The Batavian Q and A with Dr. Swedo

[Kay]

Found this link dated today on the Batavian facebook

 

http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/q-dr-susan-swedo-regarding-pandas/30364

[smartyjones]

i have to really question if a lot of this is the Batavian trying to be inflammatory.

 

i don't feel much respect toward mechtler and his handling of this case -- but really, does any dr --even those with outrageous self-inflated egos and those attempting to CYA -- seriously compare something like pandas to winning the lottery. i get it's in the context of rare -- but just seems a stretch that a medical doctor would make such an ignorant comparison.

Edited February 8, 2012 by smartyjones

[tpotter]

Found this link dated today on the Batavian facebook

 

http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/q-dr-susan-swedo-regarding-pandas/30364

 

 

Very interesting...I actually think it's quite good. And, did anyone notice...Swedo says: (Dr. Swedo says) "Please note: PANS (Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome) criteria use a less restrictive term of “pediatric onset,” which is variously defined as before age 18 years or age 21 years.

Some additional information that may be of interest: (I apologize that it’s not already on the website. We’re hoping to get it up by the end of the week.)" (I bolded the last part.)

 

Does this mean that the website may be changed by the end of this week?

[MomWithOCDSon]

 

Okay, am I the only one that's confused by what appears to me to be contradictory statements?!

 

First, in response to Question 2, Swedo reportedly said:

 

If a mass outbreak of PANDAS occurred, it should follow the same rules as individual cases, in which boys outnumber girls by 3-4 cases to 1. So if you had 14 affected girls, you would expect to have at least 40 to 50 boys exhibiting symptoms at the same time.

 

Then, in response to Question 3, she reportedly said:

 

PANDAS may be responsible for a larger percentage of cases because the ratio of boys to girls is 3:1 before age 10, and then it switches at puberty so that becomes more common in girls than boys.

 

And finally, she caps it off on Question 4:

 

4. Is there anything about PANDAS that would make it more likely that mostly (all) girls would contract it?

 

See above. The opposite is true.

 

 

Am I reading or interpreting this wrong? Aren't all the afflicated girls over age 12? Well then, didn't she just make a point FOR PANDAS in this particular population rather than AGAINST?!?! If the ratio inverts after puberty to be more common in girls, and these girls are, by NIMH's terms, anyway, post-pubescent, then it would appear to be MORE likely that this could be PANDAS, no?!?!

 

This is more confusing to me than half the scholarly scientific papers we've passed around this forum!

[P_Mom]

 

Okay, am I the only one that's confused by what appears to me to be contradictory statements?!

 

First, in response to Question 2, Swedo reportedly said:

 

If a mass outbreak of PANDAS occurred, it should follow the same rules as individual cases, in which boys outnumber girls by 3-4 cases to 1. So if you had 14 affected girls, you would expect to have at least 40 to 50 boys exhibiting symptoms at the same time.

 

Then, in response to Question 3, she reportedly said:

 

PANDAS may be responsible for a larger percentage of cases because the ratio of boys to girls is 3:1 before age 10, and then it switches at puberty so that becomes more common in girls than boys.

 

And finally, she caps it off on Question 4:

 

4. Is there anything about PANDAS that would make it more likely that mostly (all) girls would contract it?

 

See above. The opposite is true.

 

 

Am I reading or interpreting this wrong? Aren't all the afflicated girls over age 12? Well then, didn't she just make a point FOR PANDAS in this particular population rather than AGAINST?!?! If the ratio inverts after puberty to be more common in girls, and these girls are, by NIMH's terms, anyway, post-pubescent, then it would appear to be MORE likely that this could be PANDAS, no?!?!

 

This is more confusing to me than half the scholarly scientific papers we've passed around this forum!

 

I believe she was referring to "regular" OCD...for which there is no known cause and is the most common.

 

 

PANDAS may be responsible for a larger percentage of (OCD) cases because the ratio of boys to girls (with OCD) is 3:1 before age 10, and then it switches at puberty so that (OCD) becomes more common in girls than boys.[/i]

Edited February 8, 2012 by P.Mom

[MomWithOCDSon]

I believe she was referring to "regular" OCD...for which there is no known cause and is the most common.

