Talk:Morgellons/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Preserving the original meaning of quoted sources

First, a request: I would appreciate it if editors would not interrupt my comments to inter-thread responses. Please, if you wish to reply to a particular section of my comment, add your comment following my signature, and use an italic-quote of an excerpt or other method to refer to the part of my writings you are addressing.

I find it confusing in general when inter-threading is used, and in particular with my comments, I write them to communicate a thought; inter-threaded replies disrupt the flow of the reasoning I'm trying to convey.

Thanks for your consideration. --Parsifal _Hello 02:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of quoted sources

In this first diff, an editor added some text from the referenced book into the article. Some segments of the text from the book were omitted, using ellipses ... with the result that it seemed reference had stated a particular conclusion.

The significant text that was omittted is visibile in this second diff, where I added the missing phrases from the text of the book. (An edit by Sanchom is included in the diff, but that was formatting only - he was not the editor that added the text from the book and his formatting did not change the content).

Here we go again

This will follow the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome trajectory. The CDC will say it's nothing, but the "victims" will bombard their congressmen and Oprah via internet-organized campaigns, Congress will dictate that the CDC treat it as a disease, the CDC will form "committees" to comply with the request, and finally the CDC "accept" the "disease" because (a) they are just tired of fighting with Congress, and (b) physicians on the committees will find it's a nice little career gravy train where they can become "specialists" and take the money of people who come to them, without any fear of catching anything. Look for the CDC to release a document asking doctors to report patients who have symptons from a list, and then look for Morgelons activists to misrepresent this list as an official CDC definition of Morgellons and an official recognition of the disease.

Treatment section

Given there seems to be a movement to restructure the article as more of a description of a disease, perhaps there should be a section on Morgellons treatments, since we have one on symptoms and diagnosis.

There seems to be three primary forms of treatment offered. Most psychiatris and dermatologists treat Morgellons by treating any underly dermatological condition as the condition dictates, and treating other symptoms with antipsychotic medications. See, Psychiatric Arsenal Has Weapons Against Morgellons Disease [1], OCD Patients May Seek Help From Dermatologists [2] and Pimozide at Least as Safe and Perhaps More Effective Than Olanzapine for Treatment of Morgellons Disease,[3]. Other doctors have suggested Cognitive Behavior Therapy, see Cure found for Morgellons disease? [4].

Doctors and nurses in the MRF treat Morgellons very similarly to the controversial late-stage infectious Lyme disease ([5] "Most Morgellons patients, if found positive for Chlamydophila pneumonia, a Babesia species or a Borrelia species pathogenic to humans...and given appropriate antibiotics long enough, resolve most symptoms.") , with long term intravenous antibiotics. [6]. One of the authors of the two original papers on Morgellons has said the rife machine helps in 30% of cases. [7]

There is also a significant amount of self-treatment, with many web retailers offering various treatments. [8], and various of these are mentioned on the NMO's (ex-MRF board members) site [9] Herd of Swine 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll work on it in my sandbox. Thatcher131 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that a treatment section could be potentially harmful since no one knows what causes this disease. It may encourage sufferers to engage in self medication. I doubt that wiki wants to encourage that. Pez1103 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that all disease articles have treatment sections. Thatcher131 17:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article won't encourage a specific treatment, but rather simply report what treatments are used. See: Wikipedia makes no claim of validity and does not give medial advice. Sancho 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but most wikipedia articles do have a list of noteable treatments used for most diseases or even controversial diagnoses. If it lists an anti-psychotic, therapy, and the methods used by the MRF, none of these would encourage people to self-treat as people with morguellons don't tend to want an anti-psychotic or therapy, and the machines etc the MRF uses are quite large and specialised, and equipment most people wouldn't easily be able to obtain. We could include any other treatments if they're as noteable as these. You could check out the article on Fibromyalgia to see how this could be managed. It lists the possible medical treatments quite fully (we wouldn't need as much as this as there are less different treatment options for morguellons). Then it offers one sentence about supplements such as folic acid. Then it has a section which includes a therapy which has no evidence that it works for Fibro, so the article says so. And the discussion of treatments there doesn't seem too long. We already say in this article I think, that they're usually offered antipsychotics (but will probably refuse them.) Of course the treatment of the minor skin ailments would be hard to outline as they may be different in individual cases, but we can see what sources we can find associated with Morguellons, that probably include treating the skin complaints with hydrocortisone or whatever.Merkinsmum 10:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to revise introduction and history sections

The current intro section, while an improvement over some previous versions suggesting that medical opinion was equally divided over the legitimacy of the Morgellons diagnosis, is still misleading.

It is not merely a "majority" of medical professionals that are unconvinced that Morgellons is a defined medical condition, it is a _vast_, overwhelming majority. Only a very few have bought into the theory that it is a novel infectious disease. I realize that people who believe they have this condition are eager to project the idea that the medical and research community agrees with them - but whether or not research ultimately vindicates the idea, _currently, in the absence of evidence, there is NO significant acceptance of Morgellons. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously on this score, it will have to permanently protect its article from editing designed to create a false reality. EL

I have rewritten the introduction and history section for length, clarity and style, as well as for other issues discussed here. Please see User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2. (The other sections are not ready.) Please indicate if you agree, disagree, or have other comments. If all sides agree or if no one objects after, say, 24 hours, I propose to replace the section. Thatcher131 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from one thing, I'm okay with the intro/history sections as they stand as of this[10] edit. The one thing I would like to suggest is to move the large block quote from the Atlas of Human Parasitology that is in the DP section back into the history section (where it had been shortly before the page was locked); the quote specifies that conditions other than DP are considered to be involved, and is thus significant support for the statement "sources other than the MRF consider Morgellons to be a variety of different known ailments". This quote is of considerable value in establishing the precise nature of mainstream opinion, and should not remain "buried" in the DP section. Dyanega 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to put that in the Symptoms section, actually. Thatcher131 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated proposal to revise the intro and history. There has been extensive editing at User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2 and discussion at User talk:Thatcher131/Sandbox2. I propose to replace the current intro, history and CDC section with the sandbox version. I have tried to be responsive to issues and concerns that were brought up. I have tried to edit for a better style (it read like a collection of newspaper articles), and more focused content (on the role of the MRF in promoting the disease). Please respond here rather than the sandbox talk page. Thatcher131 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These sections look fine to me, and it's great to see things getting trimmed of bloat. I am a little confused as to why the AJP quote was removed in the recent edits; even though the topic of the paper was not Morgellons, the inclusion of the material discussing medical opinion of Morgellons within a peer-reviewed article in a prominent journal would certainly seem to fit the WP:RS criteria, as well as being directly relevant to the WP article, even if its relevance to the journal article itself seems a little iffy. I'm assuming you read the entire journal article, as I did, and I would have thought that despite the context in which the quote appeared, that it was still entirely appropriate for inclusion here. Dyanega 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I share Dyanega's concern. Such RS should be used. -- Fyslee/talk 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of deciding how and where to use it, and that Wikipedia's style seems to be to state or rephrase things and use citations, rather than direct quotes of large blocks of text. In this case, there is only a single paragraph about Morgellons in the article. It briefly describes the symptoms, indicates that it is largely regarded as DP despite the efforts of the MRF to promote an infectious disease theory, and states that neuroleptics are effective treatments (which are things the article already says). The reference is still footnote 3 and is cited in the references introduction and proposed casuses section of the sandbox and I certainly intend to also cite it in the treatment section. Thatcher131 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher131 here, the material (and other similar lengthy quotes) should be summarized where appropriate, and referenced. The old article relied far too much on quotes. Herd of Swine 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to support the new version, thanks for your work on this. I suggest modifying one phrase just above the CDC sub-section: currently claims over 10,000 registered families. Per WP:AVOID, I wonder if it might be better to omit the word "claims" by using something like: states that their database currently includes over 10,000 registered families. Just a suggestion, not a big deal. Either way, I welcome you to proceed. --Parsifal _Hello 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The ticker on the morgellons.org site is around 10,300 today. If no one objects, we can simply say the MRF "has registered over 10,000 families" as a fact, on the grounds that an organization's own web site can be used for citations of non-controversial information about themselves. I suppose "states" has a slightly more neutral connotation than "claims" so that is certainly a fair middle ground. Thatcher131 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Either of those options would be fine with me. I've just gotten sensitive to the word "claims" because I've had to remove it so many times from my own writing, now I notice it everywhere...  :) --Parsifal _Hello 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I move for using "states", as I don't trust their wording at all. It is an incredible leap of faith to assume that they have fact checked every contact to ensure that it represents a totally different family, without any overlapping. It is more likely 10,636 contacts, representing who-knows-how-many individual families (maybe 3,000?, just to illustrate, as I have no way of knowing). I don't think we can AGF with the MRF as it bears far too many similarities to quack and activist organizations who tend to exaggerate. We are possibly on the fringes of future (*) alternative medicine here (or at least an area that opportunistic alt medders will exploit), and only time will tell if they move in that direction. If so we can then be justified in assuming bad faith on their part, even if they are merely misguided. Information-wise the effect is the same - their information will be tainted and untrustworthy. Right now I'm just wary and we need to be careful that Wikipedia doesn't naively become the bearer of their message without any qualifications. I've studied this kind of thing for years now, and with my rather large experience in these matters I've learned to be very cautious.

(*) "Future" because such groups who meet rejection from mainstream science and medicine tend to reject the warnings and then go their own way, inventing their own facts, ways of thinking, conspiracy theories, anti-medical propaganda, and quack methods of treatment as mentioned above: "One of the authors [Savely] of the two original papers on Morgellons has said the rife machine helps in 30% of cases. [11]" The temptation to avoid losing face is great, and the money to be made is enormous, so human nature being what it is leads to the creation of a new branch of alternative medicine, where the common uniting factors are (a) lack of evidence, (b) conspiracy theories, (c) persecution complexes, and (d) rebellion against the mainstream. -- Fyslee/talk 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Thatcher131's removal of the AJP quote, I support that approach. I know that WP policy tends to frown on lengthy quotes (though I'd like to know the policy reference, so I can look it up). A lengthy quote gives the impression of something that can't possibly be summarized. But that's what WP does everywhere, we summarize things. We just need to maintain neutrality when we do so. EdJohnston 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no burden for using the actual quote, as long as it is summarized and referenced. That's the important part. -- Fyslee/talk 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the page: Wikipedia:Quotations, though the guideline leaves a lot of leeway for local consensus to decide. --Parsifal _Hello 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

10,636 - no doubt getting a boost because of the CBS11 TV news report. Note that the MRF site no longer has a link to register [12] - it's been gone for a couple of weeks (It was the link directly above "Grant Program", and linked to the OSU site). They did add a simple email "sign up" box. Not sure what's going on there. Herd of Swine 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Based on the general agreement here and the discussion and agreement at user talk:Thatcher131/Sandbox2, please replace the introduction, history and CDC section with the introduction and history section from user:thatcher131/Sandbox2. Thanks. Thatcher131 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "In the news" and "videos"

The Videos link should be moved into the regular external link section. The "In the news" links should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator such as Google News; many significant news stories are already in the citation list. Thatcher131 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, have you clicked on the "videos" link? I believe you'll find it entirely inappropriate for inclusion. Basically the only reason it's there is that the owner of the site kept inserting numerous links and folks got tired of re-deleting them all - that one escaped. Dyanega 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Per my rationale above, the comment from Dyanega, and the lack of objections, please delete the In the news collection of external links and the videos external link. Thanks. Thatcher131 04:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that that list of external links should be cut, I think it is better to wait for protection to be lifted, since the page was just protected due to edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, however I started editing the article after the protection and editors from both sides of the dispute have been working reasonably well both on this talk page and on User talk:thatcher131/Sandbox2 where we are discussion revisions to the article. There seems to be no objections to cleaning up the links section. If after a second review you still decline, then we can wait (sigh). Thatcher131 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher is a very experienced administrator who can be trusted in this matter. -- Fyslee/talk 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for revision of lead to include "name given...."

I request that the emphasized words included in the following phrase be restored to the first sentence of the lead:

• "...a name given by biologist Mary Leitao to a condition ..." (Emphasis Fyslee)

It would then read:

• Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given by biologist Mary Leitao to a condition characterized by a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms.....

Readers need to immediately be alerted to this fact before reading any further. -- Fyslee/talk 11:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what this is meant to achieve. I suspect the goal is to somehow imply that the term is not legitimate since it is a recent invention. The MRF has a couple of dozen health professionals associated with it, and I think it would be really inappropriate to suggest that they are all quacks, delusional or out to exploit people. The term was used without any qualifications by Koblenzer, who is definitely not part of the MRF axis. (She does make a convncing case that Morgellons has been around in the literature for at least 75 years without the name.) This could be explored in the history section, but I don't see that personalizing the intro (or any excessive personalization) is wise. Thatcher131 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are reading something "between the lines" that is not there nor is intended. I am only asking for this fact to be included in the beginning. People need to know that the term was (in modern times and in this situation) coined by a private, unofficial, and non-medical person. Even the CDC states that they (who are certainly qualified to coin names for new diseases) don't recognize it as a disease yet.

To illustrate my reasoning for why this fact is important, I will try to describe a possible situation (I don't know how realistic it is). If a professional business analyst had the job of studying the accounts of various corporations and then making important decisions based on the information gleaned from those accounts, that person would be extremely upset if - after studying an account and reading the recommendations - was then informed that unlike 100% of all other accounts studied, this one had not been made by a CPA and the recommendations hadn't been made by a CPA. In fact it was made by someone not even educated in financial matters at all. The business analyst would be extremely upset and demand: "Why on earth didn't you let me know this when you gave me this account to read? I should have known this right from the beginning." Readers (especially medically educated readers like myself) should know from the beginning which "glasses" to wear when reading about this condition. It is quite significant that the diagnosis was made by someone not trained or qualified to make medical diagnoses, in contrast to diagnoses and naming conventions for 100% of other illnesses. This is a big exception that violates all kinds of rules, and here in Denmark is illegal. -- Fyslee/talk 12:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I fear the slippery slope. Although this has never been spoken as far as I can tell, I have a sense and a concern, that ultimately the goal is to say that Morgellons is a name made up by crazy people to avoid dealing with the fact that they are crazy. Individually, your suggestion is fine, and I would even add the year

• • Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given in 2002 by biologist Mary Leitao to a condition characterized by a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms.....

Then there is the request to include the Muchausen's information in the history. To the extent that Mary L. has promoted this herself (I need to check articles where she is quoted to confirm this) it would probably be appropriate to say something like,

• She took her son to see at least eight different doctors, who were unable to find any disease, allergy, or other explanation for the symptoms.(ref) The last doctor she visited suggested by might be manufacturing the symptoms herself.(ref) Convinced that her son was suffering a real, but unknown disease, she started a web site to find and communicate with others suffering the same symptoms. She named the disease Morgellons after a...

While Morgellons does not need to be taken seriously in other articles (for example, the article on Delusional parasitosis should only mention it, not say that it is an important misdiagnosis, and the article on Agrobacterium should not mention it at all unless Citovsky actually publishes a full report on his alleged findings) we do need to take Morgellons seriously in this article and give it a fair shake from both directions. My concern is that the article will gradually devolve into, "Morgellons is a name for DP adopted by crazy people who won't accept the truth." Thatcher131 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I concur with your concerns. Also, the information about Mary Leitao does appear, just below the lead in the History section, which is the perfect place for that info because it is historical. It seems most appropriate to omit from the initial introduction anything to bias the information that follows. It's not as if the lead as it is now supports any particular view. The lead already includes two strong sentences showing that there is wide doubt about the existence of the condition:

• A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as manifestations of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.
• "Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition."

