This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The external link at the bottom is not even relevant
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The link to the "13 Things" article at the bottom of the page is pretty much irrelevant. There is nothing in that article that benefits anyone searching for information. How about some links to valid research sites like Morgellons Research Foundation, NanoTransformation, Mr.Common Sense blog, Dr. Staninger etc...? The current ONE article linked to, is only a couple of paragraphs with no relevant information from a major magazine, not even a medical journal paper. I tried to update this, it was reverted. I give up.
Perhaps we could get a qualified commitee on this, a committe that includes valid Morgellon's researchers watching the page and not just medical professionals so that the information is more balanced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.203.10 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
See WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE for why 'Morgellon's researchers' are probably not good sources. Fences&Windows 02:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Modern Morgellons redefinition
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Morgellons disease, once a vague psychiatric oddity is now being used by the US government to send coded messages to victims of an implantation program which is aimed at observation and control. Google for Morgellon's and implants together to see what it is about. http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/newmorg_dees.jpg
The fibers are electrodes: read the disinfo with this in mind and you can see how they always cheat, shirk or beg this question
I think you've got your wires crossed. In any case, if there were a reliable source that this is a common meme, it could possibly be included in the article. rense.com is not reliable for anything other than the -- opinions -- of Jeff Rense. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Clean Up
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm sure that there are many parts of this article that can be cleaned up. I'm thinking of the section on the CDC's investigation. The last two paragraphs seem to be talking about the same time period, and would make much more sense if they were combined in an organized fashion. Hr.VankerTalkContrib 04:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Skepticism
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm a little skeptical of the whole idea of Morgellons disease. It seems too bizarre to be true that fibers of various colors would be produced under the skin by some organism or other biological process. A scab on the skin normally would catch various fibers from clothing under it. I'm also skeptical of the presumption that this is (or was) a mass attack of "delusional parasitosis." These people no doubt had trouble with their skin, were not feeling well, and came across some questionable information on the internet. Whether they all had the same disease or not is unknown, but the CDC usually does investigate any cluster of similar symptoms as though it were an infectious disease.
Visible sores on the skin cannot be the result of a delusion, and a dermatologist should be able to tell whether or not they are solely from scratching.
General malaise, fatigue, and aches and pains are not symptoms that doctors deal well with. There are just too many possible causes. A cold or flu or mono, etc. Or a patient may just not be feeling well from frequent skin infections.
The fibers sound bizarre. Maybe they are just some strange unidentified (or misidentified) fibers that are irritating the skin of some people and causing an allergic reaction. They could be from clothing, which would explain the various colors. It could even be an allergy to a certain type of laundry detergent.
"Delusional parasitosis" sounds like a very rare condition that would be a rather far-fetched explanation for all of this, especially in the absence of other obvious mental illness. It is probably better described as an internet phenomenon. Otherwise we would have to prescribe antipsychotics for all the Obama birthers and other conspiracy theorists on the internet, as well. 75.175.32.183 (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
But those are all serious delusions. The thing is, we can’t just go forcing people into psychiatric treatment just because we realize they’re delusional. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 12:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Fibers?
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is this the only ailment where cords/fibers have been formed on the body? I thought for sure there was another example, but I'm drawing a blank. Coolgamer (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Citation bot malfunction?
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Can someone take a look at what's happening with this template?
{{cite pmc|2737752}}
I'm trying to cite the following,
Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series,
William T Harvey et al, J Med Case Reports. 2009; 3: 8243. PMC2737752
But there's some weird redirect. What should I do? --Dyuku (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is now fixed! Apparently by another bot? The ways of bots are mysterious... :) --Dyuku (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
2009 article listed in the "bibliography" section of the WP article demonstrates a change in opinion by MRF which should be noted in the body of the article
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Before I comment, I would like to say that although I have made an effort to familiarize myself with posting rules, I am very new to the editing process on WP, so please be gentle. Errors in editing procedure are completely unintentional, and I welcome constructive criticism that will aid me in becoming a better WP editor in the future.
So. To get to the issue at hand. I noticed that this source:
Harvey, W.; Bransfield, R.; Mercer, D.; Wright, A.; Ricchi, R.; Leitao, M. (2009). "Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series". Journal of medical case reports 3: 8243. doi:10.4076/1752-1947-3-8243. PMID19830222.
is in the bibliography section, but its subject matter is not listed in the body of the article. I realize that the above source does not qualify as a valid source for scientific evidence, but I believe that the article is a valid reference in regards to the controversy surrounding this topic. I have read through the archives for this discussion, and I believe that there was some consensus that the element of controversy is an important aspect of the Morgellons phenomenon that should be addressed in the WP article.
The specific points of the article which seem especially pertinent to me are:
1.) The fact that members of the MRF have published this article (most notably Mary Leitao and William Harvey) which states unequivocally in the conclusion that, "These data suggest Morgellons disease can be characterized as a physical human illness with an often-related delusional component in adults." In the body of the article, this statement is expanded upon, as the authors freely admit that, "Strikingly, most patients in this study (23 out of 25) had prior psychiatric diagnoses (most determined by specialists) as follows: 11 out of 25 bipolar disease; 7 out of 25 Adult ADD; 4 out of 25 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD); and 1 out of 25 Schizophrenia. Although overlap occurred in 5 cases, only the primary psychiatric diagnosis was tabulated."
2.)There is no mention of any "fibers" in a medical capacity. They are only mentioned in order to provide historical background, or as "a typical phrase used by most patients," to describe the symptoms of the condition in their own words.
These 2 points directly contradict the position previously held by the MRF, mainly that the fibers were a main point of the disease, and that delusions and/or mental illness do not play a part in the experience of the symptoms described by those who identify as having Morgellons Disease. This seems very significant to me!
I realize that it is very important to maintain NPOV, and I am not suggesting that any conclusions should be drawn or even implied. However, given the fact that the findings of the CDC have not yet been published, and the very definition of Morgellons currently hinges on the perspective of the authors of this article, I think it is important to update the WP article to reflect that this perspective has changed in the last year or so.