 

 

PANDAS may be responsible for a larger percentage of (OCD) cases because the ratio of boys to girls (with OCD) is 3:1 before age 10, and then it switches at puberty so that (OCD) becomes more common in girls than boys.[/i]

 

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, I bet you can guess what I would say to that . . . since there is "no known cause" for "regular" OCD, who's to say the "causes" of "regular OCD" and PANDAS/PANS aren't identical or, at the very least, have much in common?!?!

 

You gotta love this tendency in the medical and scientific community . . . "We don't know what causes this XXXX disorder, but we DO know that this, this, and this, DON'T!"

 

Well now that narrows it down, doesn't it?

[WorriedDADNMOM]

Just like questions in a court of law can be leading. My take on her answers was she was leading while staying above the fray/controversy. Answering literally, she, I think, strengthens the case for Pandas,SC,RF------the whole untreated strep case is bolstered by her answers. The fact that it is being talked about is good enough for me at this point.

[T_Mom]

 

Okay, am I the only one that's confused by what appears to me to be contradictory statements?!

 

First, in response to Question 2, Swedo reportedly said:

 

If a mass outbreak of PANDAS occurred, it should follow the same rules as individual cases, in which boys outnumber girls by 3-4 cases to 1. So if you had 14 affected girls, you would expect to have at least 40 to 50 boys exhibiting symptoms at the same time.

 

Then, in response to Question 3, she reportedly said:

 

PANDAS may be responsible for a larger percentage of cases because the ratio of boys to girls is 3:1 before age 10, and then it switches at puberty so that becomes more common in girls than boys.

 

And finally, she caps it off on Question 4:

 

4. Is there anything about PANDAS that would make it more likely that mostly (all) girls would contract it?

 

See above. The opposite is true.

 

 

Am I reading or interpreting this wrong? Aren't all the afflicated girls over age 12? Well then, didn't she just make a point FOR PANDAS in this particular population rather than AGAINST?!?! If the ratio inverts after puberty to be more common in girls, and these girls are, by NIMH's terms, anyway, post-pubescent, then it would appear to be MORE likely that this could be PANDAS, no?!?!

 

This is more confusing to me than half the scholarly scientific papers we've passed around this forum!

 

 

--I had the same double-take when reading, it does seem contradictory from one statement to the next, re: Age based prevalence.

Edited February 9, 2012 by T.Mom

[EAMom]

 

Okay, am I the only one that's confused by what appears to me to be contradictory statements?!

 

First, in response to Question 2, Swedo reportedly said:

 

If a mass outbreak of PANDAS occurred, it should follow the same rules as individual cases, in which boys outnumber girls by 3-4 cases to 1. So if you had 14 affected girls, you would expect to have at least 40 to 50 boys exhibiting symptoms at the same time.

 

Then, in response to Question 3, she reportedly said:

 

PANDAS may be responsible for a larger percentage of cases because the ratio of boys to girls is 3:1 before age 10, and then it switches at puberty so that becomes more common in girls than boys.

 

And finally, she caps it off on Question 4:

 

4. Is there anything about PANDAS that would make it more likely that mostly (all) girls would contract it?

 

See above. The opposite is true.

 

 

Am I reading or interpreting this wrong? Aren't all the afflicated girls over age 12? Well then, didn't she just make a point FOR PANDAS in this particular population rather than AGAINST?!?! If the ratio inverts after puberty to be more common in girls, and these girls are, by NIMH's terms, anyway, post-pubescent, then it would appear to be MORE likely that this could be PANDAS, no?!?!

 

This is more confusing to me than half the scholarly scientific papers we've passed around this forum!

 

 

--I had the same double-take when reading, it does seem contradictory from one statement to the next, re: Age based prevalence.

 

Yeah...and you then wonder if this sex stuff is all skewed anyway. Since girls are less likely to have elevated strep titers, and they tend to have less tics, you wonder how many girls are slipping through the cracks with another diagnosis b/c PANDAS is prematurely ruled out (no titers) by the local ped....so the girls just don't make it to NIMH.

 

Maybe (many? some?) those girls with OCD post-puberty really DO have PANDAS, but they aren't being diagnosed as such b/c they are "too old" and they don't have the titers.

Edited February 9, 2012 by EAMom