Adding the information about who named the condition and why seems better placed in the history section, so as to avoid undue weight to that particular point. Ultimately, the name of the condition doesn't matter to the researchers who will perform the science and find the result. People reading this article should be able to see a balanced report of what we know about the topic without getting sidetracked into the story of an individual. --Parsifal _Hello 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher wrote: "I have a sense and a concern, that ultimately the goal is to say that Morgellons is a name made up by crazy people to avoid dealing with the fact that they are crazy", but that is definitely not anyone's "goal" here; the goal is to state what opinion is (both mainstream and alternatives, clearly indicated as such), using reliable sources. Mainstream opinion is that SOME of the people who have diagnosed themselves with Morgellons are DP sufferers in denial (and seeking ANY diagnosis that will permit them to believe their problem is not a matter of psychiatry), and that the OTHER people have a variety of diagnosable, known conditions that - for whatever reason - have not been properly diagnosed, or involving diagnoses that were not accepted by the patients. The actual heart of the controversy is mostly around what the actual percentages are that represent those "some" and those "other", and what those "other" cases are actually suffering from. BOTH sides in the controversy agree that there are people who claim to have Morgellons who are in fact suffering from DP, but they differ considerably in their perception of the relative frequency; one side feels it is the majority, the other feels it is the minority. The fringe viewpoint further includes the explicit belief that some of the non-DP sufferers are victims of something new and unknown (and which involves fibers), which mainstream opinon denies due to lack of evidence or precedent. That's about as close to a "capsule" description as I can come, if I had to summarize the situation for someone entirely unfamiliar with the controversy. I don't see how or why it would be any editor's goal to say anything substantially different from this; in theory, it should be mostly a matter of filling in the details from there. As I've said before, portraying the mainstream view as "Morgellons is a name for DP adopted by crazy people who won't accept the truth" is a straw man; it is a caricature of mainstream opinion, and has no place here. Dyanega 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I understand your concern, but I am not worried that it will happen. As long as we abide by Wiki policies and guidelines we will be safe. They are amazingly wisely made! That means we will always be "behind the curve" and stick to reporting already existing opinions from V & RS, presenting all notable opinions and not taking sides through inclusions of editorial biases. We are living people with our own knowledge bases, experiences, professional educations, etc., but we keep our biases to ourselves and the talk page, and out of the article. We must follow NPOV by ensuring that opposing (to our own) POV are included as long as they are properly sourced. Your suggestions sound good. Go for it.

My request for inclusion of Mary's role in the naming right at the beginning, is because of the exceptional (100% against all rules and some laws in certain countries) nature of this case. Readers need to be given the opportunity (those who are accustomed to do so) to put on the right glasses (determined by themselves, not by us) right at the beginning, before reading another word. Otherwise they may start with false expectations and interpretations of what they are reading, simply because we have withheld key information from them until later in the article. It does indeed belong in the History section, but the lead should mention this fact because of its importance, just as the lead should mention very shortly all significant aspects of the article. Since many readers never read any further than the lead, they should go away from that reading with the knowledge that this is a condition named by a non-medical individual, and that the condition is not currently recognized by the medical community. If that ever happens, then we can include that information. As it is now, they begin reading for some time, thinking that this is a recognized condition named (as always) by properly educated MDs and/or researchers, who are the only ones qualified to legally make a diagnosis and then name what they have uncovered through the diagnostic process. Such a reading must be prevented. -- Fyslee/talk 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the idea of mentioning the recent date of the naming in the intro, and I will cautiously support using Mary L.'s name as well for the time being. Dyanega, I know that my explanation of my concern was a caricature, it represents a worst case scenario, if you will, but one that I have seen played out in other articles. I believe in the good intent of editors here and am cautiously optimistic. Thatcher131 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Per above discussion and agreement, please add the words "in 2002 by biologist Mary Leitao" to the introductory sentence.

Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given in 2002 by biologist Mary Leitao to a condition characterized by a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms.....

Thanks. Thatcher131 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix reference

{{edit protected}} In recent edits, a reference was lost. After the sentence "Delusional parasitosis is one of the most common diagnoses used for Morgellons patients, and it is the primary source of controversy." at the begining of the Delusional parasitosis section replace the reference mark with the text below.

<ref name="ILADS">[http://www.ilads.org/morgellons.html Delusions of Parasitosis versus Morgellons Disease: Are They One and the Same?] Ginger Savely, RN, FNP-C and Mary Leitao, Director of the Morgellons Foundation, ADVANCE for Nurse Practitioners,Vol. 13, Issue 5, Page 16 (5/1/2005)</ref>

This is a technical change only. Thanks. Thatcher131 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit requests

{{edit protected}} We have been working on a sandbox version at User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2. Per the discussion at User talk:Thatcher131/Sandbox2 please change the opening sentence to read

Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given to a condition characterized by a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms. Sufferers report crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; finding fibers on or under the skin; and persistent skin lesions (e.g. rashes or sores).

Also, please change the last two sentences of the "History" section to read

The first scientific article to discuss Morgellons was co-authored by Leitao and R. B. Stricker, a member of the MRF's Medical Advisory Board and was published in July, 2006..

The MRF has since received reports of Morgellons from all 50 US states and 15 nations, including Canada, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands, and states that they have been contacted by over 10,000 families.

The reference change fixes an omission of two authors names on the study; the change in description of the MRF's registry is consensus at the sandbox talk page. Thanks. Thatcher131 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request. When the new version is ready, feel free to re-enable it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Symptoms and Causes ready to go live?

How do you feel about moving the Symptoms and Proposed causes sections from User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2 to the live article? I have tried to respond to all concerns. Thatcher131 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I support moving the current sandbox version to the article page. --Parsifal _Hello 02:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Herd of Swine 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be late on this but I have a few comments.

• Disturbing sensations of insects crawling, stinging or biting on or under the skin The cite for this text and also in Unexplained Dermopathy at the CDC does not mention insects at all. In Morgellons disease: Managing a mysterious skin condition the Mayo Clinic states, "often compared to insects moving, stinging or biting." This is a small distinction but since the symptom is similar but slightly different to DP I believe the article should be careful about being accurate to the cite.

• Fiber-like filaments, granules or crystals that appear on or under the skin or that can be extracted from lesions The cite and other reports of fibers seen by researchers associated with the MRF state, "fiber size is near microscopic, and good clinical visualization requires 10-30 X." This is an important detail that should be stated considering other articles allege that inadequate examinations lead to an inaccurate diagnosis of DP.

• Chronic fatigue is not accurate to the cite which states "Most patients meet the Fukuda Criteria for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is much more than Chronic fatigue.

• Many Morgellons patients have symptoms that are also consistent with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and attention deficit disorder.[20] The cite states this text is based on 2006 information from MRF[13] The newest text from the MRF states,"Emotional effects are present in most patients. Character typically includes loss or limitation of boundary control (as in bipolar illness) and intermittent obsessional state. Degree varies greatly from virtually absent to seriously life altering." I believe it would be better if the newer text is reworked and used, or if the older text used, it cite the primary source.Ward20 06:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• The CDC does not have a definition of Morgellons, the purpose of the RFQ is to develop a set of symptoms and diagnostic criteria that can distinguish Morgellons from other conditions (regardless of what the "unexplained dermopathy" page says. I believe the 4 best sources for Morgellons in the medical literature are

1. Savely, Leitao and Stricker, "The mystery of Morgellons disease." Am J Clin Dermatol 2006 7:1-5.
2. Savely and Leitao, " Skin lesions and crawling sensations: disease or delusion? Adv Nurse Pract. 2005 May;13(5):16-7.
3. Koblenzer, The challenge of Morgellons disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006 55:920-922
4. Paquette, Morgellons: Disease or delusions? Perspect Pysch Care 2007. 43:67-68.

Two of these were written by the MRF and two are independent; 3 out of the 4 specifically mention sensations of insects. These sources also mention chronic fatigue, but do not mention the "Fukuda criteria." This is something developed by the MRF that has not yet been published in any form. The fact that a particular type of observation is required ("10-30X magnification) is also not published. Likewise, the editorial by Paquette ("Disease or delusions") describes certain symptoms, the MRF's "revisions" to these symptoms are only on their web site. Publication in a journal implies at least some level of editorial oversight, although how much is debateable. For instance, the title of Savely and Leitao's paper in ADVANCE for nursing was changed from "Morgellons" in the draft version posted on ILADS to "Skin lesions and crawling sensations: disease or delusion?" in the final published version (PMID 15898309). Because of the very limited nature of information on Morgellons it is important to rely as little as possible on information published only by the MRF, which has a strong conflict of interest in the matter. For example, I have removed the Haverty findings as she is (1) not a recognized fiber expert, (2) is only published on the MRF web site; I have (or will) replace the citations of published work which is posted on the Morgellons web site with citations to the original source.

I will be quite happy to mention these 4 sources for the symptoms in place of the MRF, but I do not intend to quote the MRF directly when it is the only source, especially when it disagrees with published descriptions. Thatcher131 07:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With the cites you are using rather than the MRF case definition then that addresses most of my comments. I believed the 10-30x magnification was published elsewhere than the MRF case definition, but only found Wymore used 60x to view fibers under the skin[14], 30x was mentioned for viewing fibers in patient's animals[15] and Dr. Rhonda Casey, examined many patients skin via a dermatoscope. The white ones, she says, are hard to see. A dermatologist who either didn't look at all, or didn't use a dermatoscope, might not see them under the skin. [16] I still believe there is a conflict between listing Chronic fatigue as a symptom and then saying afterward, "Many Morgellons patients have symptoms that are also consistent with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." People use the two terms interchangeably but they are medically very different illnesses. The two MRF papers talk about "debilitating" fatigue along with other debilitating symptoms which are included in the diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Perhaps Chronic fatigue should be replaced by Debilitating fatigue? Ward20 09:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Debilitating fatigue is a good choice for the bulleted list. The problem with stating a magnification for the fibers is that it seems to be a common experience among most Morgellons patients that they claim be able to see and pluck out fibers with the naked eye; Wymore's claim is that under 60x magnification, fibers can be seen underneath unbroken skin that is distant from any lesions. That seems to me to require a higher standard of source. (And of course, it has been pointed out at User talk:Thatcher131/Sandbox2 that some of the claims about the fibers are mutually contradictory.) I would love for their to be a definitive statement in a peer-reviewed study as opposed to a letter to the editor. Thatcher131 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all the points you make about fibers are covered in the section User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2#Theories_about_the_fibers. Thatcher131 11:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Per consensus here and at user talk:Thatcher131/Sandbox2, please replace the entire contents of this article (except for the categories, of course) with the contents of User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2 except for the treatment section which is unfinished. The intro and history contain only typos and cosemetic fixes from the present version; we have reached consensus on the symptoms and theories sections. Thanks. Thatcher131 12:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the dispute is settled wouldn't it be better to request the page unprotection, so that you (all) take care of that yourselve? - Nabla 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to admin: I think protection has helped to force editors to work together. We still have one contentious section about treatments to work through. Thatcher131 16:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly; if protection is lifted from this article, I suspect that it will VERY quickly revert back to edit-warring. My inclination, in fact, would be to keep protection in place until and unless new information becomes available that justifies an update. Dyanega 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Done. I hope I got it right. Please check. - Nabla 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the additional content is present, the meaning is quite different than when those sentences were omitted.

When we quote from sources we need to do our best to accurately reflect the meaning of what the sources wrote without modifying it. Sometimes, content can and should be omitted. For example, I left in a set of ellipses ... where the text was just repeating the note that the CDC is investigating, and the list of symptom signs. Since that was not new information and did not affect the meaning of the passage, I felt OK about leaving it out. Maybe it should be added, I'm not positive about that, but as far as I can tell, that omission does not change the meaning of the passage.

But the other parts that were omitted did change the meaning of the quote.

I encourage all editors to guard against slanting what the reliable sources have written by omitting crucial content. Thank you. --Parsifal _Hello 02:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are reading FAR more into the edit than there was thought behind it - I had intended to place the second of the two sentences of additional text separately in the "Research and Theories" section, near the passages about fibers, and decided against it, opting to concatenate with the preceding sentence regarding patients' concerns, and insert the result in the "Background" section - I found myself with two fragments from within a much larger quote, and I simply didn't bother to fill in the intervening text, nor the line following. I can see your thought process, but your "cherry-picking" theory is NOT the explanation. It's called LAZINESS. Believe it or not, I'm perfectly happy having the entire passage quoted. It is a VERY significant and authoritative quote. Dyanega 03:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I hope you saw that I did not refer to your name in my comment. I did not intend it as a comment about you personally and if it came across that way, I apologize. I've now changed the title of this talk page section to a more neutral topic heading. --Parsifal _Hello 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I also am fine with the whole text being there, I'm just a little uncertain about the usage of huge quotes on Wikipedia. Seems like this articles has a lot of them, which seems a bit unusual. What's the normal guidance here? Herd of Swine 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point that ideally they would be shorter and we would interweave sections of the quotes within the text of the article. The footnotes can sometimes contain longer quotes in small type for additional context if needed (especially for quoting books that are not accessible on the web).

But for now as a temporary solution I think the long-ish quotes are OK and even necessary, because of the wide POV differences we're attempting to harmonize. In the long run, yes they should be more integrated. If we try to do that by directly editing the quoted sections now, I'm concerned that many reverts and increased tension might result.

Maybe a way to integrate the quotes better would be to write those sections in advance here on the talk page before editing them on the main page. When there is consensus that we have a fair NPOV version of a paragraph regarding a particular reference, we could ask for clear approval by editors first, then move the new paragraph into place to replace the plain quotation on the main page. That could be a good way to build some bridges and help this process move from conflict to collaboration. --Parsifal _Hello 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, though I'm not so sure that will work; as long as the quotes are verbatim, no one can dispute them very much. It seems that much of the strong difference of opinion here is from interpretations of what the various sources are actually saying - there's too much OR going on, in effect. The less actual quote, and the more paraphrase, the more room there is to insert bias, or be accused of inserting bias (and you'll note that my response to yours did include a smiley - I understood that you were not trying to offend me, and no apology was needed). To the extent possible, it may be better - when the topic is this contentious - to let the readers look at the actual source statements, and draw their own conclusions. Dyanega 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, l like the full quotations too in this kind of situation. I was replying to Herd's concern, and we may find that some Wikipedians look for the more prose-like style. Personally, I prefer the best accuracy and if that means some longer quotes, I don't see that as a problem. --Parsifal _Hello 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias of article

I am going to write my concerns again because I don't believe that they were really addressed. Please don't cut into the middle of my comments.

1) The article should say what Morgellons is, not that it is like CFS syndrome and DOP. The best source of what Morgellons is would be the CDC website. This was the intro a week ago and it was changed and it biases the article. 2) The DOP quotes in the background section belong in the DOP section. The quote from Wymore from the Nature article which supports the idea that the disease is real was deliberately left in the theories section, and the quote that supported that it is DOP was moved to the background section to highlight it. Pez1103 11:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3) All the Nature cites belong together in the theory section, where they were before. Pez1103 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the changes as proposed. The article was much less biased last week. It has lost its NPOV. Mrytle 13:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

— Myrtle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I strongly disagree with point 1, and mildly disagree with point 3. There were only 2 of the edits when I started reverting, and checking the CDC reference (which was not sourced at any time during the sequence of edits. I consider it disputed that what the CDC calls Morgellons is the same thing as what the MRF calls Morgellons. The MRF's "definition" seems to predominate, so the CDC definition does not belong in the lead. Some of the other changes seem acceptable, but the lead is much better as it was. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I first read this article two weeks ago. At that time, I came away with the impression that Morgellons may or may not be a new disease, that the disease is being investigated by the CDC. Reading the introduction and background section this morning, I came away with the impression that the disease in definately not new and most likely DOP. However, there are numerous cites within the article that contradict this, which creates a confusing, disjointed article. It seems like today's version is trying to persuade the reader that the disease is delusional, despite significant evidence that this is not the case. I don't understand why the article was changed in this way. Mrytle 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I disagree with your assessment of the article (and of the subject), but I can see where it's reasonable that this be your first edit. I would like to point out that the user who started this section has shown lack of understanding of some Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it does seem possible he would create what we call sock puppets to show support for his viewpoint. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The nature article quotes all belong together in the same section. You can't put the DOP quote in the background and relegate the rest to theories. (I am familiar with sock puppets and I do not know Myrtle nor am I Myrtle. Is that that hard to believe that someone would agree with me? I am a female BTW.) If someone can explain why the three statement from Nature should be split up -- they need to do so in the discussion page first. Pez1103 15:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is that hard to believe that someone would agree with you as their first edit, rather than making a comment which hadn't had any previous editorial support. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, I've found most "first edit"s to be disagreeing with someone, rather than agreeing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can just add it to the list of accusation that have been directed at me as I've tried to make this article more neutral. Editors seem to have a hard time with anyone who doesn't agree that the idea that Morgellons is DOP. I could say that all the people who believe that it is DOP are meat puppets. Pez1103 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The CDC description of Morgellons is very similar to the MRFs, except that the MRF mentions neurological symptoms too. I thought it less biased to cite the CDC since they are the nations leading health authority. Pez1103 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. However, splitting the CDC web page in the intro is confusing, and the rest really doesn't make sense except when directly following the description. Perhaps we should just restore the sentence (which we've both accidentally deleted today) that the CDC is investigating (referencing the RFQ).

How is it split? Most paragraphs in this article have multiple cites.