Thoughts? I know this is a controversial subject, and I wanted to post on the talk page before touching the actual article. Again, I apologize if I made some elementary mistake here or if this topic has already been discussed- the archives are quite lengthy, and it is possible that I missed something. Ontogeny (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Ontogeny,
This is not an article about the MRF, but about Morgellons Disease. So the views of MRF are not the main subject of the article. Also, I don't think the views of MRF have really changed that much. What is changing somewhat IMHO is the attitude of the mainstream medicine that is beginning to take this thing more seriously. CDC is investigating, although not extremely actively, it seems. --Dyuku (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dyuku,
I realize this is not an article about the MRF, but if you follow the past discussion for this page (lengthy I know), there seemed to be consensus that the opinion of the MRF is essential to the Morgellons page itself, simply because Morgellons is not, at this point at least, an official disease. MRF defines Morgellons. Perhaps I misinterpreted the article that I sited, but I do not understand how the opinion of the MRF has NOT changed based on what is published there. Perhaps you can explain what I am missing? Thanks for your response. Ontogeny (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello to you both,
I am an uninvolved (and thus largley unbiased) 3rd party to this discussion. I actually first heard of it from the news article in the Guardian and was fascinated by the topic, especially by Dr. Oaklander's postulation. I was also intrigued by the "mirror trick" nerve pathology treatment suggested in the article (and the fact that the journalist suggested it to a patient on a whim and it worked).
All that aside though, I am even more curious as to why this discussion was completely dropped? It seems a valid point that the opinion of the chief organization that is actively commenting on the topic would matter. Blatantly put, how could what the Morgellons Research Foundation has to say about Morgellons not be relevant in an encyclopedia article about Morgellons? I don't have many solid views on this topic, but that question seems to have an clear answer (regardless of what perspective you are coming from). So, that is my 2 cents. Not necessarily worth that much considering WP inflation rates these days but there they are.
It includes the opinions of Dr Anne Louise Oaklander, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, a neurologist who specialises in itch. Her theory is interesting and sounds credible. It's just an opinion, but can be cited as such. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it from the external links section twice now. First, it's a news story making it not a WP:MEDRS. Still fair game for inclusion in other aspects. Second, it's a news story, making it brief enough to be easily linked as an inline citation. I have no objection to it being used as such, but the EL section shouldn't be used to "store" unintegrated references, per WP:EL. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree. I wasn't aware it had already been used at all. It's a medical opinion, not a MEDRS, so it can be used, with attribution, in that manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Blogs are generally not used as sourcing for Wikipedia articles. And I believe the paper he refers to is already cited in the article. Love SBM, but I don't see any reason to add this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue whether or not to use it, but "generally" is the key word here. Blogs, especially by experts, are allowed, and per WP:Fringe (see WP:PARITY) such sources are allowed in fringe articles because they may be the only mainstream sources that comment on the subject. So in a case like this, it may be a perfect source....in principle. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Right. Still, the actual paper is already cited here, so I don't see a lot of benefit to linking the blog in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it was more a FYI than a suggestion as RS. Nevertheless, I would argue the writer would meet the requisite of a RS.--- Nomen NescioGnothi seautoncontributions 14:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Much as I'm a daily reader of SBM, I wouldn't support citing it. Morgellons has enough respectable attention that I don't think we need to scrape that far down the barrel. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It would become relevant if other and better sources were unavailable, but fortunately there are other good ones. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Does it add anything? Steve Novella is a reliable source for a lot of things and the SBM site is not just a personal blog, it has a review process. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Questionable content?
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
First off, I am an amateur contributor here. I have made careful edits to articles on other subjects which have remained unquestioned/unedited for periods of a year or two, but I approach actual article editing trepidatiously, and even article discussion cautiously. I rarely have done either. So if I'm slipping by a hair or two here and now, please pardon me - I truly value this forum above most others on the internet and in spirit I am largely in agreement with the way I understand it to be operated.
I want to express, anonymously, a contrary opinion to part of this article. I, my wife, and our psychiatrist all believe that we all three have Morgellons. Our doctor is the only one of us with any medical or scientific credentials, but my wife and I are extremely intelligent and open-minded and have done quasi-rigorous research on this condition. We believe that the conclusion drawn and cited in this article that the general consensus of the medical community that this is often actually a misperceived interpretation of some other well-documented is usually false. Our doctor is cautious about his professional reputation hence my maintaining our (except IP) anonymity. However I wish to make it known that intelligent and credentialed people have and believe in this syndrome, as a non-properly documented but is a true and so-far undocumented unique condition. Much of the better research has been done by non-credialed people, but our sum interpretation is that what I have stated is above is correct.
Please feel free to elighten me in how to rgeister this in this community officially considered the above-stated concerns.
FYI, to my knowledge, a massive percentage (uncitable by me) of documented self-identified Morgellons sufferers are registered nurses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.151.117 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of credentials, what people directly observe and conclude is original research and has no place here at WP until those conclusions have passed peer review and publication in reliable sources. The latter are the basis for editing here. -- Scray (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Please pardon my typographical and grammatical errors above and possibly here.
I do understand that "original research" or other non-peer-reviewed or otherwise personally sourced and unverified information is not to be be presented in actual wikipedia articles, hence my writing in the discussion section since I cannot put such self-generated and/or non-credibly-verifiable content into the article. But I write here in hopes that it will assist somehow in such allowable content being added/altered in the article, because I am certain of the facts I stated above, but cannot provide proper citation or peer-review (even from my doctor's peers) or other allowable verification of my statements - but I seek to draw out folks who may be in a position to provide content acceptable under wikipedia's rules. If you're out there and reading this and qualify, please edit/amend the article or at least join the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.151.117 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Can I recommend that you get an account? Shot info (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of your personal feelings, Wikipedia reports the mainstream scientific view, which is that Morgellon's is not a true condition. Special pleading won't help. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Reference 54
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reference 54 for this article (Chertoff, Benjamin (2005-06). "Morgellons Disease Baffles Patients And Doctors". Popular Mechanics.) Seems to be broken and lost. Clicking on its link just takes one to the latest entries on the Popular Mechanics rss feed. I went to seek the cited paper as to help WP repair the link but I can't find it. Searching the archive of "Popular Mechanics" for this paper does not yield it. looking for all papers from "Popular Mechanics" from 2005 to 2006 on the topic "Morgellons" does not yield it either. I believe it is real paper because in searching for it I found it cited elsewhere on the net, for example it is also listed as reference # 6 here: http://www.stanford.edu/class/humbio153/Morgellons/References.html (incidentally their link sends one to the same rss feed page I encountered).
Perhaps the issue is just me? Maybe I lack some subscriber access to Popular Mechanics so it just rejects me to some default page? Usually one is provided with at least an abstract when trying to access a subscription restricted paper though and not shunted to a meaningless rss feed.
Just thought I would bring this issue up.
