few weeks and I'm now thinking could this virus be coming back??? I'm going to call my doctor to get check out but what will they look for?? Will she be able to know if it's coming back. I feel like I'm walking a little bit like I did in 1982 and so I'm worried. Does any one have any helpful answers?? I pray they can find a cure for this. It's just an ugly disease just like Cancer . Thank you for reading my story on the worse 6 months to a year of my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.229.101.10 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Epidemiology needs more[edit]

It shouldn't just be about pregnant women and neonates. If it is it pregnant women who tend to get this syndrome, some supporting data would help. How about starting by moving the incidence from the first paragraph to here. Some info (expert needed) about the age groups that tend to suffer from this the most would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imogenne (talkcontribs) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Countries with especially high rates[edit]

Should countries with especially high rates of Guillan-Barré syndrome be noted? My family alone knows four sufferers of this syndrome (my Dad being one of them, but he recovered very well)... And I'm pretty sure we don't know 200,000-400,000 people... So, is that just us, or my country (NZ)? Gott wisst (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of notable case[edit]

As this is an image of a notable case it belongs in that section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The image says nothing about the condition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've just moved the image concerned to the appropriate section. As you correctly say it says nothing about the condition itself and you have to read to the bottom of the article to reach that particular text.StevieNic (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese study on 90 million doses of H1N1 shows lower than background Guillain-Barre Syndrome rate[edit]

http://www.vaccinetimes.com/chinese-study-on-90-million-doses-of-h1n1-shows-lower-than-background-guillain-barre-syndrome-rate/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.124.166.232 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

IVIG insufficient[edit]

Standard dose IVIG doesn't always cut it - do we need more? doi:10.1007/s10875-010-9407-4 JFW | T@lk 13:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to influenza vaccination link?[edit]

Seems that although there was clearly a link in 1976, but not substantiation of increased risk in recent years....a huge part of the article goes over this in detail and it seems to make the article lopsided. Thoughts on paring down this section? Wawot1 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with finding two or three major sources and possibly some public health announcements, and rewriting the entire section. Perhaps a useful source would be one that discusses what to do with regards to influenza vaccination in someone who has already had an episode of GBS! JFW | T@lk 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I lopped off some text, added a few references, and tried to summarize this in a concise way - hopefully haven't ruffled any feathers. Wawot1 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

FDR[edit]

If Franklin Roosevelt had GBS rather than polio, why didn't he recover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.146.25 (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all GBS leads to full recovery, particularly the axonal subtype. JFW | T@lk 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

COI clean-up[edit]

I've removed an insertion by what appears to be a COI account primarily devoted to including links to articles by a doctor of the same name. If uninvolved editors find this information to be a useful addition to the article, however, please feel free to restore. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Treatment[edit]

"These two treatments are equally effective"

 No problem with this

"and a combination of the two is not significantly better than either alone."

 Big problem with this

I had Guillain-Barre (and 100% recovery, thank goodness) and received both treatments. It is very important to realize that the two treatments are completely incompatible. That is, they absolutely cannot be administered simultaneously, but if administered consecutively, the end result can be superior to just using one of them (or not). With intravenous immunoglobulins (aka IVIG) you are getting other people's white blood cells, in the hope that it makes your own white blood cells behave themselves, as opposed to what they are doing (destroying your peripheral nervous system's myelin sheath). With plasmapheresis, on the other hand, (almost) all of your white blood cells are being removed from your blood, in the hope that the new white blood cells generated by your system (bone marrow) will behave themselves. Stay with me here, either you are getting a whole bunch of extra white blood cells, or you are losing a whole bunch of the white blood cells you already have. You cannot do both at the same time, don't you agree? The idea is to (a) use IVIG to shock the system into some kind of stability, although it is not a cure then (b) once stability but not cure is achieved, to use plasmapheresis to effect a cure. At least, that is what my doctors told me they were doing. And it worked. So my experience is that IVIG, followed by plasmapheresis, *is* significantly better than either alone. Not too sure what to do about providing a reference. IVIG is extremely expensive, so may not be an option in every health-care context. Plasmapheresis is, essentially, just a form of dialysis, so it is not that expensive and should be generally available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsa703 (talkcontribs) 19:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Prognosis[edit]

This section does not appear to have rigorous references.

"Recovery usually starts after the fourth week.."

I had Guillain-Barre. My experience with my doctors was that my recovery time was a direct reflection of my time-to-diagnosis. That is, the sooner I was diagnosed, the less my recovery time. In my case, I was diagnosed in about 50 hours and had a recovery time of about 50 weeks. So one week for every hour until diagnosis (and treatment).

That said, let's talk about when recovery starts. Presumably that means when things start stabilizing. Again, I suggest that it totally depends upon how fast the patient gets to a knowledgeable physician. In my case, I think my recovery started after the second week, but that is not a reflection of Guillain-Barre, nor of the physician, but solely of how fast I noticed that I had a problem, and did something about it.

"About 80% of patients have a complete recovery.."

Where does this come from? My doctors said that 98% of patients have a recovery in which there are no long-term disabilities, such as having to use a cane, or a walker, or take medication, etc. Aside from the fact that I should probably not donate blood, I have zero effects upon my well-being from having had Guillain-Barre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsa703 (talkcontribs) 19:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing between Gilbert and Guillain–Barré Syndromes[edit]

I feel that it would be a good idea to add a "not to be confused with" label at the top of the page to distinguish between Gilbert's and Guillain–Barré syndromes. The latter is often pronounced like "gillie-bear" while Gilbert's is sometimes pronounced "jill-bear" (apologies for the bad formatting), opening up the possibility of people looking at the incorrect article, so I'm going to add a

Not to be confused with [[:{{{1}}}]].

tag to both articles. I leave this section open to discussion of the topic as both can be confusing to spell given their non-English etymologies. Zedtwitz (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I really doubt that anyone will make the confusion, because Gilbert is one name, and "Guillain-Barré" is always used together. Wikipedia:Hatnote describes the guidance. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are the H1N1 vaccine cases not included in the cause section?[edit]

I recently added info and links from a 2009 study of H1N1 influenza vaccines and had it removed citing a link supposedly 'fisking' the ones I provided. Why are recent studies not included in this article? It's currently dated to be archaic (1977?, really?). Editing is still new to me, so please help modify the cause section to include recent info.

I removed the sources because they did not meet the criteria outlined in WP:MEDRS; we prefer secondary sources in high-quality publications. I am particularly worried by the reference to MCT lawyers - this is a no-win no-fee outfit, and their content is not peer reviewed. JFW | T@lk 19:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)