The second paragraph in the background section appears to be redundant and should be removed. Pez1103 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd probably favor inclusion of both definitions in the intro. While I can agree that the CDC's definition would in general be the preferable one, the fact that, in this case, they seem to have indicated that they haven't engaged in any active examination of the disease would make their definition at best a theoretical guess. I'm not saying that I necessarily think that the MRF's definition is inherently better, but they seem to have engaged in some research of the matter, however biased, and until and unless bias is substantiated their definition seems to be at least as valuable as that of the CDC. John Carter 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Propose to remove the Tulsa Police Department data: not peer-reviewed

I suggest that the material attributed to the Tulsa Police Department should be removed, because it is not available from a peer-reviewed scientific source. I don't challenge the good faith of the writer in Psychology Today who reported on that work, but I doubt that she reviewed the micrographs or the boiling-point data herself. This is very minute, technical stuff that could easily be misinterpreted by someone who didn't do it frequently, such as a practitioner in the field. By having peer reviewers, you get other people who are used to micrographs and boiling points to look at your fiber data, and see if it was legit. Most worrisome, the fiber material collected by Wymore arrived in Ziploc bags from patients all over the country, not from doctors. When the Tulsa P.D. said they didn't recognize the fibers, did that conclusion apply to ALL the material sent in?

In place of the material that I think should be removed, there could be one or two sentences commenting on some of the steps that Wymore took to follow up, and some of the other groups who helped him in his investigation, and in that case a brief mention of Tulsa P.D. would be appropriate.

The follow-up on actual patients by Rhonda Casey, an MRF-affiliated osteopathic physician, is more believable than what Wymore did, since she collected fibers from patients and checked their symptoms at the same time. Because of her connection with MRF, it would be good to have peer reviewers to be sure her work is neutral and unbiased. There is still no reviewed publication of this work. EdJohnston 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The finding of the Tulsa police were in the psychology today article and the primetime live special. You cannot impose a different requirement (needs to be peer reviewed) on this information that is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Casey has no affilation with the MRF, never did. Pez1103 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Casey material could really be described as a "follow-up", but it's interesting that she seems to be describing the patients as ALL having something like "foot drop" or "sagging mouth", which is not really described anywhere else. That seems a little out of keeping with other observations, and not even mentioned by any the CDC sources - it's almost as if she describing something different. Should it be kept to show the varied observations and theories, or removed as unverifiable? Herd of Swine 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And Casey has a connection to the MRF, in that she worked directly with their then Director of Research, Randy Wymore, and is the co-signer in the MRF's letter to physicians [17]. Herd of Swine 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the Tulsa information should be included in the article. It has been important in the reporting on this matter, whether it was scientifically done or not, and thus would merit inclusion on the basis of being cited by reliable sources, in this case the national media. Exactly where and how to include it, however, is another matter. John Carter 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rhonda Casey's online CV doesn't list any scientific publications that have appeared under her own name. This is curious; I assume she has some. I could not find any of her work in Pubmed, typing "Casey R"[Author], though I found a lot of other people named R. Casey. She is an osteopathic physician rather than a medical doctor, but you would assume she would still show up somewhere in the literature. At least, she must have written internal reports since she participates in research projects. If she has no peer-reviewed publications, or very few, then I vote to omit the Casey material from our article, especially since our article doesn't say she had the help of a medical doctor in her informal study of the Morgellons patients. EdJohnston 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the PT article says that Casey is a pediatrician. Are you implying that Casey should be excluded because she works with someone who used to be an unpaid volunteer on the MRF scientific advisory board? Regarding Casey's observations of neuro symptoms, this is consistent with the MRF defintion. It is also consistent with the CDC's RFQ which says that they will be testing subjects for neuro symptoms. Imposing the requirement that Tulsa police or Casey's observations must be peer reviewed to be included is inconsistent with the rest of the article and wiki rules as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pez1103 (talk • contribs). 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Casey is listed as the head of a pediatrics department, but she is an osteopath. (Read her CV). That is not a disqualifier but it does change her credentials somewhat. Her (indirect) connection to MRF is a large enough issue to be disclosed as a conflict of interest when submitting a paper to a medical journal. However, curiously, she does not seem to have any such papers. Wikipedia does have a provision in our policy that we sometimes accept less-formal writings by recognized experts, i.e. we can use their personal web sites as a source for certain information even though not formally published. I don't see that Casey has any recognition by her scientific peers, at least as expressed in reviewed articles, for her ability to diagnose neurological diseases. Herd of Swine has already noted above that her observations of 'foot drop' and 'sagging mouth' don't accord with the other reports of Morgellons. We seem to be just passing along anecdotes at this point, since there are no scientific papers to refer to. EdJohnston 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop making false claims about Rhonda Casey's lack of involvement: Several osteopathic physicians were prominently featured in an ABC News Primetime episode, which aired on 8/9/06, as part of its Medical Mysteries series regarding the research of Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences on Morgellons Disease. ... The OSU-CHS research team includes: Rhonda Casey, DO, assistant professor of pediatrics; Stephen Eddy, DO, associate professor of family medicine; and Randy Wymore, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology.[18]. Do you dispute this? Casey works in the newly-inaugurated "Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences' Center for the Investigation of Morgellons Disease" under Wymore, who is its director. Do you dispute this? The Center receives money from the MRF. Do you dispute this? Casey, therefore, is receiving money from the MRF. Do you dispute this? Dyanega 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop attacking me personally and instead focus on the article? The MRF gave start up funding to OSU before August 2006. There is no proof that they gave money to OSU since then. The Center is very new. You would have to show that the MRF gave money to the Center. I know that you have no proof of that. Casey also observed fibers protruding from beneath the surface of the skin -- what kind of degree do you need for that? 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am focused on the article. You are making and suggesting (or denying) changes to the article based on things which are demonstrably untrue. I am attacking the things you are saying, not YOU, and I am entitled to do so. There is proof - cited directly above - that Casey works with, and for, Wymore. She publishes reports for the MRF with him, as a matter of public record. There is proof that Wymore has been receiving money from the MRF and - evidently - is now generating his own funding. Even if you discount the money trail from the MRF to Casey, because you claim the Center is too new to have directly received any of the money sent from the MRF to OSU (which is a pretty minor technicality, since the money went to Wymore, who is the Center's director), she is still getting money from doing work on Morgellons, and is thus NOT an unbiased source. I would also like to point out the POV double-standard in your claiming that one does not need a degree to observe fibers, when you vigorously challenge the word of a prominent dermatologist who says he has done biopsies on Morgellons patients and NOT observed fibers. Dyanega 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be some perspective. I believe that the MRF gave aprox $3000 to OSU over a year ago. I'm not positive tho. Whatever it was, it was definately less than $10,000. I don't know if any portion of this went to Casey, but she certainly is not getting rich off her Morgellons involvement. When did I vigorously challenge the word of a prominent derm? It was Flysee who pulled the letters to the editor, not me. What are you suggesting? That Casey is being paid by the MRF so she is lying about her observations, and her lies are being published in Psychology Today? If you want to qualify her statements by staying that she works with Wymore at OSU, go ahead, but I don't think that there are any grounds for removing her statements entirely. I believe that Dr Uppal is quoted in the NY Times article. She has no affiliation with the MRF at all. Would you feel better if I added her information to this section about her observations? Pez1103 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking back at the article history, you did not challenge Dr. Craft's statements directly - you simply juxtaposed them with Casey's, specifically worded as if Casey's findings REFUTED his. That was an earlier article version, and this juxtaposition has been removed. What you challenged directly was the opinion of the researchers at UC Davis, and their qualifications for making statements about fibers based on examination using a microscope (quoting you from above on this talk page): "I spoke to the director at the Bohart Museum today. He said that their study consisted of looking at fibers under a microscope." - that is no different from what Casey did, and as you said yourself, doesn't require a degree. You have also just contradicted yourself again; above, you wrote: "Casey has no affilation with the MRF, never did." and NOW you say "I don't know if any portion of this went to Casey". If you DON'T KNOW, then why are you here, arguing about the edits? As for what I'm suggesting, it's quite simple: editors are supposed to make note of sources that may not be reliable, especially when dealing with fringe science. People whose research funding - whether it's 300 or 30,000 dollars - is based on the premise that Morgellons is an "emerging infectious disease" are not what most people would consider objective, reliable sources as to whether or not Morgellons is an emerging infectious disease! ESPECIALLY when their "research" is not peer-reviewed. Making such things clear is part of what WP editors are responsible for, as part of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc. As for Dr. Uppal, some of the quotes attributed to that individual are certainly interesting: IT IS NOW SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT THE MORGELLONS DISEASE IS A MIXTURE OR COMBINATION OF MANY DIFFERENT PARASITES IN THE FAMILY OF CLM (Cutaneous Larval Migrans) PARASITES. This new information, along with confirmation from about 15 Infectious Disease Doctors from the Southern United States concludes that the Morgellons Disease (improperly named) is in fact, CLM. The CLM main worm infection is Strongyloides (s.ratti), a microscopic THREADWORM maggot- like worm parasite that lives in and on infected animals (mostly rodents) and now humans with poor immune systems or people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This skin parasite multiplies by the millions daily. This infection is both internal and external to not only the skin, but also the muscle tissue and body organs. This CLM Skin Parasites infection has also been linked to Lyme Disease and all other IMMUNOSUPPRESSED health disorders. It's origin has been linked to So. America, Africa, Asia and other third world countries. These STRONGYLOIDES parasites in the infection are joined with WHIPWORMS, HOOKWORMS, AND other PINWORMS, states Dr. Uppal of TAMPA, FL. I assume that you are requesting that this information be added to the article? The problem is that this is a for-profit enterprise that Dr. Uppal appears to be involved in, but maybe we could add the parasitic worm theory to the list if we can find a citation for Dr. Uppal's opinions (or the "15 Infectious Disease Doctors") outside of this commercial site. Dyanega 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks? As has been stated before by other editors -- why so much hostility directed at people who don't believe that Morgellons is DOP? I still don't think that Casey is affiliated with the MRF - she was never on any board. The MRF gave money to OSU research. My understanding is that the money went to Wymore's lab to cover the cost of the labwork. I think that we are just arguing semantics. Someone already mentioned her affiliation in the article so why do you keep bringing this up? I didn't juxtipose Noah with Casey -- Ward did before I started editing. I did challenge the significance of UC Davis' comments, they dismissed the fibers as textile based on a visual examination. When I spoke to them, UC Davis said that they were very interested in Tulsa's findings that Morgellons fibers are not textile at all, and they said that they would follow up. You cannot compare an entomologist comparing fibers in a bag with a doctor who is seeing the fibers coming out from beneath the skin surface or who find them underneath the skin surface. The fact that the fibers are underneath the skin is pretty darn meaningful. Casey's findings are relevant because of where she found the fibers. She didn't try to determine the composition of the fibers. She sent them to the Tulsa police who determined that they were not textile. Pez1103 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Where have I ever said that I think Morgellons is DOP? That is NOT my opinion. Herd does not believe that Morgellons is DOP, either, and you have directed hostility towards him. You have also - once AGAIN - made a statement that is contradicted: "She sent them to the Tulsa police who determined that they were not textile." According to the reports, it was Wymore who sent samples to the Tulsa Police. There is nothing anywhere to indicate that the Tulsa Police ever examined samples from Casey - or are you claiming that the samples Wymore sent to the Police were ones Casey gave him? Dyanega 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible restructuring of the article

It seems to me, based on the article as it exists today, that what we're basically talking about is a disease which was first publicly "recognized" about five years ago. Prior to then, there seems to have been little, if any, information on the subject. On that basis, it seems to me that maybe the article should not be constructed along the lines of an article about an older and more "recognized", standard disease, but rather as maybe a comparatively unresearched, possibly controversial, scientific proposal. This seems to me particularly indicated given that the CDC itself hasn't done any research on the subject yet, and they seem to be the vanguard of most medical research today. The best comparable article I can find right away is the Morphic field page. Maybe it would be best to structure the page as a scientific or medical theory, and explicitly state in the introduction that widely recognized research data isn't available yet? John Carter 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome a restructuring of the article -- something completely unbiased and SHORT -- this is how the CDC defines morgellons, it isn't recognized disease, the cdc is investigating, the mayo quote regarding the three prevailing opinions about the disease (infectious;mental illness;reserving judgement) -- done. that's it, and lock the article until the cdc investigation is over.

A glance at the discussion page clearly demonstrates that there has been a long history of editing wars in the article, weasel words, accusations, bias, bullying. The constant battle regarding what position is the majority position, what is fringe. This has to stop. It's an enormous waste of time for all the editors involved. I would like a completely unbiased editor to hear all the facts from both sides and come up with an article and lock it to prevent additional editing wars. Is this possible?

The fact that there are pro DOP and anti DOP articles, some doctors think it's real, some don't, and all the rest is just meaningless. We need scientific proof to either prove the disease is real or prove it is not, the rest is just speculation. Pez1103 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not meaningless in the context of the article. In fact, that's the focus of the article, because it's the focus of EVERY article on Morgellons. Every single one of the mentions that most doctors think it's something like DOP. The Wikipedia article simply reflects this, attempting a NPOV.

Regarding restructuring, I think this differs from Morphic field in that there has been a significant degree of advocacy and media campaigning on the part of the MRF, which is in itself a big part of the story. Herd of Swine 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have just created what is known as a straw man. Those are not the three prevailing opinions. There are two prevailing opinions: (1) new ailment (2) known ailment(s). "Reserving judgment" is not an opinion - it is the ABSENCE of an opinion. Dyanega 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way is the following peer-reviewed statement NOT "scientific"?: However it is certainly true that in fact many expert parasitologists, medical entomologists and other microbiologists have in fact carefully examined fibers and other materials expressed or extracted from such patients and found that biological organisms are not present. Negative data points still qualify as science. If you want the article "SHORT", as you say, how about simply limiting the citations to those from peer-reviewed publications? Dyanega 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mayo quote does give the position the disease may be psychological. It is enough. Over and over editors have stated that the article has to cram the idea that Morgellons is DOP down the reader’s throat in order for the article to be NPOV. I disagree. I don’t believe that the prevailing opinion is that Morgellons is DOP at all. If it were, the CDC would not be calling it an emerging public health concern, they would not mentioning reports of systemic symptoms (incompatible with DOP), they would not have been receiving calls from health care practitioners and public health departments, they would not have been invited into California by their health department last year to conduct an investigation. You want to dismiss that all as the MRF’s doing. The MRF is not that powerful. There are only 10,000 registrant families and most are too ill to speak up for themselves and have no money left to fund research. I want an unbiased article. Why not just say the truth? No one knows anything for sure. We need research. The derms who say it is DOP are making a psychiatric diagnosis – which is inappropriate in an of itself. The fact that parasitogists and entomologists haven’t found anything yet is pretty meaningless, but put it in there if you want. What if this is bacterial or fungal or viral? It doesn’t mean the disease is DOP.Pez1103 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked before that people not insert comments in the middle of my comments. I am asking for this courtesy again. I moved the comments accordingly Pez1103 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pez1103, your previous comment is on the verge of making sense to me. If you are willing, I suggest you might try to rephrase what you said in a less argumentative way. Perhaps you could leave out the comment about cram the idea that Morgellons is DOP down the reader's throat because that seems incivil. I sense that there could be some bona fide annoyance among the patients who feel that they have been casually dismissed by dermatologists. Your argument that it is inappropriate for dermatologists to make a psychiatric diagnosis might be included in some way in the article. EdJohnston 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pez, PLEASE stop using the straw man argument: "I don’t believe that the prevailing opinion is that Morgellons is DOP at all." It is a blatant misrepresentation of the prevailing opinion. The prevailing opinion, cited MULTIPLE times, is that Morgellons is a number of known medical conditions, both physical and psychological, and ONE of the psychological conditions in that list is DOP. There is a tremendous and CRUCIAL difference between that, which is the reality of the situation, and your false claim that people are saying "Morgellons is DOP". Does the term false dichotomy mean anything to you? Dyanega 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dyanega, can you clarify your comment? Do dermatologists actually follow a diagnosis tree in which one of the possible results is DOP? Would they actually say to a patient that they have Delusional Parasitosis? Apologies if these questions have been answered previously. EdJohnston 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A DOP diagnosis is a very difficult thing both for the patient and the doctor. Typically patients are VERY resistant to any kind of kind of psychological involvement in their disease. So doctors often dance around the subject, phrasing things differently, with the goal of getting the patient on psychotropic medication. Let's face it, telling someone "you are crazy, take this", when the patient does not think they are crazy, is generally not going to be productive. Here is an example of a doctor trying treat a Morgellons patient with empathy: [19]. "After taking cultures and a biopsy, I reassured her that there were no bacterial, fungal, or parasitic infections. I emphasized that I did not doubt the authenticity of the sensations she was experiencing, and I empathized with how disconcerting it must be to feel bugs crawling and stinging her skin. I explained that sometimes medications that psychiatrists use to calm nerve signals help patients with Morgellons disease." Herd of Swine 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Then replace the statement that the prevailing opinion is not that Morgellons is DOP with the prevailing opinion is not that Morgellons is not a new disease. Pez1103 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that? Herd of Swine 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, it is yet ANOTHER false dichotomy. The prevailing opinion is that Morgellons is a number of known AILMENTS - you use the word "disease" when it is not justified. I don't think anyone would ever characterize folliculitis, dermatitis, or autism as "diseases". Dyanega 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask a dermatologist who edits WP to contribute here, though I doubt there is a "national standard" regarding how to arrive at a DP diagnosis. I suspect that each doctor decides, in his or her own judgment, whether or not to inform the patient of the diagnosis. In terms of citations, about all we have to go on regarding how dermatologists treat the diagnosis issue on a personal/professional level is a series of opinion pieces published together recently in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Volume 55), which Pez has repeatedly claimed cannot be cited because they were not peer-reviewed, and which recommend that dermatologists confronted with patients suffering from DP might try using the term "Morgellons" with these patients to establish rapport, and facilitate treatment. Those articles might shed some light on this question. There also used to be a citation in the article in which the reporter stated: "Dermatologists are afraid to see these patients," says Dr. Peter Lynch, professor emeritus of dermatology at the University of California, Davis. He says he has examined about 75 people with Morgellons-like symptoms in the past 35 years and believes they suffer from delusional parasitosis--literally, delusions of parasites in the skin. It's a diagnosis people don't like. One patient, threatening malpractice, convinced the state medical board to investigate Lynch. Another warned he had a pistol in the glove compartment of his truck, Lynch says. "He told me, 'I'm going to shoot the next doctor who tells me it's in my head.'"[20] Given that, I suspect many dermatologists would NOT tell a patient that they have DP. Dyanega 22:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with this matter?