149.155.3.235 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)(Nat)
Ok, I looked it up. For one thing, the title of the article as cited is incorrect - it is actually Chertoff, Benjamin. "Making their skin crawl: people with creepy symptoms find a diagnosis on the Internet. But are they jumping to conclusions?" Popular Mechanics June 2005: p. 60. The statements as cited in the Wikipedia article here are consistent with what the article says, however. Rwintle (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
etymology of "Morgellons"?
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
What is the origin of Morgellons being called "Morgellons"? The article begins with
...is a name given in 2002 by Mary Leitao
but doesn't say why Mary Leitao decided to call this condition Morgellons. Funkyj (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It does farther down. --173.176.62.183 (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it unique for a condition to be named by a patient? Could that be because her doctor's denied that there was any condition? Is there agreement that Morgellons is a condition, albeit a mental rather than a physical illness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's unique and not legitimate. There are good reasons why in most countries non physicians are not legally allowed to diagnose illness. Here we have an amateur starting a scare with their own "diagnosis". It's just one of several Category:Alternative diagnoses, IOW they are not legitimate. Her scare has cost millions of dollars and created unneeded worries in people who are mentally unstable and susceptible to believing such things. It has also created a source of illegitimate income for people pushing the idea and speaking about it. It's simply another example of well-publicized quackery. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It's still called a mental illness in the article because the new classification as a Phakomatosis isn't verifiable yet. But that doesn't mean that the diagnosis of mental illness is WP:TRUE. Collin237 166.147.104.153 (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Nano technology not discussed
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
OK im not crazy, but since this is a subject of controversy (especially considering the CDC results) we should include all theorems concerning this ailment. And there is alot of unconfirmed supporting evidence on the web regarding nano technology. Im not crazy but stranger things have happened.Aperseghin (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
If you can find reliable sources that reports the submission, the information could be added. However, this ordeal appears to be consecutive to one person who gave her psychogenic dermatosis a cutesy name and got some media exposure. A non-story. Pygy (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
You should clarify that -- textile nanotech. If you leave out the word "textile" it'll sound like you mean something else. Collin237 166.147.104.153 (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
possible connection to demodex mites
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I want to say that I wrote about a demodex mite infestation several years ago. I used a loupe to diagnose it. The medical establishment considered it a delusional problem and the article in Wikipedia which reflected this view point had replaced a previous article that talked in an experienced manner about this real condition. I managed to get a physician in Bangkok to prescribe benzyl benzoate which I applied over my entire body. This cured the condition in one pass.
The reason I mention this is, besides the possible analogy with established disbelief in Morgellons, is that I also noticed that a significant sub-population of the mites were transected diagonally by what appeared to be a fiber. I hope it is permissible to offer independent observations in the talk pages, as might lead to published research that could then be incorporated in a subject page.Theravadaz 22:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theravadaz (talk • contribs)
[1] Math error. Not corrected! [2] page 6, top right, line 12, as of today. Collin237 166.147.104.153 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
In Max Igan's new film 'Trance-Formation' discusses that Morgellons and Chemtrails are linked and that the Chemtrails have been proved to have nano-particulars that have the same properties as the fibers found in Morgellons sufferers.
http://vimeo.com/40806881— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psonik23 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Apparent violation of subject viewpoint neutrality
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
After reading this article, I am confused about how any claim can be made towards any supposed maintenance of neutrality was maintained towards the article's subject matter and presentation.
I have no axe to grind either way, nor do I particularly care about the subject matter of this article whatsoever, yet I find myself repulsed by the obvious slant given towards a specific viewpoint. The entire lead in paragraph appears designed to cause the reader to disregard the main article. As just a few "for instances", of MANY...
Mrs. Leitao is referred to as a "stay-at-home-mom" in the lead in, yet no reference to any other qualifications (such as her medical science background) are not mentioned until the main article, which would lead the reader initially to disregard the subject at a glance without bothering to read the article itself.
This is further compounded by the following statement that "Doctors, including dermatologists and psychiatrists regard ..." leading the reader to assume that ALL doctors etc.. believe the subject is delusional, yet further in the article the main proponents FOR the subject matter apparently are qualified scientists themselves, though their qualifications are but briefly mentioned at best.
After reading the article, I am reminded more of an opinion editorial, or a debunking piece than an encyclopedic entry. 63.245.138.60 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The mayo clinic states outrightly that both they and the CDC consider the condition as yet unexplained. A person would never come to this conclusion based upon the article.63.245.138.60 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
If you're referring to this sentence: "But CDC researchers weren't able to determine if Morgellons disease is a new disorder or simply another name for delusional parasitosis," what they are saying is that they are not sure whether to classify it as delusional parasitosis, or some other type of delusional disorder. The article clearly statese that it's not caused by infectious agents or environmental substances. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not. I am referencing the whole article, of which the second paragraph contains "Researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have concluded that Morgellons disease, which they refer to as an unexplained dermopathy, isn't caused by an infection or parasites." 'Dermopathy' means any disease of the skin, not the mind. The CDC refers to morgellon's as an unexplained SKIN disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.138.60 (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, that's a misrepresentation. Dermopathy does refer to skin damage, but this also occurs when someone does it to themselves. It's "unexplained" because they haven't been able to show if there is an infectious agent, or if it's a form of self-harm. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with sentiment of user 63.245.138.60. Reading this article it seems to me to be a debunking attempt rather then encyclopedic entry. I don't know much about wikipedia rules of conduct, nor spent here enought time to feel need to explore this subject. But in case neutrality of a article might be dispiuted with some sort of voteing, I add my voice to add a "neutrality disputed" label on this article 89.70.85.133 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia maintains neutrality from the currently accepted scientific/medical viewpoint. Neutrality does not mean "both sides get equal time to tell their side." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality doesn't mean portraying both sides as being equally valid, but presenting available evidence on the matter without trying to prove either side. As it so happens, the evidence does make it sound like it is psychological, but that is not our fault, we do not bend evidence to produce a false narrative of equally valid sides, we present evidence and let it speak for itself. Complaints that reality is biased, that the sources are wrong, etc, should be taken elsewhere as we do not engage in WP:original research, but rely on WP:reliable sources reporting on the matter for our content.AerobicFox (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
To directly quote the Wikipedia guideline npv(neutral point of view) stands "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This is further stated to be non negotiable. In other words breaking this concept is not an option. ALL SIGNIFICANT VIEWS which have been published by reliable sources are to be shown. The mayo clinic article I quoted earlier states out-rightly that the subject is disputed among medical professionals, in fact three different professional viewpoints are shown. IE not all doctors think it is a mental issue. Refusing to show this is clear bias and MUST NOT be done here at wikipedia, whether or not an editor agrees with the validity of the subject matter.63.245.138.60 (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
New study being repeatedly re-added
Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
New information has been added to the lede by User:173.15.170.86 three times,[3][4][5] and reverted three times by two different users, me and User:Yobol. I agree with Yobol, that the addition violates Wikipedia policies regarding medical reliable sources, undue weight, and neutral point of view, among others. I would request that 173.15.170.86 consider making a case here as to why the information should be included, and how it meets the rules (particularly WP:MEDRS) before continuing the current edit-war. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I will add to the case against inclusion: the publication in question is written by the former president of the Morgellons Research Foundation, and presently affiliated with the "Charles E. Holman Foundation" (Randy Wymore's Morgellons splinter group at OSU) and NOT a neutral third party. The conflict of interest is even mentioned in the paper, though not elaborated upon. As such, if the citation is to appear at all in the article, it should appear where the "alternative views" expressed by Stricker and his old MRF colleagues (several of whom he acknowledges at the end of the paper, such as Savely, Wymore, and Casey) are presently discussed. These are extreme minority viewpoints, not confirmed or supported by anyone in the medical community who is NOT affiliated with the MRF or its splinter groups (past or present), and need to be given very significant "red flags" to alert readers to this fact. It is not even clear, for example, whether the article in question was peer-reviewed (the acknowledgments of peer-reviewed papers usually include a statement thanking the anonymous reviewers). Given how much money these people are making from Morgellons sufferers, they obviously have to fight back against the Mayo Clinic and CDC studies that laid the "Morgellons controversy" to rest. Dyanega (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The new sudy was groundbreaking, the CDC is aware they screwed up, and the study proves beyong any reasonable doubt that the disease is caused by an infectious agent. Read the study, the fibers are UNDER intact skin, anyone who wants to dispute that fact, obviously has a political agenda or cannot read, or does not have sufficient IQ to understand basic science. I personally know two physicians, who were doubters like some of you, and when i showed them the fibers UNDER intact skin with a dermascope on 100X, they were so stunned, they look like they had seen a ghost. Morgellons is not a parasite, it's not chemtrails, it's not nanobots or bugs, or any other nonsense....it's not a government conspiracy. the REAL scientists working on Morgellons, believe it is an issue with the Keratinocytes. It's not supernatural. It is a disease, like any other disease. CNN is already all over this new study, and if Wikipedia and it's wiki mafia, wants to live in the land of make believe, and block reference to a profoundly well done study (the first of it's kind) and the most stunning work in the last 10 years on Morgellons, then you should question what your true mission is, on wikipedia....No one is making any money off morgellons. I personally have spent tens of thousands of dollars on research, and i can assure you, this disease is bad, and it's getting worse. Live in denial, or read the study and stop casting asperison at decent hard working researchers who have committed their LIFE, to investigating this horrendous disease, while you gutless cowards hide behind fake names, and throw around information, that is totally outdated and with little merit. Mary Letao? please....lol....she is irrevelant. Real researchers have taken over, the "A" team is now in the building, and we can assure you, Morgellons is real, the fibers are growing UNDER intact skin, and it relates to something gone awry in the keratinocytes. It's not supernatual. The collective IQ of the WIKI editors is clearly not able to process how cutting edge this study actually is. It's the biggest thing to happen in Morgellons, for long long time. Stay tuned....There are alot of people running around the CDC today, after that study was released, embarassed, trying to figure how in the world they screwed this thing up. How do i know that?.....I know alot of things (wink). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.196.98 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Everyone knows that Wikipedia has turned into a joke, and the morgellons page is ample evidence of that fact. In November 2011, a discovery was made that showed that Bovine Digital Dermatitis (which cost the dairy industry millions of dollars year) had remarkable similarities to Morgellons, and a paper was published. For people in the know, doing morgellons and lyme research, it was a stunning discovery because it calls into question the notion of delusional parasitosis (cattle cant be delusional...lol....) and the symptoms are virtually identical to morgellons) This major finding, completely flies under the radar on Wikipedia. Impartial? please....get over yourselves. Now, a new study, adds further evidence, that the CDC study was a joke, and that the CDC is now going to have to roll over, and admit they screwed it up, and the wiki mafia editors want to block one small tiny reference to the new ground breaking study?....(a highly placed source at the CDC, when the deficiencies of their study were pointed out, is reported to have said "why was i not made aware of this?" The reseacher said "i sent you information and concerns on the study before it was published and you never responded" and the CDC official was reported to have said "Somebody kept your concerns from reaching my desk, I was not aware of it...."......I can assure the readers of this talk page, even the CDC doesnt believe their own study. They are getting inundated with doctors claiming where they used to see a handful of patients a year with strange lesions, now they see 10 a week. The new study, is a step in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.196.98 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Now, let's discuss the science. The paper makes the stunning case, that the fibers, are made of KERATIN !! That there is a problem in the keratinocytes....Not nanobots, aliens, meteorites, chemtrails, cotton fiber conspiracies or any other hocus pocus, by the typical knuckleheads that orbit this morgellons controversy. The paper, which some are trying to block, is FINALLY a breath of fresh air. Real science, with a well thought out hypothesis. Now think about that for a moment: Over the last 10 years we have had every knucklehead wacko running around the internet talking gibberish, and FINALLY someone does some real science, and draws some down to earth rational hypothesis, and the wiki mafia, blocks it !!.....you cant make this stuff up boys and girls.....lol....A real paper gets published, and you block it, and include absurd speculations in the Morgellons page....It's all good. CNN is going to run with it, wikipedia can be 5 years behind, and continue on it's well documented and well demonstrated path to irrelevancy...lol....just read the entire paper, and stop worrying about who wrote it. Just read it. It's a breath of frsh air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.196.98 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:MEDRS. The article does not qualify as it is a primary study (not secondary source) and it is published in a journal that is not even MEDLINE indexed - a big red flag. You will also find that being brief and to the point will get you further than writing long posts. Yobol (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Well YOBOL, Im sorry if real discussion does not suit your chicken mcnuggets fast food version of scientific debate. By the way, the CDC folks I spoke too, an hour ago, are not laughing. They have a copy, and they are taking it very very seriously. If you would like to go point by point through the current version of the Morgellons page, i will be most happy to point out all your inaccuracies and violations of Wiki policy....lol....There are only 3 groups doing Morgellons work at this time, and you would object to all three of them, based on your interpretation. Kaiser funded the CDC study, and that is not a secondary source. I work for a global consulting firm, that quietly does cutting edge research into Morgellons, and believe me, we know alot more than we are even saying. It's not bugs, parasites, aliens, chemtrails, nanobots, and it's definitely not delusional parasitosis....lol...Am i a primary source?...Im not aligned with anyone, and Im telling you the paper is spot on. And i have been on the cover of 3 magazines. Do i qualify by your standards? I read the paper, it's good. A fine piece of work. IF I THOUGHT THE PAPER WAS BAD, I WOULD NOT BE POUNDING THE TABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE WIKI PAGE. There are people mentioned in the morgellons page, that are complete and utter frauds, and not relevant to a scientific discussion of an emerging pandemic. Here is what I am going to do: I am going to give an interview to CNN, and then I will mention the latest paper, and then you won't be able to block inclusion, how is that, num nuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.196.98 (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Pound the table all you want. WP:MEDRS and consensus are what determines what gets included in an article, not pounding. OhNoitsJamieTalk 13:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
These two comments above are interesting: "Mary Letao? please....lol....she is irrevelant. Real researchers have taken over, the "A" team is now in the building" and "Over the last 10 years we have had every knucklehead wacko running around the internet talking gibberish". The funny thing is, the primary person who wrote this new paper (Stricker), is the same "knucklehead" who's been behind the wacko stuff on the internet, along with Mary Leitao and a bunch of the people in that paper's acknowledgments, for the last 10 years. This isn't some new team with fresh ideas, it's the Morgellons Research Foundation and the Charles Holman Foundation, the SAME OLD TEAM that's been behind this stuff all along. Same people, different "theory". YAWN. Dyanega (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
"The paper makes the stunning case, that the fibers, are made of KERATIN !!"