The subject of this article is a presumptive medical condition which first came to light five years ago. In that time, a non-profit foundation advocating research into the subject has been created, and at least one study has stated that there is no evidence that the examiners in that study have seen to indicate it exists. The Centers for Disease Control is requesting an examination of the subject, but no such investigation has yet taken place. What should the content of an article about an alleged, newly discovered (or purported) medical condition like this be? John Carter 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote that the article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over.

(There have been no formal studies, BTW.) The harm that can be done by this article the way it is now far exceeds any benefit. Pez1103 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies for deletion, unfortunately. It would have to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and I don't think it does. John Carter 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pez, you work as a volunteer for the MRF, an advocacy organization which is a major topic of the article; not only do your edits violate WP:COI and WP:SOAP, but - because of this - your request for deletion is (as I see Fyslee has noted) also a violation of WP:OWN policy. Dyanega 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, and in fact the reasoning given for deletion violates policy as explained here:

Unintended consequences.

If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

This applies to anything, including pet ideas or favorite singer. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and both sides of the story must be presented. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up backfiring. -- Fyslee/talk 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits don't violate any rules. I've just tried to make the article more neutral and I have used cites to back up anything I've added. It is hardly my own article or about me. It shouldn't even be about the MRF. It should be about a disease -- is it a newly emerging disease, or is it an existing disease or some combination thereof? What no one will acknowledge is how much harm a biased article can do. If what the MRF believes is true, if what the reports that the CDC has received are accurate, Morgellons patients have a newly emerging serious, systemic, disfiguring and disabling disease, which is not only infectious, it may be contagious. It affects thousands of children. No one knows what causes it or how to treat it. It affects entire families. Try to imagine what it would be like to have a disease like that. Try to imagine what it would be like to be Mary Letao. Imagine what it would be like to have three children come down with a horrifying disease -- to watch them get sicker and not only not be able to get any help for them, be ridiculed for trying. A biased article increases the suffering of everyone who has the disease -- by making it harder for them to get the help that they desperately need. And this is a biased article, filled with cherry picking and weasel words. What if the MRF is wrong and this is all mass hysteria? The wiki article, by its very existance, supports the idea that it is real and prepetuates the "delusion." Either way, people lose, people suffer. Mary never asked for this article, she never wanted to be a public figure -- she is just trying to get help for her children. (That is the closest I will come to a soapbox.) You can hide behind your wiki rules and cite me for everything you can think of and accuse me of whatever. The only way to prevent this article from continuing to be destructive is to either get rid of it entirely or have an unbiased editor make it completely neutral and lock it until the CDC investigation is over. I think that you cannot compare this article with pet ideas or favorite singers. There have been constant editing battles. All of it needs to stop. This isn't a game -- it's people's lives. Pez1103 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say you aren't violating rules does not mean that you are not. You have been asked repeatedly to familiarize yourself with the rules - it is evident that you have not done so. The passage above violates several. From WP:FRINGE: Ideas which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. If you cannot or will not accept the rules of editing, then please do not continue editing the article. Dyanega 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't loose sight of the highly unusual fibers. Morgellons is not simply the theory that a particular set of symptoms denotes a new disease. It is the theory that colored fibers are found embedded in the skin, and these fibers are one symptom of a new disease. This is not something trivial. It is something new to science, and decidedly non-mainstream. As such I think it qualifies as a fringe theory and those guidelines should be followed. Herd of Swine 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The don't agree that the idea that morgellons is a newly emerging disease is FRINGE. Pez1103 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict response)As someone who is not really involved one way or another, I would think that, at this point, it might (depending on circumstances) make sense to stress initially the fact that the CDC is soliciting for research on the subject in the intro, and then go into the various arguments for and against. I say this on two possibly faulty thoughts:

• (1) I'm not sure about CDC actions, but do they generally solicit for such research on "fringe theories"? If the answer is no, then I'm not sure that it would qualify as such. It is of course understood that I don't actually know anything about CDC behavior one way or another.
• (2) Also, at this point, I have qualms about maybe, maybe, mistakenly labelling something as a "fringe theory" when there is, myabe, evidence to indicate that, perhaps sometime soon (how long does the CDC take to do things once it starts them? I dunno) be proven wrong. That would hurt the credibility of wikipedia I think worse than most anything else. On that basis, and I admit my own ignorance of the subject here, I'm thinking maybe that it could be formatted like,

"Morgellons is a theory.

It states this.

This evidence supports it.

This evidence doesn't.

It has been mentioned here.

It is (or has been) investigated here.

Outside results are expected sometime soon."

Such an approach would be neutral. I do acknowledge however that I don't necessarily know all the protocols involved in scientific fringe theories, or exactly how something qualifies as one. John Carter 00:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The CDC's involvement is very interesting, as this seems to be the first time they have initiated an investigation without scientific evidence to back it up. See: [21]

The debate has grown so heated that, recently, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention got involved, and not because they wanted to. They were inundated with calls from irate people who say they have this disorder and want answers. "More typically we get a very credible indication of an emerging problem from an official source," says Dan Rutz, spokesperson for the CDC. "This was driven by lay people and some clinicians who are frustrated and not sure what to do with these folks."

So yes, normally the involvement of the CDC would lend great weight to the seriousness of a situation - but in this case it seems mostly driven by political means. The CDC don not want to investigate Morgellons, they are doing it because they have to.

I disagree with your proposed restructuring. Simply stating a theory and giving evidence for and against it ignores the majority medical opinion. And the major problem is that there actually is no evidence. Just a few anecdotes in newspaper stories. Herd of Swine 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly appears that Dan Rutz, who is a spokesperson for the CDC not a doctor, misspoke when he said the above since this is in conflict with CDC's August 1 statement.

I think that the article should be very short and simple. It should state what morgellons is per the CDC website (unexplained dermopathy -- with the list of symptoms; state the perceptions about the disease per the mayo clinic, (1) new disease, (2) existing disease, including mental illness, (3) reserving judgement. Finally, it should state that the CDC will investigate. That's enough and lock it. That is completely unbiased and removes any speculation. It cites the leading authorities in the country. Anymore just provokes the endless debates and edit wars. The rest is just speculation anyway. Any new disease has new symptoms, so the fact that Morgellons patients produce fibers should not make it fringe. I don't believe that the CDC would launch a mulimillion dollar investigation of a fringe theory. According to the CDC they have received more inquiries regarding Morgellons disease than any disease in the history of the agency. They have received inquires from the public, the media, health practitioners and health departments. I think that this puts this outside any fringe theory. Pez1103 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to mirror articles from the Mayo clinic. That's just one source. It's a lot more complex than that.

Where did you get: "According to the CDC they have received more inquiries regarding Morgellons disease than any disease in the history of the agency" ?

Herd of Swine 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see where you got it. It used to be in the letter that you were sending to senators. That language was removed from the most recent letter [22] (which I thought you wrote?). I assume the language was removed because it was a mistake. I seem to remember the CDC saying they got about 20 calls a day. Herd of Swine 00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See [23] "The CDC has been receiving as many as 20 calls a day from self-diagnosed Morgellons patients. " Herd of Swine 00:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mayo clinic quote covers your position that the disease may not be new and may be mental illness. The CDC told the MRF that they had gotten more calls regarding Morgellons than any disease in the history of the agency. Pez1103 00:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The latter is not usable unless it's on a source controlled by the CDC; the MRF web site is clearly not reliable in this instance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using it in the article. Why is the article being blocked from new editors? Pez1103 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not about using it in the article. You are giving incorrect facts, (like, "People are dying of this disease", "It affects thousands of children" and "more calls regarding Morgellons than any disease in the history of the agency"), and this may unduly influence other editors. Please try to ensure your facts are correct before posting them, even on the talk page. If you are not 100%, then please state your uncertainty, and the source of your facts. Herd of Swine 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned before that I am a volunteer for the MRF. As such, I recieve many, many emails from people with this disease. I have seen statistics which were taken from the registration database. If I cannot share this information, fine, I will not. I didn't realize that it was prohibited from the talk page. I thought it just wasn't allowed in the article.Pez1103 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article prohibiting new editors? Pez1103 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why. I (and the bot) were just reporting the fact is was restricted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To find this information, go to the article main page, click the history tab, then click the link just below the page title where it says "View logs for this page". --Parsifal _Hello 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is determined that the idea that Morgellons disease is a new disease is fringe, by definition, the article should be deleted. Pez1103 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Herd. I receive emails from people who say that they believe that they are dying from the disease, that they are having seizures, etc, or that their friends or relatives died from the disease, or committed suicide, but I have no proof. I don't ask them to prove it to me. I just take their word for it. Pez1103 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

current event tag lol

Someone put a tag that this article is about a current event. It's really not, so I'm removing it. It's not a news story that was on the news this evening or anything. If this is in response to the CDC asking for quotations, that just means they're deciding who is to carry out this not yet started study. This may be of pressing interest to those monitoring the CDC actions on morgellons, but it's not a crucial, current event to readers. Also any new information, such as from the planned study, won't be released for some months, maybe years, who knows. It's not going to be updated with that info any minute.Merkinsmum 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected (see the section below), so I don't think you can remove it at the moment. But even so, I added the tag because some of the edit warring was specific to the CDC RFQ, which was less than a week old. That is a current event. See the template talk page for more discussion as to what a "current event" is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Full protection

I've upgraded the protection on this article to full protection; it'll run the same span of time. Please open an article content WP:RFC or enter mediation to resolve the differences. Although the editors here are unlikely to win each other to their respective points of view, you may achieve a good encyclopedic treatment of the disease. A few points to bear in mind:

• WP:NOT#Not a soapbox - this article is not a venue for advocacy either for or against the idea that Morgellons is a disease.
• WP:NOT#Not a battlefield - editors should be able to collaborate even when they disagree.
• WP:NPOV - Wikipedia does not attempt to give a definitive statement on the legitimacy of Morgellons.
• WP:NPOV#Undue weight - Wikipedia's function is to present information according to the proportionate weight each viewpoint carries among notable experts. That means more space goes to whatever opinion predominates among the experts.
• WP:V - controversial statements should be supported with line citations and should remain as close as possible to the content and spirit of the sources.
• WP:OWN - no individual or clique controls the article.

Best wishes sorting things out. Durova^Charge! 02:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone has protected the page. Wonder who asked for that?:)Merkinsmum 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Probably Pez1103, considering m:The wrong version. LOL. In any case, it was the same Admin who semiprotected it, so it may not have been requested at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean m:The Wrong Version? (not going to delete anything, as I'm not sure). Herd of Swine 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Close enough. I thought there was a shortcut to it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

←For whatever it's worth, I support Durova's action. To be clear and address Merkinsmum's question, I did not request the protection, and I don't think Pez or anyone else did either though I don't know that for sure.

This will be good for the article and the climate of discussion. I hope editors here will use the time productively to come up with a better way of working together. Whatever each person's feeling is about what the article should convey, I would be surprised if anyone has been happy with the continual conflict that's been happening. Now there's a chance to change that. --Parsifal _Hello 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't receive any specific request for page protection. But given the amount of activity on both this article and the talk page, it seemed best to give everyone a few days to come together. Durova^Charge! 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead section

The start of the lead devolved today from:

Morgellons (also called Morgellons syndrome) is a name given by biologist Mary Leitao to a mysterious condition characterized by non-healing skin lesions and fibers found in and on the skin, as well as several other physical and neurological symptoms similar to known medical conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome. There is controversy regarding the nature of this condition. The medical literature largely regards Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis.

To

Morgellons (also called Morgellons syndrome) is a name given by biologist Mary Leitao to a mysterious condition characterized by a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. There is controversy regarding the nature of this condition. Dermatologists largely regard Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis

The long list of symptoms serves to take focus away from the fibers, which are by far and away the most discussed aspect of the disease [24]. I can see removing the reference to chronic fatigue syndrome (which only has about 90% of the secondary symptoms of Morgellons), but surely "other physical and neurological symptoms" would suffice? A long list of symptoms clutters up the lead, and is included later in much more detail.

Then on the change from "The medical literature largely regards ..." to "Dermatologists largely regard". This was discussed before. But is based on all the available medical literature (that was not written by board members of the MRF) relating Morgellons to either a combination of existing illness, or delusional parasitosis. This includes dermatology journals, the American Journal of Psychiatry, and the 2007 Atlas of Parasitology. There are also copious quotes in the media about "most doctors" regarding Morgellons as being, or incorporating, delusion. See [25]. Hence, I suggest the reference to dermatologists be replace by a more general reference either to medical literature, or doctors in general. Herd of Swine 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but I think the mention of dermatologists makes it more clear and specific. Morgellons is said to be a skin problem, so the reaction of dermatologists would be important to know. Also I wish something could be done about the word 'mysterious' in the opening sentence, because the question is 'mysterious to whom?' There may not actually be a specific disease process (not an actual parasite, bacterium etc.) in common to the people who believe they have Morgellons. So the question is, is there a neutral way of referring to an 'alleged disease' that hasn't yet been recognized? I hope this isn't revisiting an issue you have discussed many times before. EdJohnston 03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An aside regarding the term "mysterious": I see your point, but then again... the term is used by many of the references. Using my browser search on the article page, I count 10 uses of the word "mysterious", not including the initial lead, and if I add "mystery" as well, the total is 15, not including the lead. Those are all in the referenced quotes or the titles of the references - not in the Wiki article text itself. The condition may turn out to be psychological, or it may turn out to have an organic cause,... but either way, it does appear to be "mysterious" at least for now until science figures it out. Considering that term is used by so many sources, it seems appropriate to include it in the description in the intro (even though it sounds a bit strange). --Parsifal _Hello 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple chemical sensitivity is probably the closest subject on Wikipedia to Morgellons. It is subject to the same problems, advocates editing to advocate a position backed by no evidence, and rejected by the medical establishment. The article is not too bad though, and the lead works reasonably well. Note the usual long list of symptoms, the majority of which are shared with Morgellons (and CFS). Herd of Swine 04:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another subject with similar problems is Aspartame controversy. It too is an alleged condition fueled by the efforts of one single woman who is a super activist. (She worked in a doctor's office at one time, which seems to have made her a medical expert - in her own mind.) She has thus gotten thousands of people to believe in her delusional theories (don't ever get on her mailing list or try to discuss with her, you'll regret it!). Such ideas are contagious within a certain subset of the population who are already susceptible to conspiracy theories. Their activism can then place such a burden on the health care system and on politicians that politically motivated actions akin to the current CDC investigation are necessitated. Never underestimate the power of one deluded activist. -- Fyslee/talk 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

These two articles do give some ideas for revising the lead. Multiple chemical sensitivity avoids the word 'mysterious' completely but uses the passive voice, saying '..is described as..' Aspartame controversy is the most neutral of all, saying "Aspartame has been the subject of a vigorous public controversy..." which I think is a very good style. At least this way of saying it doesn't go forward and define a syndrome, which is basically just a list of symptoms that someone made, regardless of any actual disease process that caused them. It's cheering that aspartame is so far just the 'subject of a controversy' and not even a syndrome. EdJohnston 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point Ed, but then again, those articles don't even have one reference using that word (I checked). Yet this article has 15 references that call it either "mysterious" or a "mystery." Do you see something inherently non-neutral about the word "mysterious"? I'm not taking a position on whether it's a physical disease or psychological,... but it does appear to be a mystery that 10,000 people perceive fibers in their skin and science has not been able yet to confirm or disprove it. I don't know about those other articles, but in this one, the mysteriousness of the condition is one of the core factors of the article. What I mean by that is: we're not deciding if it's a disease or a delusion, we're writing about what others have said about it, and lots of sources - including topmost respected source American Journal of Psychiatry used that word to describe the condition. I don't mean to make a big deal of this, but likewise, I don't see why it's a problem to include that word. --Parsifal _Hello 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

←Aside from the question of the word "mysterious", we should beware of the Association fallacy when we discuss other articles that seem superficially similar to this one. I haven't studied those other two articles, but even if some of their factors overlap this one, the whole history of those topics, and the Wikipedia process arriving at the current forms of the articles, are different than this one.