You mean the same keratin that makes up skin, fingernails, and hair? "Filaments have been observed protruding from and attached to a matrix of epithelial cells", yeah, this sounds like hair. I'm curious as to why they are observing these specimens under 100x, we had 1000x in my microbiology class utilizing a 100x oil immersion lense with the 10x objective. Even a normal microscope should at least go to 450x, but really, you can't see jack at 100x. I still can't wrap my head around this, 100x?!AerobicFox (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Googling Raphael B. Stricker (the senior author of the paper in question) is an instructive exercise, though. MastCellTalk 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Approaches should be taken to find out the cause
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I guess those suffers might be for whatever reason, their immune systen is weakened, so they developed the formication. In order to find out the reason. I would say the first thing have to do is to explain the mechanism of felling itchineww. After that, find out at the molecule level what is the source of the formication. And then after that, find out what can produce those agents. And then eventually, find out the environmental factors. 59.59.235.154 (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a general discussion about Morgellons. As you can see in the article, research has been done. So far, it appears to be a psychological issue rather than a physiological one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
In Max Igan's new film 'Trance-Formation' discusses that Morgellons and Chemtrails are linked and that the Chemtrails have been proved to have nano-particulars that have the same properties as the fibers found in Morgellons sufferers.
But I know somebody will come along and say it isn't true, valid, or something. Which would be original research on their part. FX ☎ 07:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
See two sections above, here, to see discussion on why this source is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I knew that somehow somewhere there would be somebody here doing original research, rather than just adding a new source of information. Remember, we are not trying to determine the truthiness of an article, but providing sources and information, even if you think it's wrong. It's original research for you to tell me why a credible source is wrong, and you are correct. Stop doing it. 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It's obviously not a medical claim, it gives no medical advice at all. The multiple secondary sources mentioning it are good sources, which you seem to ignore. It's nonsense like this that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Please stop it.FX ☎ 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It obviously is a medical claim which we're using it for. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 00:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Lyme disease reference
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Randy Wymore, a former MRF director, has claimed on his website that some Morgellons patients who test positive for Lyme disease obtain symptom relief using aggressive, long-term antibiotic treatment similar to what is used by some doctors to treat "chronic" Lyme disease, another proposed but medically disputed condition.[76]"
The source here has nothing to do with Randy Wymore, or Morgellons. Where is the source for Wymore's assertions? Any source that is meant to support this assertion has to directly make this link to Morgellons, otherwise it is effectively original research. Who are the editors of this page to say what treatments are used in each case and how equivalent they are? It has to come from a source. I am going to remove the reference to the source again, and without that the initial sentence stands unsupported. This is, I assume, why an inappropriate source was inserted in the first place.Ninahexan (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Removing sourced information
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It is against Wikipedia policy to remove well sourced information. Eptified (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced your signature with something more functional.
In the case of my recent edits, the information was not sourced to WP:MEDRS, therefore was not well-sourced. In addition, I removed several dubious inclusions from the "Bibliography" section, which was actually a further reading section. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with WLU. Cite the original papers1, rather than a newspaper article, and it would be more likely to remain in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 1This assumes it was published in a reputable journal.
pictures
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
why are there no pictures in the article [6]? 178.148.225.211 (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
See WP:IUP, we can't just take images off the 'net and put them on a page - they must be released under fair use or similarly acceptable license. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
MRF
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
i don't think removing this section is a good move, as the foundation had significant role in pushing the CDC investigation. also, this 'non notable' person is Assoc. Prof. & Director, Center for the Investigation of Morgellons Disease at Oklahoma State University, Center for Health Sciences. and well cited scientist in general [7]178.148.225.211 (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
In general - what about for Morgellons specifically? There has yet to be any serious recognition of Morgellons as anything but delusional parasitosis. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think something about the MRF wouldn't be a bad idea. However, that is a minor aspect of the MRF, and not directly related to Morgellons. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 14:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
NEW PUBLISHED RESEARCH
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have just tried to add information about interesting new research by middelveen and others that has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Disappointingly, this was removed within minutes by "yobol". Could yobol explain why peer-reviewed literature doesn't belong in a wikipedia article?