Let's keep our focus on this article, and in particular, what WP:Reliable sources have said, and how we can most accurately report that information, without adding any personal bias in any direction. That's challenging enough. We don't need to take on the burden of figuring out whether or not it's a real disease. Actually, we are prohibited from doing that by the Wikipedia policy of WP:No original research.

In particular, if in one of those other topics there was a person who was "one deluded activist", and if that person caused a problem for the CDC or was a "burden on the health care system" , that is not in any way related to what's going on in this article. They are completely separate stories. Maybe it will turn out that we discover WP:Reliable sources who state that a similar situation is happening here. OK... if we have that source we can report it. But until then, we have only the sources we have, and they do not state that. If we did have those sources, I would not block their inclusion, but we don't have them (so far), so those ideas can't be in the article (so far). --Parsifal _Hello 06:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase, "The medical literature largely regards Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis", I paraphrased this directly from a line in reference 3: (the article in the American Journal of Psychiatry). That reference doesn't support the phrase, "Dermatologists largely regard...". Sancho 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe (and I could be wrong since I can no longer access this article) that this article in the American Journal of Psychiatry relies on two letters to the editor of a dermatology journal as a basis for this assertion. These letters were already determined not to be appropriate for inclusion in the Morgellons article. Pez1103 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Historically, with almost every single new disease, doctors have dismissed the idea that there was a new disease -- this happened with lyme, lupus, MS, AIDS, etc. Doctors diagnose known diseases. I think trying to dismiss Morgellons based on this is shortsighted. Pez1103 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I remembered incorrectly what the article had said. It did mention "dermatology literature", not "medical literature". In addition, though, I am not trying to dismiss Morgellons. I was just trying to report that people have said that medical literature (now, dermatology literature) largely regards Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis. Saying what other reliable sources have said about the subject is exactly what Wikipedia should do (in a balanced way, of course). This doesn't dismiss the condition. It leaves it up to people to decide what they want to think about Morgellons. Sancho 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Historically, with almost every single new disease, doctors have dismissed the idea that there was a new disease -- this happened with lyme, lupus, MS, AIDS, etc. Doctors diagnose known diseases. I think trying to dismiss Morgellons based on this is shortsighted." Pez1103 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is false to suggest that these conditions were initially deemed psychiatric by the medical and scientific community and only later revealed to be "physical" ailments. Lyme disease, for instance, was first associated with tick bites more than a hundred years before the causative agent was found. There was a lack of agreement early in the history of AIDS over what caused the immune depression and its associated manifestations (viruses and chemical agents were proposed) but these patients' problems were not "dismissed". In the case of "Morgellons" there is a very long history of association with a known psychiatric condition. In giving premature credence to the claims of Morgellons proponents, it is important not to fall into the Galileo fallacy. EL 14 August 2007

Proposal

(Please do not make comments in the middle of my comments)

This article has been a constant source of editing wars. In the word of an unbiased observer: "I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it [directed at people who do believe that this is a new disease]." (Mukrkrgsj:discussion page) It is a full time job -- 12 hours a day -- to try to keep this article unbiased. I'm sure that was not the intention of wikipedia to create this kind of editing nightmare. As I stated above, a biased article has the potential of seriously harming a group of people who may be suffering from a disfiguring and disabling newly emerging disease. This issue should be taken very seriously.

I am proposing two options to put an end to all this until the CDC finishes its investigation. I am asking that unbiased editors -- those who have not been part of the editing wars -- to comment on my proposals.

1)According to Herd and Dyanega, the idea that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease is a "fringe" theory. Since the article is about Morgellons disease, and if the idea that Morgellons disease even exists is FRINGE, this article violates wiki rules by its very inclusion. Therefore, I am again asking that this article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over.

-- or --

2) I propose that the following be the entire content of the article and that it be locked. It is completely neutral, states everyone's opinion. The sources are the Mayo Clinic and the CDC. I've also included Herd's addition about delusional parasitosis.

"Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease," is also referred to as "unexplained dermopathy" (skin disease) by the CDC. In June 2007, a CDC website asserted persons with this unexplained skin condition report cutaneous symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions. Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. The CDC indicates the etiology of Morgellons is unknown and there is insufficient information to determine if persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.[2]

Morgellons disease is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis, and medical professionals' opinions about Morgellons disease are divided. Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. Some health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis[4]. Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.[5]

The CDC will be conducting an epidemiologic investigation into Morgellons. Pez1103 11:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pez says- "It is a full time job -- 12 hours a day -- to try to keep this article unbiased."- only if you make it so. It's up to you how you choose to spend your time surely? The thing about wikipedia is people/the public IMHO should be encouraged not to take the main article as 'the truth', but if they want to learn more in depth/get the whole story they should read the talk page too. Even as a casual reader about something, if I care enough or if something in the article sounds 'not quite right' I'll read the talk page to get the other perspective. If the public were encouraged to read it like this, edit warring wouldn't be so intense as the main article for a subject isn't so much the crucial only version all readers will read, if you see what I mean.:)

"Since the article is about Morgellons disease, and if the idea that Morgellons disease even exists is FRINGE, this article violates wiki rules by its very inclusion. Therefore, I am again asking that this article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over."- No, a subject being "fringe" isn't grounds for non-inclusion if the subject is noteable enough/mentioned and discussed widely. What's not allowed is a wikipedia article pushing and presenting as fact a fringe theory. So the article wouldn't be removed, but the article NPOV-ed so propogation of the fringe element wasn't excessive, if you see what I mean.Merkinsmum 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my point -- it's not that I chose to spend 12 hours a day editing wiki - the point is that would be the amount of effort it would take to try to keep this from being a biased article. Does anyone object to option #2? Pez1103 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary gave me permission to share the following excerpt from her email to wiki on the discussion page:

August 6, 2007

To Whom it May Concern:

I formally request that you please remove the defintions of Morgellons and Morgellons disease from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons_disease. This defintion is about my eight-year-old child's illness which I named Morgellons disease. The definition about the disease has been used to attack me, and the Morgellons Research Foundation, which I founded in honor of my child in order to find a cure for his illness. The definition of Morgellons disease, as it appears on your website, has been used as a battleground by people with their own agendas. Unfortunately, the people with the illness and those working hard on their behalf, have been personally attacked and their character impugned.

My character is being continually assasinated, as I have been personally attacked on your website.

I ask that this be entire horrific process be stopped immediately.

I find the entire "editing" process on Wikipedia re Morgellons to be distasteful and disturbing, especially in light of the fact that people with the illness including small children and their parents, have been mocked and humiliated in the process. The defintion of Morgellons disease on Wikipedia has become an excellent example of a pointless and ugly human power struggle.

In accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Delete _or_undelete I am formally requesting that this article be deleted.

The CDC has launched an epidemilogical investigation of this disease which is expected to be completed by next year. I am asking that the Morgellons disease article be deleted, at least until the CDC can finish their investigation.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Mary M. Leitao Executive Director Morgellons Research Foundation www.Morgellons.org

Pez1103 13:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, the MRF don't own this article, it exists because the subject is widely discussed/controversial. It is not even entitled 'Mary Leitao' so she has no claims over it like she would if it was about her personally. This article was probably started by a morgellons believer to promulgate the beliefs of the MRF, then it has left the agenda of the believers and become more NPOV. That's the nature of wikipedia- don't start a subject unless you with it to be edited mercillessly and anything controversial about it to be mentioned. In a case of an article named after a person who has borderline noteability, that sometimes can be deleted at their request. But not an article which in the MRFs own words, tens of thousands of people are said to be effected. That's hardly just about her and her son, and she has no right to 'control' discussion of what has become a public interest issue, especially as omg! it may be a deadly infectious disease! the CDC are investigating it!----even though they're still investigating, the debate/publicity around morgellons is still noteable before their investigation is complete. That's why the CDC are investigating it. Just google the word and see how many mentions it gets- not just her and her son unfortunately.Merkinsmum 14:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

" as omg! it may be a deadly infectious disease! the CDC are investigating it!" -- I hope that this comment was not intended to mock people who believe that this is a serious disease. Pez1103 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is unsourced negative information about Mary, herself, or about the Foundation, she can petition that information to be removed, per WP:BLP. (In fact, she can do so here, either directly, or through a proxy, such as Pez1103, and it should be considered, even with the article protected.) However, the CDC RFQ makes the subject notable, so deletion of the article is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can't find anything in wikipedia policy regarding removing sourced material of any sort one way or another, which proposal #2 seems to deal with, barring undue weight, which, given the lack of info available, I don't think can be cited here. Anyone with any more experience about that sort of thing have any ideas? John Carter 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

John - I thought that you had suggested a new approach to the article. I was trying to come up with something that would be very neutral, very concise, that could end the editing wars. I didn't know that the article could not be shortened in that way. 15:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deciding how long an article should be and what information it should include is a matter of editorial judgement. For example, if Abe Lincoln cited every historian who has ever written about him, it would be a thousand pages long. Thatcher131 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting the article, or locking it until the CDC investigation is over, are both contrary to Wikipedia's core philosophy, and the idea that Wikipedia would simply ignore this topic is silly. I think the current version of the article probably overquotes MRF-associated doctors. It is also overlong and not well organized, I think. Sometimes advocates want to cram in every anecdote and detail; sometimes skeptics want to counter every favorable comment with two unfavorable comments. While I think the medical consensus at this point is that Morgellons is actually a number of other skin conditions (including DP) I also found Koblenzer's editorial in the Nov 2006 JAAD to be incredibly condescending. (Unfortunately, Dr. Harvey's response in Apr 2007 was short on science and long on soapbox.)
• If the agrobacterium abstract on the MRF web site which is currently an unreliable source (it is an abstract not published in a peer-reviewed journal and it is hosted on a partisan web site) ever makes it to press in a real journal, the situation with morgellons could change over night. Similarly, I would like to see a peer-reviewed double-blind trial of the antibiotic therapy noted by Dr. Harvery in his letter to the JAAD. In the mean time, wikipedia has an obligation to be fair to both sides. Thatcher131 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we must be fair to each side. But we must also consider Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, particularly: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Being fair does not mean presenting each side of the argument as being equally valid. Here we have on the one hand, the MRF, with five or six board members and ex-board-members (Stricker, Leitao, Savely, Harvey, Bransfield and Wymore), who are responsible for all of the literature suggesting the Morgellons is an unknown infectious disease that has fibers come out of the skin, and it is not psychological in origin, and on the other hand you have, as reported, "most doctors" and "most dermatologists", who suggest there is often a strong psychological component in addition to other known disease, and the fibers are just environment contamination. While the literature is divided, it is divided between the MRF and the medical establishment in a highly uneven manner.

Theories should be given appropriate weight. For example, there is a third theory, Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome [26] which suggests that this set of symptoms is caused by opportunistic parasitic infections caused by leaking amalgam dental fillings. There are two references in PubMed in favor of this theory (search for "amin neurocutaneous"). Should this theory be be discussed on par with the MRFs theories? Can we be "fair to both sides"? Not in their eyes - so we need an essentially impartial judge, being the acceptance of the ideas in the wider relevant academic community. Herd of Swine 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more than just three theories - others have been included on this page, earlier in its history, such as those of George Schwartz, but Pez objected, as follows: "And why in the world is Schwartz cited? What criteria does that meet? He's obviously off his rocker -- it's only there to mock the disease. Pez1103 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)". There are also theories linking Morgellons to nanotech and chemtrails, each of them with numerous cites from sources that are, objectively, just as reliable - in the WP sense - as the MRF (i.e., self-published websites). I'd suggest that other editors didn't fight to keep them included because of the relative lack of notability, NOT relative lack of reliability. To be completely objective about it, it is not that the MRF is the ONLY organization promoting Morgellons as an infectious disease, it is simply the most notable of the various organizations (even including National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) sponsorship!). Morgellons is fringe theory, as WP defines it (fewer than 20 medical/scientific professionals, none of them dermatologists, who claim that it is a novel dermatological condition, with no peer-reviewed clinical or lab studies to support the claim, and in direct conflict with numerous mainstream sources that say otherwise), and the MRF does not hold exclusive rights to the theory, even though (in effect) they coined the name and have proclaimed themselves the definitive authority on the subject. The appropriate weight that should be given to the MRF's definition and interpretation of Morgellons is minimal, yet it presently comprises almost the entirety of the article, largely through the effort of two dedicated editors (editors whose SOLE participation in WP is restricted to the Morgellons article), one of whom works for the MRF and has declared above that she spends 12 hours a day editing the article (which I contend is a clear violation of WP:COI; the admin who locked this article removed the COI notice from the noticeboard without resolving the COI issue). Certainly, if the CDC produces a study which supports the novelty of Morgellons, or if Citovsky proves that Morgellons is a skin disease caused by Agrobacterium, the considerations would change, but (following WP:NOT) WP is not a crystal ball - at PRESENT, there is no reason to classify it as other than fringe theory. Pez has objected to this classification, repeatedly, but I don't believe she recognizes that the classification does not - I repeat - does NOT imply that the MRF's theory is false; it simply indicates that it is a theory which has few adherents in the relevant community of experts, many opponents, and no objectively-assessed and reliably sourced supporting evidence. Dyanega 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary Leitao - Personal attacks?

Mary Leitao said, above,

My character is being continually assasinated, as I have been personally attacked on your website.

Leitao is mentioned in the lead as the person who named the disease, and as the founder of the MRF. She is also mentioned in MRF section, in one place listing her qualifications and in another regarding the August 2006 mass resignations. These are all referenced, and do not seem particularly unfavorable. The only other place Leitao is mentioned is the first paragraph of the background section:

In 2002, Mary Leitao's 2-year-old son developed sores under his lip and began to complain of "bugs". Leitao examined the sores and discovered "bundles of fibers" of various colors. After taking her son to at least eight different doctors, Leitao's concerns regarding fibers were dismissed, and it was suggested Leitao herself may be suffering from Munchausen's by proxy. [27] In 2004, Leitao created a web site devoted to what she now believes is a new disease, which she called Morgellons after an obscure condition described in 1674

Were this unsourced speculation, it would probably constitute a personal attack. However it is simply a recounting of the history of Morgellons that has been told many times in the media. I suggested that this material be added here: Talk:Morgellons#Suggestions_for_background_section. Two other editors strongly concurred the material was relevant, so I added it on 4 August 2007, [28], and it remained (as far as know) basically unedited since then. That indicates some consensus, especially as it is the first paragraph after the lead section, and hence very visible.

The basic story can be found in many sources, I gave three: Psychology Today, ABC and Pittsburgh Post, and a reference to several press stories where Leitao herself is quoted as saying "They said they were not interested in seeing him because I had Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy." Based on the above, I do not feel Leitao's accusations of personal attacks carry any weight. Herd of Swine 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it should probably be removed. Thatcher131 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on what policy? -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it is sourced, it could be included, but I don't believe it is all that germane. It raises the emotional level within the article and doesn't give much help in deciding whether Morgellons is a real disease. If Leitao chooses to include that info in her own presentations, she is free to do that, but I don't see how it improves our article to include it here. (She may be using it to show that dermatologists lack understanding and empathy, but any claim that dermatologists lack understanding ought to be referenced to research findings). EdJohnston 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Good points. I would also like to see the MRF section moved to its own article. Things like resignations over disputes could have the effect of lowering its credibility, whether or not that the is actual intent. Thatcher131 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let the readers decide about their credibility. It is not our job to censor certain information and thus deny them the ability to make that judgment. That is a violation of NPOV by using editorial censorship to color (or fail to color) the information that is provided. -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this an article solely describing the condition that people associate with the word Morgellons? If so, then the above descriptions of the reasons dermatologists didn't see Mary's son and her Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy would be irrelevant. However, if the subject of this article is the history of the word, the development of the foundation, and the controversy surrounding the nature of the condition, then the above material is relevant. We should decide what the scope of this article is since Morgellons as a title doesn't explicitly prescribe a scope. Sancho 16:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Right now, it looks like the article covers the entire subject. Is that the way the rest of you think it should be set up or not? John Carter 16:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should cover the whole subject, since that can be done within the confines of this article. -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of the hundreds of article on Morgellons discuss the controversy. There is considerable debate about the nature of the condition, or even if it qualifies as a condition at all. It is impossibly to describe what Morgellons "is" without covering the controversy, and I think the background material is very relevant to an understanding of the controversy. The formation and actions of the MRF are very recent events which still impact the subject. Herd of Swine 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. An idea promoted by an activist group cannot be understood in isolation from the actions of that group. -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I went ahead and forked off the MRF to Morgellons Research Foundation. This should be an article about a disease or syndrome. Any discussion of the organizational problems of the Foundation would tend to distract from that. For example, criticism of the Muscular Dystrophy Association does not belong in the article for the disease Muscular dystrophy. In this article it may be appropriate to say that doctors are often skeptical of claims of Morgellons but to name a specific person as alleged of a specific medical condition (which may also be an allegation of a crime) is a bad idea. In the MRF article it may be appropriate to discuss the founding of the Foundation in the context of Mrs. Leitao's frustrations. Thatcher131 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Muscular dystrophy is a recognized disease without any controversy regarding the diagnosis or a situation where the originator of the diagnosis attempts to control all information regarding that diagnosis and which direction it goes. There is no comparison. Morgellons is a different animal entirely. -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict- response to pez and the other's BLP thoughts)-::::I believe there was an MRF article but it was deleted as non-noteable as this article already existed. They are only known due to their work with morguellons so only need to be mentioned here. Mary Leito is the one who brought her diagnosis of Munchausens by Proxy to public awareness so it's not something claimed by her opposers as an attack. If she mentions it herself as part of the Morguellons history, then it's certainly germane to the article. There's no BLP issues against her on here- considering her role in this she personally is barely mentioned- only about a couple of mentions. The other mentions is MRF which is a public org, not a person. Course she can mail wikipedia directly about any BLP issues she perceives. To Pez- in my other comments I was mocking the hyping up of morguellons as crucially dangerous and critical- which is not as is obvious by the CDC taking over a year to even consider any company's quotes to investigate it. This is about your suggestion about the article, as it would be wrong to delete it when such claims that it's a grave danger to the public health are made about it. The public needs to know the facts as morguellons supporters themself have said.Merkinsmum 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no previous article at Morgellons Research Foundation. If this is going to be a serious article about a disease, the MRF should be in a separate article, especially since the disease is no longer dependent on the MRF. (i.e. if the MRF disappeared tomorrow, do you think the CDC would retract its investigation?) Thatcher131 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. I did not think the MRF infighting was relevant. But I do think that context needs to be established. This is not "a disease", this is an alleged disease, alleged only by the MRF. It needs to be noted where the various claims come from, and the history of the development of those claims. Herd of Swine 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To the extent of saying that Mary L. created the definition and founded the Foundation in response to her frustration, yes, and I think that is already there. To the extent of detailing the Foundation's problems in a way that tends to diminish the credibility of the people involved (whether that was the intent or not), that belongs elsewhere. Thatcher131 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Thatcher's moving MRF to a separate article, for all the reasons he mentioned. I was planning to suggest that today and when I signed on was pleased to see it had already been done. --Parsifal _Hello 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In light of Thatcher's comment: "In this article it may be appropriate to say that doctors are often skeptical of claims of Morgellons but to name a specific person as alleged of a specific medical condition (which may also be an allegation of a crime) is a bad idea." Are the comments about Mary's "diagnosis" going to be removed? Pez1103 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what we're debating. I'll ask. Thatcher131 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please replace the first two sentences of the History section (which include the possible BLP violation of an allegation of illness) with the following:

In 2002, biologist Mary Leitao's 2-year-old son developed sores under his lip and began to complain of "bugs". Leitao examined the sores and discovered "bundles of fibers" of various colors. She took her son to see at least eight different doctors, who were unable to find any disease, allergy, or other explanation for the symptoms.

Thanks. Thatcher131 17:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am rather shocked by this turn of events in violation of Wikipedia OWN and BLP policies. Mary Leitao's concerns have no bearing on this matter as the information was properly sourced (therefore not violating BLP) and not OR, therefore she has no right to get it deleted, and in fact it should not be deleted precisely because she tried to get it deleted! She should not be allowed to control the content of the article, and that's just what has happened. I am indeed shocked! While I respect Thatcher has a highly qualified admin, this acquiescing to her demands is against policy.

This particular subject is like any other subject involving a conspiracy theory started by one person or a neologism started by one person - it cannot be understood aside from including information about that person, their actions, ideas, credibility, etc.. While a separate article for the MRF might be a good idea (but I haven't yet seen a legitimate argument based on policy), it makes no sense to separate the current information regarding the role of Leitao in naming the condition and in creating the MRF to promote the idea. We're dealing with an activist, and as the prime mover behind the very concept, she and the MRF must not be left out of this article. -- Fyslee/talk 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Mary L was never diagnosed with MBP, it was reported that a doctor suspected it. I invite you to ask Durova or Fred or any other admin or inquire at the BLP noticeboard whether this allegation (of possible child abuse) should be included. I think it is possible to cover Morgellons as a possibly real, possibly imaginary disease without stating that the main proponent might be a child abuser--the only purpose of which is to further deprecate the disease itself as a form of guilt-by-association. Unlike BDORT for example, Morgellons is being taken seriously enough to prompt a serious independent investigation, and we can find doctors to discuss it who are not within the MRF's orbit. Thatcher131 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Leitao never complained about the MBP, in fact she is the one who keeps bringing it up [29], as an example of how badly treated she was (Quote from ABC: Medical Mysteries show: "[doctors said said] that my son will need Vaseline for his lips and that his mother, me, needed a thorough psychiatric evaluation."). She instead asked that the entire article be deleted. Since this is material she herself has promoted, why should it be removed? Herd of Swine 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be more relevant to the history of the MRF, that this suggestion so angered her that she formed the foundation, for example. To be blunt, my concern here is not wanting to unfairly bias the reader against Morgellons by implying that the inventor of the disease was nuts. There is already plenty of factual information against the existence of the disease. Thatcher131 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that if her advocacy was about something else unrelated to mental illness. But her argument is "I am not nuts", so evidence that she is "nuts" is part of the story. Sorry to be blunt there but Morgellons is about a bunch of people who are trying to convince their doctors that they are not mentally ill. Perhaps they are not, but why would we exclude anything that indicates that they are? That seems to prejudice the entire argument. That MBP suggestion was essentially an initial assessment of her claims by a doctor. She was (and still is) claiming that she was not mentally ill, and hence this was a new disease. The doctor suggested she was mentally ill. She herself confirmed the doctor said this, and has never denied it. It's not prejudicing a separate argument, it IS the argument: Morgellons the new disease vs. Morgellons the existing diseases with possible mental illness.

Perhaps there are other opinions here? Anyone? Herd of Swine 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For sure. I hesitated to give my opinion as things seem to be steamrollering in this direction at the mo anyway. But why are we making this org sound good/removing the truth of what they're like and what doctors have said about the founder by her own admission? What ex-prominent members fell out with them about? I do think there's a danger of this org looking adorable in this main 'morgellons' article and the reader getting a whitewashed, favourable, NPOV account of their role and thus of morguellons as a whole. And as for mary leitao, if she draws attention to herself in the media, no-one is doing that for her, she did it all herself. And there's a phrase for what she's been doing, and it can backfire on those who do it, as their words are so much in print and can be quoted. But now I expect to be flamed lol:)Merkinsmum 00:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break for convenience

I know Fyslee will agree with you, Herd. I'd like to suggest leaving it out for now and returning when the rest of the article is more settled and it can be unprotected without a new flare-up. Nothing that happens here or in my sandbox is permanently binding; my goal is to improve the style and clarity of the article (since I write this way all the time) and act as a buffer and moderator between the extremes. I can see some potential value to expanding Mary's story as long as it is done carefully. Thatcher131 05:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that Thatcher's statement. Whether or not the material on Mary's story should end up in an ideal version of this article, developing this material now would only polarize the discussion. Sancho 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of moving on and out of respect for Thatcher's good intentions, I'll go along with that. -- Fyslee/talk 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the disputed and current event tags

Since we have reached a significant amount of consensus on the article content, I propose removing the disputed tag. Also, since the article has been re-written to de-emphasize the use of newspaper articles as sources and is written more like other disease articles, I propose removing the current event tag. Comments? Thatcher131 12:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as there aren't any particularly important "current events" developing on the subject right now, fine by me. John Carter 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the current event tag was put there during the announcement of the CDC investigation. That spurred some media interest (still ongoing), but I don't feel it now warrants the tag. I also concur with removing disputed, at least until somebody disputes something. Herd of Swine 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I request the disputed tag stay on for a while longer. I believe there are still factual errors that need to be corrected and wording reworked to achieve NPOV on the article. I apologize for not being around to input the last few weeks when it was wise to bring a third party in to mediate.

Here is one example of an error: The opinion article authored by members of the MRF and published in American Journal of Clinical Dermatology is indeed peer reviewed.[30]

I would like to submit wording similar to this in the treatment section vs what is there now that is similar because this source is a stronger peer reviewed article. The article hypothesizes, "Morgellons disease may be linked to an undefined infectious process", and states that antibiotics are effective treatments. "Many patients with Morgellons disease have positive Western blots for Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease." and, "When these patients are treated with antibacterials for their Lyme disease, remission of Morgellons symptoms is seen in most (Patients)."[20]Ward20 16:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the current event tag because of frequent confusing interpretations of the announcement of the CDC investigation. I think we're fine, now, although I don't think {{disputed}} should be removed while the article is protected. If it's not disputed, it wouldn't need protection. (This was written before I say the previous error (um, reported error) above, but that makes it more clear.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the Disputed and Current Events tags. It seems reasonable to drop the 'disputed' when a carefully-vetted and widely-studied draft is available, even though we still have the formality that article protection is still in place. I don't agree with Ward20's proposed changes, above, and I'm content with the current wording of the Treatment section. EdJohnston 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The treatment section of the sandbox draft is not done yet. Thatcher131 16:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Ward20's sugestion that the Leitao/Saverly/Stricker article [31] be given more weigh. Peer review has no bearing on the validity of the statements made in an opinion article. If Savely says that the patients tested positive for Lyme, then that's her claim, which seems quite reasonable, and there is no way that would not pass peer review. Those claims are based on an earlier article by Savely and Leitao [32] from 2004, and many more articles of equal or greater authority have been published since then, with opposing points of view. (and of course Leitao/Saverly & Stricker are founders and board members of the MRF) Herd of Swine 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, please don't remove the disputed tag just yet. I would like to use and cite peer reviewed material published in a medical journal in 2006 to replace website material and newspaper material saying something very similar. I also request this statement be changed. "To date, none of these studies has been published in the peer-reviewed medical literature".Ward20 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• But the findings have not been published. There are vast differences between reviews, letters, case reports, and full research studies. When Dr. Harvey writes that Morgellons patients have elevated inflammatory markers and serological markers for 3 unusual strains of bacteria, I believe him as I would believe a doctor telling me about his clinical experience over coffee. I do not think he would deliberately lie, but the statement does not have the weight of a research article. To state definitively that Morgellons patients have elevated laboratory findings, one would have to study enough patients to have a statistically significant result. One would have to show the results from control groups, such as healthy individuals, and patients with other skin lesion-type diseases. (If patients with psoriasis also had the same elevated blood work, it could indicate that the blood markers are a result from widespread inflammation and not related to the cause of the inflammation.) And one would have to have a non-biased menthod of assessing the outcome, such as by a different doctor who does not know how the patients were treated.
• Case reports are less definitive than research studies, but are still more powerful than letters. You may not have access to these journals, but if you do you should compare the level of detail reported here to the letters and reviews you wish to cite.

• Mercan S, et al. Atypical antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of delusional parasitosis. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2007;37(1):29-37. PMID 17645196
• Meehan et al. Successful Treatment of Delusions of Parasitosis With Olanzapine. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:352-355. PMID 16549712

• The case reports give detailed treatment records, blood values before and after, evaluation of the symptoms, and detailed followup. None of these things is present in any published paper by a Morgellons researcher. That does not mean they have no value. Certainly they have value regarding symptoms and how the MRF views the condition. But to say that Stricker's or Harvey's statements about lyme and antibiotics or fibers should carry the same weight as a double-blind clinical trial or even a case report is to ignore how scientific publishing operates. Claims have been made but "results of studies" have not been published. Thatcher131 19:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward20, you might want to try for a smidge more consistency in your treatment of letters. Thatcher131 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the article vs study. I think I had a brain freeze, my request to change, "To date, none of these studies has been published in the peer-reviewed medical literature" was completely wrong.

I did not delete the text in the Morgellons article because it was a letter.[33][34] I deleted the text because it called the letter a study and the content of the text could not be verified by the content of the letter. The statements, "Morgellons has been successfully treated with the antipsychotic medication Pimozide" and "though one study published in the American Academy of Dermatology has demonstrated that patients can be cured using Pimozide, reinforcing the contention that the condition is synonymous with delusional parasitosis, which is treated with the same drug", were just not supported by the cited letter. When the article text was changed to accurately represent the content in the letter[35] "though one letter published in the American Academy of Dermatology has suggested that patients can be cured using Pimozide, as it is the same drug used to treat delusional parasitosis", it was fine.Ward20 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That raising an interesting point. If Morgellons is exactly the same as DP, then you could just say that is is treated the same as DP, and hence could cite countless sources including double blind clinical studies. But according to several sources, the difference in treatment of Morgellons patients is in both handling and using the patients strong belief that they have Morgellons. This involves establishing a rapport with the patient, partly by performing extensive physical tests and examining the fibers, and in part by using the term "Morgellons" to refer to the individual's condition. See Morgellons disease: A rapport-enhancing term for delusions of parasitosis and Psychiatric Arsenal Has Weapons Against Morgellons Disease.

The question is if some description of rapport building has a place in the treatment section. It might be argued not, as it seems to presuppose Morgellons is essentially DP, but really this is no different from the other "treatments", which all presuppose some particular cause (like Borreliosis). I feel the rapport building should have a mention. Herd of Swine 00:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming rapport-building as a treatment is a way of implying that the condition is not a disease. One of the two references you listed is a letter from physicians who state they do not believe it's a disease, though they do not have evidence for that, and that they carefully manipulate their patients by the use of that term. That's not a treatment protocol, it's disingenuous. The other reference you listed does not even mention the word "rapport", but it does include a quote from one of the psych docs that clearly states they don't know what it is:" "You know, it is a difficult topic because we have no absolute proof of what is going on."

Rapport-building should not be listed in the treatment section because it's not a treatment, it's just a way for a doctor to communicate with a patient and even as that, does not have strong references. --Parsifal _Hello 01:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But treating with antibiotics implies the condition is caused by bacteria. How is this different? It's a treatment that doctors have used. Some might find it insulting, or even simply bad medicine, but why is that a reason to exclude it? Herd of Swine 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If treating with antibiotics is well-sourced, it should be included, whatever it implies. And if it is not supported by references, it should not be included. On the other hand, "Rapport-building" is not a form of treatment of anything, it's just a way for a doc to relate to the patient. And, it's not supported by reliable sources anyway. If you have a reliable source that states "rapport-building is an effective treatment for Morgellons", please show us that reference. The letter referenced above just says that they use rapport-building to avoid scaring away their patients. That's not a treatment, and it's not a reference about a treatment, so how could it possibly be included? --Parsifal _Hello 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no sources that say antibiotics are an effective treatment for Morgellons. Their inclusion in the article suggests that Morgellons is caused by bacteria. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but there is a need for balance. The article "rapport enhancing term" seems an important turning point in Morgellons history. I'll get more refs later. Herd of Swine 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we're being picky about letters vs articles, "rapport" is a letter, but I believe it is a useful inclusion. There seems to be two modes of treatment; (1) as DP (with the caveat that organic causes must be excluded first), in which case antipsychotics and topicals for symptomatic relief seems to be the main treatment, and there is indeed lots of literature on this; or (2) as a novel entity (the MRF view) for which the only treatments that are close to being reliable are antibiotics, which are mentioned in several of the MRF references. Thatcher131 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rapport may not be a treatment in itself, but as that letter says it is away of encouraging patients to accept treatment- for what the doctor in that case considers to be DP. A similar method of treatment is used for M.E. suffers to accept help for that which they are usually previously diagnosed (whether you think it's a different illness or not, the treatments are identical to those for depression.)