BarclayAllan (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Please review WP:MEDRS. Medical information needs to be sourced according to that guideline, specifically to high quality secondary sources such as review articles. The sources you presented are primary research articles, and do not qualify. Please also read WP:WEIGHT (in this case, the position that Morgellons is infectious in origin is an extreme minority opinion), and WP:PSTS, which also suggests secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Current NPOV issue
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I marked the current article with the NPOV tag for the following reason: The article has a tone in parts where it seems to imply anyone who investigates or continues to investigates the the Morgellons as a potentially real disease or physical condition rather the simply a psychosomatic or mental condition as idiots and dupes. Here are my main concerns:
1. Take the following quote from the intro:
Despite the lack of evidence that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition, the absence of any agreed set of diagnostic symptoms, and the existence of an existing medically accepted diagnosis in delusional parasitosis, Leitao's "Morgellons Research Foundation" and self-diagnosed patients successfully lobbied members of Congress and the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate the condition.[2][6]
The above quote seems to imply that since there was no evidence that Morgellons was a real disease at the time congress was essentially duped into pushing the CDC to investigate the alleged disease. The paragraph quoted above seems to be saying that for the CDC to be justified in investigating Morgellons, there would be to be evidence it was a legitimate decease. But since the point of an investigation would be to obtain such evidence, if it exists, this seems to set up a catch-22 situation where you can investigate Morgellons due to lack of evidence it's a legitimate disease but such evidence, if it exists, won't be found unless you investigate the alleged condition. Unless I understand what was being requested from the CDC by congress, they were only asking the CDC to look into whether Morgellons has any plausible foundation as a legitimate disease or not, which is not what the article currently implies. If the CDC was being asked to treat it a legitimate disease despite a lack of evidence supporting that then the paragraph in question would be a valid way to state the facts IMO. T
2. The article talks about dermatologists as if they are all of one mind against Morgellons as a legitimate disease when in fact I know that not be true. The language needs to be clarified so we're clear we're stating what the of the majority of dermatologists/doctors/etc. believe.
3. We need to reword some statements throughout the article that seem imply that any continued research into Morgellons as a possible legitimate disease has reached the level of research into cold fusion (or any other similarly researched to death and now debunked theory). While current research does not support Morgellons as a valid disease, I don't believe that there is a consensus just yet that further research has zero chance of finding supporting evidence, which the overall tone of the article seems to imply. Yes, there are indeed scientists/medical researchers, doctors, etc. who do indeed think continued research in Morgellons is a waste of time and money, much the same way cold fusion research is currently viewed, and we should certainly put that POV into the article but let's not portray is as the consensus view just yet unless you can provide evidence that it most researchers/doctors do indeed believe it has been researched to death and such continued research should be now labeled as psuedo-science.
--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Taking your points one at a time:
1) I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The text is cited to the Washington Post and CDC, which supports the text. You seem to be arguing against the premise of the point, which is neither here nor there ([[WP:NOTFORUM|this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not arguing against points made in the article). The text is easily supported by the references cited and is clear. While you may feel personally that there is nothing wrong with Congress mandating the CDC to spend millions of dollars studying a "disease" that has no evidence supporting it, clearly the Washington Post made a point that the reason why the CDC did the study was not because they felt that there was likely to be a disease, but due to the lobby efforts.
2) I don't understand the suggestion here. We use phrases like "Most dermatologists" and "Many dermatologists". This particular point seems to lack merit.
3) I could find no text in our article stating that further research was a "dead end" like you imply. Please point out which text you are talking about. As such, I have removed the NPOV tag. Yobol (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Mounting evidence for organic cause
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have posted this on the Morgellons page:
Mounting evidence for organic cause
Morgellons is characterised by keratin/collagen filaments growing in skin and associated skin changes mimicking principally those of eczema and nodular prurigo as reported in this F1000 Research publication. [42] There is a large body of the medical and scientific community who state Morgellons is delusions of parasitosis. Since 2011 significant advances have been published, all of which are referenced in this F1000 paper, setting out mounting proof that the disorder is fundamentally caused by spirochete infection. Furthermore it is now know that it is borrelial species, the cause of Lyme disease. The new paper sets out a perspective showing a firm link between Morgellons and Lyme disease and draws on solid argument from psychiatric advice that the necessary factors in diagnosing delusional disease are absent in Morgellons sufferers.
It seems this recent scientifically backed data is disapproved by Yobol and Mastcell. The reasons purported by both do not stand up to rational scientific debate. New evidence should be presented in whatever fashion the author feels apprpriate and given the requisite time for normal debate to ensue - not removed because it is disliked. In this case the quoted articel is waiting for peer review which will be forthcoming.
Quickpeter (talk)quickpeter —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
To Yobol: You are now twisting words for your own gain. The paper summarises 2 years of accepted work available on PUBMED searches and with a swoop of a pen you attempt to annihilate it with jargon such as "undue weight to a dubious primary study" but then you state this is not a medline indexed journal. Sir it is PUBMED indexed and if you check your facts you will find medline indexing has been taken over by pubmed as a result of computer indexing. To Mastcell (btw do you know Yobol) again this statement "undue weight, primary source, and so on" you are not providing an explanation of undue weight (neither did yobol) and what reasoning do you use to insert the words "and so on" for an explanation as to your own personal agenda to remove the passage? To all, in all the halls of science when new data is presented it is seen first by a minority and then this spreads in due course. Just because an article represents a small audience view is no reason to eradicate it from the advances of scientific knowledge as you are trying to do. Fair representation of fact purports that you dont challenge the very limited statement "mounting evidence" that has been put up here about this condition. It is representative of a scientific view accepted by a minority in this case. I hastily point out one of the authors, a dermatologist, has published 109 articles on dermatitis on a pubmed search.Quickpeter (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Quickpeter
Please see WP:MEDRS which outlines the requirements for medical sourcing. Note that WP is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball and so we don't publish articles while review is forth coming. Additionally, and as you should understand after reading medrs, is it not appropriate to use primary studies to contradict metastudies. WP:PRIMARY studies can be used on WP but in a limited fashion, such as to cite basic mathematical attributes or other uncontroversial facts. This, however, is not one of those cases. Sædontalk 08:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Take note editor
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Saedon is editing and removing properly sourced statements with Pubmed indexed peer reviewed references in the hypothesis section of MorgellonsSpirochete (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Spirochete
As has been explained above, the content you're adding does not represent the scientific consensus on the subject. This is not the place to change that - WP is not a place to promote something new. -- Scray (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I've read and reread this article about Morgellons, and I've noticed some (And I'm being modest here; more than just 'some') of these sections are wrong. Did some half-asleep person just glance off a random page or blog and start copying down everything they've heard? This is not a reliable page, and it's actually pretty frustrating that victims of this disease would be mistreated and labeled insane, and the information posted here totally unilateral with whatever the CDC and other government groups say. Does no one here look up other sites and documentaries/etc. to check the credibility of these things? Or are we so simple-minded enough to just go with the first ludicrous thing we hear from any one group that spends less time on crucial matters such as this and more time worrying about their next paycheck and appearance?