We could simply say that one doctor who believes morgellons is at least in part DP, encourages Morgellons sufferers to accept treatment for what he considers to be Morgellons, in this way. (or something)Merkinsmum 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get familiar with the present edit I found what I believe is small error. "Raphael Stricker, President of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS)[31] and a member of the MRF Medical Advisory Board, has written a review article on Morgellons". Review should be Current opinion. The American Journal of Clinical Dermatology states, "Current opinion articles providing an overview of contentious or emerging areas and key regulatory and ethical issues" Ward20 08:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think just plain "Article" is sufficient as we don't need to get into a discussion of what a "current opinion" article means as opposed to other kinds of articles--this is not an article on medical journalism. Harvey was already cited and I removed the newspaper article because I couldn't figure out what in the article was being referred to in the edit. Also, it is the normal style when referring to scientific publications to say "The authors reported..." rather than "The article said..." Thatcher131 02:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

treatment

I request the immediate removal of, "One of the authors of the two original papers on Morgellons has said the rife machine helps in 30% of cases. [7]"[36] This appears to be a subtle attempt to discredit a living person by poorly sourced contentious material. WP:LIVING

This material is sourced from a newspaper blog and this person was asked the question: Did doctors ever think of using the Advanced Rife wellness Technology (bio-Active Frequency). I know FDA does not approve of this machine but it does work.

Answer: Yes, Rife machines are sometimes used and in approximately 30 percent of cases it helps.

The person never said they used it, approved of it, and the answer indicated response was no better than the Placebo effect[37] so there is no reason to include what is in the article except to possibly try to discredit the person by a contentious association with an unapproved treatment machine.

Definition of Placebo response Placebo response: A positive medical response to taking a placebo, a sham medication as if it were an active medication. Up to one-third of patients given a placebo may respond with a reduction in symptoms, depending on the condition. This phenomena is often laid to patients believing their symptoms have improved when in fact they have not. Evidence is beginning to emerge that actual physiological changes can result from believing that one is receiving medical treatment. Thanks Ward20 07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Ward20 07:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just a rough draft in the sandbox. I don't intend to mention the rife machine at all for the reason you suggest. Thatcher131 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, UV light is an approved treatment for psoriasis (I forget the mechanism). It is not impossible that some form of intensive light therapy might also relieve the symptoms of other skin conditions. Of course, such things have not been properly described so I agree with leaving it out for the reason you suggest. Thatcher131 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The "person" said it helps in 30% of cases [38] was Ginger Savely, primary author of the seminal papers on Morgellons. I felt it's interesting that she said this. Perhaps the antibiotics also work as a placebo effect, as has been suggested by several doctors, example Medical community skeptical: Doctor attributes Morgellons' 'cures' to the placebo effect "When told of Dr. Bill Harvey’s successful treatment with antibiotics of Morgellons’ patients in Houston, Dr. Peter Lynch of the University of California, Davis said the “cures” are easily explained by the placebo effect.".

Admittedly though, the Rife Machine reference is an isolated mention, so perhaps should not be given coverage in the article. There are, however, a huge range of alternative treatments advertised specifically for Morgellons, of which Rife (and similar "zappers") is one. This wide range of self-treatment seems to be a significant factor which deserves a mention. Herd of Swine 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure many Morgellons sufferers are using UV light and a whole lot more. Self treatment is very common in a serious illness where people perceive (note I said perceive to cover the bases) conventional medical treatment has little to offer. Early AIDS is a good example, my favorite is the story of Augusto and Michaela Odone. I think a reliable source would have to show a compellingly different or proven effective treatment vs other self treatment of illness in order to include it much (if any) space in the Morgellons article.Ward20 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is: how should the self-treatment be addressed in the article? Dr Greg Smith, former Medical Director of the MRF says: [39] Many [Morgellons sufferers] have lost faith in our medical care system and have turned to alternative medical care or self treatment. Descriptions of their self treatments are frightening. The treatments have included not just topical application but oral ingestion of insect sprays! Some have been victimized by unscrupulous alternative health care providers. - It's a little frustrating that this is such a huge part of the story, yet little has been written about it. It's a fairly neutral aspect - you could say they are driven to self treatment by the failings of the medical system, of by their rejection of the medical system, either way it's happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herd of Swine (talk • contribs). 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am publishing this as a talking point. If you don't agree with the details please politely state why with appropriate citations.

I have been trying to write for a treatment section and the following are problems I am running into. I can find citations stating the cohort of Morgellons parents treated with antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy as if they had an infectious disease is around 280.[40][41]Morgellons: Real or a state of mind By Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2006. [42]. The two practitioners treating these patients have published specific findings and arguments[43] "Morgellons disease" and [44] "The Mystery of Morgellons Disease" why they believe Morgellons is not delusional parasitosis. The cited articles state efficacy qualitatively, "resolve most symptoms" and "symptoms subside", without case histories, or study results.

Dead link, so inserted source in paragraph above.Ward20 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for a proposed treatment section treating Morgellons as Delusional parasitosis have worse problems in my opinion. "Cognitive Behavior Therapy, a Cure for Morgellons disease?"[45] is WP:SPS, and no Morgellons patients are claimed to have been treated with Cognitive Behavior Therapy in the article references, nor by the author. "Pimozide at Least as Safe and Perhaps More Effective Than Olanzapine for Treatment of Morgellons Disease"[46], sounds like a good title until you read the text of the letter. The letter discusses that 3 delusional parasitosis patients have been successfully treated with the antipsychotic medication Olanzapine, and then claims an alternative drug Pimozide, to be at least as safe and perhaps more effective for treatment of Morgellons disease, which the author considered to be a form of delusional parasitosis. But, no Morgellons patients are claimed to have been treated in the article cited, nor any by the author. "OCD Patients May Seek Help From Dermatologists"[47], infers possible Morgellons treatment, "Self-diagnosed Morgellons disease is a relatively new phenomenon in the dermatologist's office, she said, fueled by media reports and the Internet. People who believe they have this disorder commonly report crawling, stinging, and biting sensations. Some claim that fibers emerge from intact skin (Psychiatric News, December 15, 2006). While all symptoms demand a careful workup, Kestenbaum said, "patients with such complaints whom I have seen appeared to have a delusional parasitosis." No numbers nor results of treatment of Morgellons patients by the author are discussed. "Psychiatric Arsenal Has Weapons Against Morgellons Disease"[48], is better. Four Dermatologists respond to the hypothetical question, "What would you do to help a patient who tells you he or she has Morgellons disease?" Three of the last four dermatologists respond in a hypothetical way and did not say that they had seen Morgellons patients, and that the symptoms could suggest to them delusional parasitosis and they would treat accordingly. The first dermatologist discussed in the article, Caroline Koblenzer is different, she states she treated, "several dozen Morgellons patients during the past six months" and "we do have medications [that can help]." The efficacy is qualitative, without case histories, or study results. "Morgellons disease?"[49]talks about, "three individuals who felt that they had “Morgellons disease.” After thorough evaluation and examination, all three individuals were diagnosed with delusions of parasitosis. They were appropriately counseled. There are some discussion of case histories and why the doctors diagnosed them with delusions of parasitosis, but little treatment detail, and no discussion or treatment effectiveness. "Morgellons disease: A rapport-enhancing term for delusions of parasitosis",[50] details one patient who was anxious to see a doctor that had heard of Morgellons disease. "After taking cultures and a biopsy, I reassured her that there were no bacterial, fungal, or parasitic infections. ...She is currently on the anti-psychotic risperidone, followed by both dermatology and psychiatry.", there is no mention of treatment effectiveness. A news article, "Nasty disease -- or is it delusion?",[51] describes a fairly good case history of one patient. "Almost every doctor he saw diagnosed him with delusional parasitosis....Miller agreed to take anti-psychotic medication for a few months, but it didn't help,...To prove that I wasn't crazy, I had to go into a psychological program. A psychiatrist and several therapists all agreed that I wasn't crazy, that I did have a physical disease,...he's been taking the antibiotics and anti-parasitic and anti-fungal drugs, and he said his health has improved."

A Morgellons article treatment section about specific drug therapies with sources talking about 280 patients on one side, and several dozen on the other side with sketchy results seems extremely preliminary. Ward20 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't chop up my discussion, instead respond below with comments or quotes.Ward20 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward, I suspect you will not find any reports of treatment of "Morgellons" because most physicians do not (at this time) accept Morgellons as a diagnosis that is distinct from DP. They would argue that patients who present with self-identified Morgellons actually have DP and would treat them accordingly. So I think what we should say is that the conventional treatment for Morgellons is to rule out organic causes (I h ave refs for this) and then to treat it as if it was DP. Because that's what actually happens in most doctors' offices. There is also anecdotal evidence for antibiotics (nothing proven) and some pretty nasty home treatments. Thatcher131 23:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, but I did, "Psychiatric Arsenal Has Weapons Against Morgellons Disease"[52]and Caroline Koblenzer is cited several times in the Morgellons article.

"You know, it is a difficult topic because we have no absolute proof of what is going on," Caroline Koblenzer, M.D., told Psychiatric News. Koblenzer, a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania and a psychoanalyst, has treated dozens of delusional parasitosis patients over the years and several dozen Morgellons patients during the past six months.

"We do biopsies, we do blood tests, all those things that would rule out the extrusion of any foreign material, whether it be living or nonliving. So what I try to say to patients is, `We have no evidence... however, we do have medications [that can help].'"

She added, "I think it is heartless to tell the patients that it is all in their head because I have no question that something is going on...."

Thatcher you said, "They would argue that patients who present with self-identified Morgellons actually have DP and would treat them accordingly." I think that needs to be in the article and cited.

And, "So I think what we should say is that the conventional treatment for Morgellons is to rule out organic causes (I have refs for this) and then to treat it as if it was DP." It seems to me ruling out organic causes should be in the DP section and that the present article blends diagnosis and treatment together. There is no doubt the literature indicates many to most dermatologists diagnosis Morgellons patients with DP."[53]Ash. L.R., Orihel, T.C. 2007. Atlas of Human Parasitology, 5th Edition. American Society for Clinical Pathology Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 386-387. But the literature is not at all clear how many Morgellons patients accept this diagnosis, how many are treated with antipsychotics, and to what extent antipsychotic medications help Morgellons patients. So I believe that part of the present Morgellons treatment section, as it now stands, has some verifiability issues. Ward20 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this has not been commented on yet I am changing the words "diagnosis section" above to "DP section" which is what I should have written.Ward20 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ruling out *other* causes is a crucial step in the handling of any disease, so eliminating other diseases or causes would be the first step in both DP and a new disease caused Morgellons. See [Differential diagnosis].

It's true there are not many statistics on Morgellons patients, which is part of the overall problem. Dermatologists know that some of their patients that appear to have DP also claim to have Morgellons, and this has increased since the advent of the MRF. The MRF said that 95% of the people who think they have Morgellons have also received a diagnosis of DP. We can report these facts, but must be careful not to draw our own inferences from them. Regarding how many Morgellons patients accept the diagnosis of DP, there is nothing that suggests that this is any different from how many DP patients accept the diagnosis of DP. Herd of Swine 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding how many Morgellons patients accept the diagnosis of DP, there is nothing that suggests that it is "similar" from how many DP patients accept the diagnosis of DP. That is the problem, there are only a few articles I can find, and no studies, that shows how patients who identify themselves as having Morgellons respond to diagnosis and treatment as if they had DP.Ward20 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit paragraph above to put s in correct place.Ward20 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• DP should be a diagnosis of exclusion, after ruling out other conditions. We could add that somewhere in the "symptoms and diagnosis" section. I'm sure there are plenty of DP references but most of them won't mention Morgellons, although that is not a problem as far as I am concerned.
• I'm not sure about removing it from the treatment section, it provides context. Lots of medical conditions are diagnosed in part by how they respond to standard treatment (a skin rash can have many causes but if you change brands of soap and it goes away, you have diagnosed it (contact dermatitis) and treated it at the same time).I don't think it will help the article to force hard line separation between different sections but we can certainly consider adding to the diagnosis section. Thatcher131 19:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, DP should be a diagnosis of exclusion,[54] and it could very easily be added to the delusional parasitosis section without causing a NPOV problem. The present article is becoming very non-NPOV and in many places not verifiable. the "Treatment" and "symptoms and diagnosis" section is about Morgellons, not for advocating DP with text of DP references that does not mention Morgellons. Ward20 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

CDC Updates

The CDC recently (Aug 17) updated their Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")], which might merit some changes or additions. They seem to be somewhat more equivocal, like: "CDC has received an increased number of calls regarding this condition; however, this may represent an increase in the awareness of this condition rather than an actual increase in the number of persons with this condition.". Herd of Swine 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment reads like you're wearing your "this is not a disease" goggles.

The added material on the CDC site shows that they have not changed any of the words they used before, and the statement you referred to above was a reply to a specific question in their FAQ section. Here is the complete text:

"Does CDC have evidence that this is a new condition?

We do not know the cause of this condition or whether this condition is new. CDC has received an increased number of inquires from persons who report similar symptoms; therefore, we are conducting an investigation to learn more about this unexplained dermopathy.

"Does CDC have evidence that this condition is increasing?

CDC has received an increased number of calls regarding this condition; however, this may represent an increase in the awareness of this condition rather than an actual increase in the number of persons with this condition."

The above text is in addition to their prior text, not in place of it.

Also, they have added a second page of information where now the previously difficult to find material is now formatted for the public, at this link: CDC investigation, where the following text appears in the summary at the top of the page:

"The suffering that many people associate with this condition is best addressed by a careful, objective scientific analysis. Considering the complexity of this condition, we believe that a measured and thorough approach offers the best chance for finding useful answers."

I don't know if the article needs to be changed to include any of this. But when you tell us about changes in what the CDC says, it would be better without the POV filter of comments like " They seem to be somewhat more equivocal," when the fact is, they have not changed anything at all about their statement other than to provide additional information about progress towards the start of the investigation. --Parsifal _Hello 05:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just letting people know about the changes to their site, it was one page before, they have added an intro page, some extra material to the original page, and a page on the investigation, mostly covering Kaiser.

I did not mean to imply they had some radical change of position, and I do not think they have. It seemed to me that the additional material was interesting in that they were obviously attempting to clarify their position to indicate there is uncertainty, where before there might have been some implied certainty - in this case that Morgellons was spreading. Hence, equivocal - open to more than one interpretation. These things are interesting should we ever attempt to accurately characterize in the article WHY the CDC is investigating in the way it is.