Also, one last note, I've noticed that the only information one this page is, again, the one-sided opinion of a group of people who probably don't even know what Morgellons are. I've seen other controversial pages on Wikipedia, and they at LEAST give a little section to (What can be said as the) 'Other side of the story'. Where are the other official reports of Morgellons given by scientists and victims of this disease? Why isn't there a section dedicated to what they've said and experienced? Seeing this, I had added a small section at the very end, out of everyone's way, just to say that the information here is not 100% accurate, and encourage the reader(s) to visit other sites for themselves, if they so wished. But that was taken off too, because obviously either someone didn't want to lose the credibility of their wasted work, or they are brain-washed and simple-minded themselves and do not wish to hear about any other causes or theories, which, by the way, is not 'alien nano-technology'. Someone put that in parentheses and that is an incorrect statement, and should be removed. I actually tried to remove it, but again, some simple-minded idiot got the idea that any changes to his or his buddies' work is 'heresy' and should be destroyed upon first contact.
What, specifically, is wrong with the article? What sections are factually incorrect? What references should be classed as unreliable? And more importantly, what verifiablereliable sources representing the scientific consensus would you recommend be included? We cannot fix the article without this kind of specific information. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi IWTTR, first, I understand you're frustrated and a bit angry, and that is understandable. However, you're not going to increase the chances of getting the kinds of changes you'd like to see in the article by insulting the people you're going to have to work with. Besides, personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia, and will only probably end up with you having your ability to edit curtailed.
Second, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we don't have editorial or commentary like you added in our articles - that's the main reason it was removed. If there are issues we work them out on the Talk page, like we're doing here.
To expand on what TechBear said: Most importantly, if you'd like to see new content in the article, the first thing you'll need to bring are sources - good, high-quality, well-respected sources, preferably statements from medical organizations or review articles published in good-quality medical journals. (See WP:MEDRS for a complete description of what we're looking for in sourcing biomedical information.) Can you help out by identifying good sources we can use? Thanks... Zad68 03:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I see my mistakes. Actually, this is my first edit, so sorry for messing up a bit. And as for [that] 'personal attack', I do agree that is was out of line, and I am also sorry for that. I will get that 'hard proof' evidence, and do this correctly. Sorry about all of this informality. But one question, or maybe two: First, if Morgellons (As stated here) is really just some Delusional parasitosis, then why are there paragraphs about self-treatment and such stating you take de-worming medicine and the like? If there are fibers or 'bugs' there and you're just a loon, then why take the medicine appropriate for getting rid of them? And second, why does nobody draw up any conclusions about why everyone with Morgellons rejects this labeling and states that 'they're not being taken seriously'? Can you answer that? Or are you just searching for the bogus crap the CDC puts out to suppress and control all their received hatemail? Hm? So please, if you don't want to do any thorough searching into everything that's been put down, as well as everything that hasn't been, why not just make a small section near the end, one with a few sentences of other theories put out by once well respected scientists that have had their lives ruined by either acquiring this disease or trying to do more research about it? Or at the very least some quotes or paraphrases from ACTUAL PEOPLE WITH THE DISEASE! And how can you be so 'official' and 'well respected' if you won't even allow anything from these actual patients? Not just this article, but the CDC or any other health organization as well? That's all I wish to say. And for the record, just to prove one thing: The perpetrators are not beings from outer space. They live right here on this planet. This is not the first time that numbered pieces of tissue have been found by sufferers of this diabolical disease.
"An interviewer from MSNBC chose to take selected excerpts from a phone conversation with me. She manipulated my words in a newspaper article to make me sound as though I believed that extraterrestrials were to blame for this disease. Not true....
I was pointedly asked at the very beginning of this interview if I thought that aliens had caused this disease. I did not bring up the subject. It was rather a trick question. My answer was that it was possible that materials may have been taken from the space shuttle as a pathogen but I did not say it was probable nor do I think it is the case.
Look around my site. It has been here for many years and you will not find mention of aliens being the cause of this disease."
Crap, I did it again. Yes, I understand this is a place for formal medical posts and not rants or things like that. I'm sorry, once again. And if you're thinking of blocking me, don't bother. I'm done. I can't win, not yet. So why try? This is almost as bad as politics, heh heh. Well, one last piece of advice: Don't believe the first thing you read, and NEVER, EVER stop looking for the truth. Remember that. Well, goodbye, so long, and I will perhaps never speak with you again~
I Want The Truth Restored (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Why Did Sailsbystars Revert My Edit In Which I Added Two "Citation needed" Tags?
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I added the citation need tag at the end of the follwing two sentences in the article:
"In addition, long-term antibiotic use can have serious side effects"
"Persons with Morgellons symptoms may turn to alternative remedies described on web sites and discussion groups"
Why was my edit reverted, and these citation need tags removed? Drgao (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to avoid removing those, but unfortunately, due to the nature of the edits and editting software, it was very difficult for me to selectively undo your edits. At least one of the citation neededs looked like it might be useful. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Press release about this article
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
As an FYI, there is a press release from the Charles E Holman Foundation about this article on PR Web.[1] No press coverage yet, but that might follow if reporters think the release is interesting.
Matthew (WMF) 16:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe.... FYI, prweb.com is not a RS. Anyone can publish any kind of "news" there. The Charles E Holman foundation is a Morgellons support group started by a sufferer. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
After reading this "press release" from the Holman foundation, it's apparent that they haven't a clue as to how Wikipedia works. They apparently know nothing about watchlists, and that many editors have thousands of articles on their watchlists. I occasionally edit here, and my watchlist currently has this notice at the top: "You have 7,719 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." That means I have exactly twice that many pages on my watchlist, and I don't have to be an expert on any of them, and non-experts are allowed to edit articles at Wikipedia. Special interest groups like the Holman foundation have a huge COI, and cannot be expected to follow our most sacred policy - WP:NPOV. The constant adding of primary sources violates WP:MEDRS. Their own wording in the press release points huge fingers at the influence of Morgellons sufferers who constantly attack this article, proving that "it is vulnerable to manipulation through editing by anonymous special interest groups" like all the Morgellons special interest groups and sufferers. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
In addition to their lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, the press release is pretty blatantly misleading - they make it seem like Yobol is the only user reverting the addition of dubiously sourced content, when in fact there have been six people making these edits in addition to Yobol in just the past week. And of course the reason we had to make these edits was that the article was subject to multiple edits by now-blocked POV-pushing socks who have no understanding of WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It really did read like an attack piece on Yobol and certainly was not written in the tone or style of a statement from a supposed research/philanthropic foundation. But the bottom line is that this article likely affects their bottom line and charity, after all, is a business these days. Perhaps we should consider protecting the page with pending changes? These new primary studies are likely to attract users with an agenda, and if the established research is correct that Morgellons is a delusional condition we have to keep in mind that we are literally dealing with people suffering a massive delusion. Sædontalk 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedia... is vulnerable to manipulation through editing by anonymous special interest groups."