Herd of Swine 06:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Think about the situation with Austism/Aspergers, where the number of diagnosed patients has increased dramatically and there is some dispute over how much this is due to an expanded definition or increased awareness and how much is due to an actual increase in disease. I think the CDC is noting that a larger number of self-identified patients probably does not mean an absolute increase in illness but rather other factors. I'm don't see any change needed in the wording, though. Thatcher131 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

page protection for ever?:)

Hi I was wondering, when is the page going to be editable normally again?Merkinsmum 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the protection expired this morning. Everyone please play nice, now. Thatcher131 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

the CDC study is the first official US Government attempt to find the root cause of Morgelloms and as such should be mentioned at lead in to the topic as it is a one of the most significant event in Morgellons story. Propose: To clearly put in perspective the current unknown nature of this disease. The CDC has awarded Kaiser Permanente in Northern California a contract to assist the CDC in conducting an extensive investigation of this condition and it is expected the the studly result well become available by end 2008. [User:Zip|Zip22045]] 11:52, 17 November 2007 (UDT)

Treatment section

I have started the treatment section along the format I have been thinking about. Every fact tag I added I believe can be replaced by a citation or news story that I have copied and printed out, but I don't have time to do it at this instant. I will get to it soon. Some of these will be known to you so add them if you want. Thatcher131 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that any of Ward's comments above were addressed. Even Dr. Stone, the president of the Derm assoc. said that anti psychotics don't always work. Where are the controlled studies which show that they are effective treatment for Morgellons? Pez1103 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any, of course, because the majority of doctors believe that Morgellons is another name for DP. There are controlled studies on antipsychotics for DP, which I will be happy to cite. As I have written it, it makes clear that current medical consensus is to treat for DP. Caveats such as side effects, or that it doesn't always work, may of course be added. Thatcher131 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article still does not address the fact that anti psychotics are not always an effective treatment for Morgellons, as Dr. Stone stated. It also does not include the article that Ward cites above, "Nasty disease -- or is it delusion?",[55] describes a fairly good case history of one patient. "Almost every doctor he saw diagnosed him with delusional parasitosis....Miller agreed to take anti-psychotic medication for a few months, but it didn't help,...To prove that I wasn't crazy, I had to go into a psychological program. A psychiatrist and several therapists all agreed that I wasn't crazy, that I did have a physical disease,...he's been taking the antibiotics and anti-parasitic and anti-fungal drugs, and he said his health has improved." Pez1103 00:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not describe individual case stories in the article. I could for example cite the poor guy who died (I have his article but not with me) who believed he had Morgellons and was giving himself all kinds of dangerous self-treatments but also was a heroin user (drug abusers frequently suffer from formication). It seems reasonable to say that antipsychotics do not work for all patients, and to say that some patients report improvement on antibiotics and antifungals. Thatcher131 00:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Antipsychotics don't always work for schizophrenia either, this does not imply anything other than the drugs don't always work. A broad based approach is often used for psychosis. Herd of Swine 00:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the line "However, pimozide may have side-effects in some people." really needed? All antipsychotics (and actually, nearly all drugs) have sometime nasty side effects - if this is to remain it needs some context. I'd delete it. Herd of Swine 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the letter about one doctor preferring pimozide because of it;s antipruritic effect, and there is a cite that says Olanzapine is better than pimozide because it has fewer caridac side effects and does not require as much routine monitoring, so I thought that would make an interesting counterpoint. I'll flesh it out. Thatcher131 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bacterial hypothesis

Corrected that more than one person wrote this article and the article asserted things not Stricker for better NPOV. Added dates to establish time line. Took out however which may inject some expectation while it is not needed. Added that Dr harvey has reported these findings. I will correct the references when I have time. On the topic of references. a lot of references are available to link to at legitimate medical information servers. Links to PubMed only give abstracts. Is there any reason not to link to the full text if it is available from a legitimate source?Ward20 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's really a legitimate source and not a copyright violation, then leave the cite and the PMID as they are but add a link to the full text. (You need to keep the full cite in case the text link someday goes dead.) Thatcher131 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward20 was referring to this [56], which is actually the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology's web site, which is certainly the preferred link here. There are a few full-text articles on there [57], [58], and this note about the Harvey letter:[59]. Herd of Swine 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 and Herd of Swine, thanks for the information and clarifications, we may not agree on things, but we are collaborating. I appreciate that.Ward20 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

treatment section

I still have concerns about this section. It seems to imply that antipsychotics are effective treatment for Morgellons, but this has never been shown scientifically. It's just based on the assumption that Morgellons and DP are the same, which has never been proven. If you read the CDC and MRF definition of Morgellons -- the belief that one is infested with parasites is never even mentioned as a symptom. I appreciate Thatcher's suggestion that we add the statement that antipsychotics do not work for all patients, and that some patients report improvement on antibiotics and antifungals. I also have concerns about this language: "However, it is also characteristic that sufferers will reject the diagnosis of delusional parasitosis by medical professionals, and very few are willing to be treated, despite demonstrable efficacy of treatment. It has been suggested that the term Morgellons should be adopted by dermatologists to enhance their rapport with their patients, allowing them to overcome this resistence" I believe that the following would be more NPOV: "However, since Morgellons patients do not believe that they have DP, very few are willing to be treated with antipsychotics. It has been suggested by a few dermatologists to enhance their rapport with their patients that they tell patients that they are treating them for Morgellons, when in fact, they are treating them for DP." Pez1103 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Even those with delusions of parasitosis will characteristically reject psychiatric treatment, (as I think is said in that article) because they don't believe they are suffering from a delusion. Not attacking morgellons sufferers, but them rejecting and disbelieving that they need psychiatric treatment doesn't (as you seem to believe) serve to distinguish them from those with DP- who react in exactly the same way.Merkinsmum 11:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That wasn't my point. I think that they way it is written now seems to imply that not believing that they are delusional is a SYMPTOM of Morgellons, when it may just be because they actually aren't delusional at all. (It's a catch 22 where if a person says that he isn't mentally ill, it means that he is mentally ill.) i think that the way I rewrote it is clearer. Pez1103 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a symptom of DP, which is what they are treating them for. Morgellons is caused by something. The two major candidates are 1) known diseases + DP, or 2) An unknown infectious agent, maybe Lyme. So there are two schools of thought when treating. In one (the majority), the cause is assumed to be existing medical conditions, plus DP, so those are treated. In the second (the minority, mostly MRF related doctors), the cause is assumed to be an infectious agent, and their treatments for Lyme seem to work for them. Does this imply that Morgellons does not exist, and instead these people simply have chronic Lyme disease? No. It's just a treatment that is claimed to work.

The implication of a partial psychological cause of Morgellons in a treatment does not mean that is not a valid treatment. Since there is no actual diagnosis of Morgellons, you could say there are NO treatments. Morgellons is a list of symptoms, the cause is disputed, various treatments are used for people who self diagnose.

I say I am not mentally ill. Does that mean I am? The indicator here, according to Hinkle ([60] Table 1, K), is the "vehemence" of the rejection of any possibility of psychological or other explanation. Herd of Swine 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are so many assumptions in these articles. They assume it is appropriate for dermatologists to make a pyschiatric diagnosis, they assume that Morgellons is DP, they assume that the DP treatment will work for Morgellons (althought there no proof of this), they assume that Morgellons patients not wanting to take antipsychotic medications is proof that they are mentally ill. Isn't Hinkle an entomologist? I would think that relative "vehemence" is very subjective and also varies based on a individual's personality. Some people become very vehement about religion or sports -- is that an indication of mental illness? I believe that "However, it is also characteristic that sufferers will reject the diagnosis of delusional parasitosis by medical professionals, and very few are willing to be treated, despite demonstrable efficacy of treatment." is not neutral, and it is more accurate to say that "Because individuals who believe that they have Morgellons do not believe they suffer from DP, most are unwilling to take antipsychotic medication." "Despite the proven effectiveness" doesn't really apply since it has only been proven to be effective for DP and not Morgellons. Why would anyone take a drug just because it is proven effective for a disease they don't have. I have also read that some antipsychotics have antihelmnics in them. Do you know if the ones listed above also have this? Pez1103 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of compounds have effects other than what they were first intended (asprin as a blood thinner, for example). The only hit on pubmed for "Antipsychotic and antihelminthic" is PMID 16772768 which talks about compounds in the same parent family having multiple effects. This might be the basis for the claim, but if any antopsychotic has been shown in a study to have antihelminthic effects it doesn't show up on a simple search. Thatcher131 16:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority option is that DP is generally involved in Morgellons, and so some the treatments for Morgellons are the same as DP. The discussion of the rejection of the diagnosis and treatment is highly relevant, as it's a major problem with DP treatment, and hence with Morgellons treatment (if the doctors has correctly identified Morgellons as the cause). Herd of Swine 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to this change? "Because individuals who believe that they have Morgellons do not believe they suffer from DP, most are unwilling to take antipsychotic medication. It has been suggested by a few dermatologists to enhance their rapport with their patients that they tell patients that they are treating them for Morgellons, when in fact, they are treating them for DP." Pez1103 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I object. It misstates what is going on. The dermatologists do not claim to be treating Morgellons, they just use the term Morgellons in discussing the patients set of symptoms, and then offer treatments that target those symptoms (formication, eczema, etc.) . There is no suggestion that they have a treatment specifically "for Morgellons", which is what your change implies. See the full explanation at the source: [61]:

We caution that the use of the term “Morgellons disease” should not validate an association with an infectious disease process. Further, in order to practice ethical patient care and to serve our patients honestly and as best we can, we stress the importance of clarifying to all delusions of parasitosis patients that their condition is not a result of an infectious agent. However, we found the term to be of paramount importance in establishing patient confidence and in developing patient–physician rapport throughout this patient's care. Herd of Swine 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. How about? "Because individuals who believe that they have Morgellons do not believe they suffer from DP, most are unwilling to take antipsychotic medication. It has been suggested by a few dermatologists, in order to enhance their rapport with their patients who believe that they suffer from Morgellons disease, that they use the term Morgellons when discussing the patients symptoms and then treat them with medication designed for delusional parasitoisis. The effectiveness of antipsychotics in the treatment of Morgellons disease, however, has not been determined through any clinical trials, but these drugs have been determined to be an effective way to treat Delusionial parasitosis." I think that is very clear. Pez1103 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This could be followed by Thatcher's suggested comment that antipsychotics do not work for all Morgellons patients, and that some patients report improvement on antibiotics and antifungals. Pez1103 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a tortuous twist of semantics. The problem is that "having Morgellons" is essentially being used in two senses here. One is the patient's perception of having Morgellons, which means having an infectious disease that is not DOP, and the physicians perceptions, which is that the patient who has Morgellons has other physicals problems, and possibly DP. More accurate woudl be to start it with "Because individuals who self-diagnose with Morgellons...", or even "Because individuals with DP".

If you mention that antipsychotics do not work for all patients, it needs to be put in the context of how effective antipsychotics actually are for psychosis. For example: "the effectiveness of antipsychotics in treating Morgellons is similar to the effectiveness of antipsychotics in treating other psychoses". We only have a generally sense of the efficacy for Morgellons (treated as DP), but it is not out of line with the general efficacy of antipsychotics in delusional disorder, see for example: [62]: "52.6% of the patients recovered, 28.2% achieved partial recovery, and 19.2% did not improve. Additionally, they reported that treatment response was positive regardless of the specific delusional content. They found that pimozide showed the strongest evidence of response compared with othertypical antipsychotics: 68.5% recovery rate and 22.4% partial recovery rate were found in pimozide-treated cases and 22.6% recovery and 45.3% partial recovery were found in cases treated by other typical antipsychotics." Herd of Swine 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO proof that "the effectiveness of antipsychotics in treating Morgellons is similar to the effectiveness of antipsychotics in treating other psychoses" since there have been no tests to determine the effectiveness these drugs in treating Morgellons. Even the doctors who wrote the opinion pieces did not show that it was effective for their patients who said that they have morgellons. How about: "Because individuals who believe that they have Morgellons do not believe they suffer from DP, most are unwilling to take antipsychotic medication. It has been suggested by a few dermatologists, in order to enhance their rapport with their patients who believe that they suffer from Morgellons disease, that they use the term Morgellons when discussing the patients symptoms and then treat them with medication designed for delusional parasitoisis. The effectiveness of antipsychotics in the treatment of Morgellons disease, however, has not been determined through any clinical trials, but these drugs have been determined to be aproximately 75 percent effective in treating treat Delusionial parasitosis. There are Morgellons patients who have not responded to antipsychotic medication, who have responded to antibiotics and antifungals." Pez1103 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

When you say they have responded to antibiotics and antifungals, is there more that the 30% that Ward30 suggested would attributable to the placebo effect? If not, then what is the significance? If so, then we should mention that doctors suggest it's the placebo effect, as in: [63]"When told of Dr. Bill Harvey’s successful treatment with antibiotics of Morgellons’ patients in Houston, Dr. Peter Lynch of the University of California, Davis said the “cures” are easily explained by the placebo effect. Patients treated with sugar pills, for example, often get well because they believe they are receiving medicine. Lynch said 80 percent of patients with delusions of parasites respond to psychotropic medication, an indication their illness is mental.Herd of Swine 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot we could say if we were doctors writing a Morgellons review article. We could say that the placebo effect could be responsible for patients who improve on antipsychotics just as easily as we could say that the placebo effect is responsible for the apparent effectiveness of antibiotics. We could say that failure to improve on antipsychotics is proof that it is not a psychosis, but we could also say that some patients need to be tried on different antipsychotics to find the one that works for them and that some truly delusional patients never improve on antipsychotics. Etc etc. We really can't be comprehensive in this article because the medical literature is not comprehensive. We can only try to be fair. Thatcher131 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

<--We seem to have plenty of opinions of various doctors of varying (and subjective, depending on which side you are on) reliability, but very few established facts. Thatcher131 02:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons wikipedia page is hate speech against disease sufferers.

Looks like ever since the Morgellons page got unlocked, there has been a flurry of edits which have turned this topic back to hate speech against people with a disability.

Isn't that what Morgellons-Watch is for?

How is this possibly NPOV when the majority of the discussion ignores biology and science, while fully embracing quack psychiatry.

Finally, why is this page named "morgellons"?? The CDC has chosen a different name for this disease. The current page needs to be renamed "persecution and lies against people with a real disease, intended to promote human-rights violations and medical negligence against any patient with a Morgellons diagnosis." A new page and a complete rewrite needs to be started on "unexplained dermopathy." The CDC's "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED)" would certainly not be a place for psychiatric quackery. Concurring with this, on 3/28/2007, the CDC removed the Delusional Parasitosis web page from the Division of Parasitic Diseases site. Delusional parasitosis is irrelevant to "Unexplained dermopathy" aka Morgellons.

If you feel the need to waste people's time with idiocies like "delusional parasitosis", then start a new page on that subject, adding in all the big-pharma-funded psychotropic drug pushers papers -- such as the corrupt excercises in scientific fraud perpetuated by [BLP violations and libel removed by -- Fyslee / talk 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)], etc.

Is libel appropriate for wikipedia, because that's exactly what is going on with the "morgellons" page?? Morgellons sufferers are not delusional, they have an infection. Continuously equating DOP with Morgellons does not make it true. The fact that there are some medical opinions that Morgellons is DOP doesn't make it true either. The fact that the controversy isn't even framed correctly suggests to the naive reader that all morgellons patients are nutcases and their symptoms should not be believed or investigated. That further makes this wikipedia page a source for libelous "hate speech."

This isn't just an esoteric academic debate on an abstract subject. the wikipedia page promotes an unbalanced (esp if you start with the introduction or "treatment" portions) view of "Morgellons" as a psychiatric disorder, even though there is strong evidence of a physical and infective etiology. Just the fact that there are two independent university research groups who are finding consistent evidence of (1) never-seen-before material emerging from lesions of patients whose samples were collected in a clinical setting; (2) agrobacterium; (3) Lyme disease; (4) Chlamidia Pneumoniae; (5) immune deficiency. Although most of the aforementioned can produce profound psychiatric distress, it would be completely inappropriate to chemically lobotomize a patient, while not treating their underlying illness. That is the climate of medical prejudice faced by patients today; furthermore, there's the possibility of fomenting general discrimination in society against Morgellons sufferers as "crazy" rather than "ill."

And that is exactly the kind of civil rights violation against morgellons patients that the existing Morgellons wikipedia article entails. It is hate speech pure and simple. You could just as well have a page that equates people-of-color with being lazy... backed by numerous articles and opinions on the internet backing up that very opinion. And you could discuss this issue at length even... but it would be very inappropriate for wikipedia. Just because an opinion exists, even by a professional, doesn't make it true -- "blacks are stupid... Nobel prize winner Shockley, inventor of the transistor, said it was true, so it must be!" Nielsp 04:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clinical evidence? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) unpublished, (2) published in abstract form only, (3) published as assertions in two articles by the MRF without data or independent confirmation, (4) unpublished, (5) unpublished. That's not how Wikipedia works. Please see policies on verifiability and reliable sources for starters. By your logic, Wikipedia should report without qualification or skepticism that cold fusion is real, that silicone implants cause autoimmune disease, and that the average person has 10 pounds of impacted mucoid plaque in their colon. Sorry. Thatcher131 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 -- where is the clinical evidence in the published papers equating

Morgellons and DOP. They are OPINION PAPERS! They are

just as valid (and hate-mongering) as Dr. Shockley's opinions that blacks are

genetically inferior http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902005,00.html . Nielsp 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no clinical evidence of anything regarding the nature of Morgellons, which is why opinions are reported as well as facts. The opinions of the MRF, and the opinions of the majority of medical professionals. When there IS evidence, that that will be reported. Herd of Swine 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)