— PRWeb
Oh, the irony. Axl¤[Talk] 21:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Preventing An Edit War
Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion
The following was copied here from my user talk page:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Presumably this threat of an edit war account blocking also applies to the editors here that have undone my edits, so these people need to watch out also.
I feel that the reference [1] to the keratin and collagen composition of fibers must be included in article, and since my edit is in compliance with WP:MEDRS, there is no reason why this edit should not be included. Please do not try to suppress important information.
So I suggest we discuss here how this information is to included in the article.
By the way Yobol, is there any truth in the accusation that you are not one person, but a team of individuals? (Personal attack removed) Any comments? Just curious. Drgao (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Repeating these ridiculous allegations against an editor is a rather clear breach of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not an article, Drgao, it's a press release from an advocacy group, and it does nothing to negate the 3RR warning that Yobol left you. If you really want to prevent an edit war, discuss your proposed inclusions here before continuing to add them back to the article. Consensus now is that your text should not be included based on the section just above this one. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Drgao, as noted in the edit summaries, plus from the discussion above, the source you're proposing to use isn't acceptable per WP:MEDRS as 1) the journal is not MEDLINE-indexed, and 2) Dove is a publisher of dubious quality. Do you have a WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source to support the content you are proposing? Zad68 18:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm commenting here to underscore that consensus is against inclusion of content based on a low-quality primary source (discussed in the section above) that runs counter to secondary sources of substantial weight. If we did what you suggest, it would be a clear violation of WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. By the way - the edit war has been going on for 24 hours; my hope is that this discussion ends it. -- Scray (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
A secondary source is not needed, provided the primary source is not set up to contradict a secondary source in the article. WP:MEDRS says "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to debunk or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources" Thus as long as you don't juxtapose the primary source in a contradictory manner, you can use it. If you are concerned about due weight issues WP:UNDUE, then my text can be included in a less prominent part of the article. I am discussing this in order to accommodate your issues and requirements, and I hope you will be equally courteous to accommodate my requirement, which is to include this reference at some point in the article, even if in a non-prominent location. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about suppressing knowledge that does not line up with the prevailing view.
The study I quoted is on PubMed, so presumably that means it is MEDLINE indexed. Do you have any official Wikipedia statement saying that Dove is a publisher of dubious quality, and therefore cannot be included in Wikipedia articles? Drgao (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Drgao, sorry, no, the article you're bringing is PMID23326202, and this parameter list clearly states at the top "STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE". The journal is Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, the library record for the journal is here, which also states "Current Indexing Status: Not currently indexed for MEDLINE" and current consensus among Wikipedia medical editors is that if the journal is not MEDLINE indexed, it's dubious. Also, the article content proposed based on this journal is an exceptional claim, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL - to include it in the article, you'd need to bring multiple high-quality secondary sources, and this journal article doesn't meet that standard.
It may be true that Morgellons is actually some sort of infectious disease based on fibers, but until the best-quality reliable sources start saying that, the Wikipedia article won't either. Zad68 19:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As a point of fact: the study I quoted is not saying that the fibers are infectious, but rather that they are produced as a result of human keratinocyte and fibroblast cells in the skin being activated to manufacture the proteins keratin and collagen, which then create the fibers (the normal function of these cells is to synthesis such keratin and collagen proteins). The study found evidence of a spirochete infection in the skin of Morgellons patients, and the implication is that this infection may have triggered the keratinocyte and fibroblast cells to produce keratin and collagen proteins. So according to this study, the fibers are likely created as a result of an infection, but the fiber are not themselves an infectious agent.
Your arguments against inclusion of this information are changing all the time, and now you are saying that it is an exceptional claimWP:EXCEPTIONAL. However, the entire debate surrounding Morgellons disease has been focused on whether it is a delusional condition, or an infectious disease. Therefore, rather than being an exceptional claim, this infectious disease angle is very much a mainstream concept. Indeed, the research performed at Kaiser Permanente that you refer to in this article was itself focused on searching for an infectious agent. Thus you cannot say that the information I would like to include is an exceptional view; the infectious view is one of the mainstream views.
Given that much of the thrust of the research into Morgellons has been the search for an infectious agent, it is not clear to my why you would not want to include this new lead in the search for such an agent, even if just as a brief mention. You are trying to present a canonical view of Morgellons, but that canon is false, because understanding of this disease is in its infancy, and so presenting a single canonical view as if it is the cut and dried truth of Morgellons incorrectly represents the situation. Drgao (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to be listening to what multiple people have already told you in different ways: the encyclopedia has no duty to the cutting-edge concept; canon (mainstream view) is what we're charged with representing. Thus, citing WP:EXCEPTIONAL (in reference to this new study) was entirely consistent with citing WP:MEDRS (with regard to how we've identified mainstream views). It's absolutely true that many studies have looked for an infectious etiology, biological fibres, etc - and haven't found them. That this one has found such evidence (when others commonly cited in secondary sources have not) makes this study exceptional; furthermore, its appearance in a non-mainstream journal further degrades confidence in the reproducibility of the result. Unless we cover some new ground soon, I think we may be done trying to convince you. -- Scray (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Scray, I dispute the grounds on which you are stating that the Middelveen et al study is exceptional.
How many studies have you come across that have performed a thorough examination of the material composition of the fibers?
And out of these, how many of these studies have demonstrated (not assumed) that the fibers are of exogenous origin (ie, not produced in the body, and made from clothing fibers or similar), and how many of these studies have demonstrated that the fibers are of endogenous origin (produced within the body)?
This Middelveen et al study used various techniques including electron microscopy to examine the fibers, and demonstrated they were of biological origin, specifically, made from keratin and collagen, which are proteins made in the human body, therefore indicating the fibers are of endogenous origin.
If you are claiming exceptionality, only by tallying up the number of studies that demonstrated an exogenous origin for the fibers, and also tallying up the number of studies that demonstrated an endogenous origin, and then comparing numbers, can we conclude that this Middelveen et al study is exceptional.
And Scray, since YOU are claiming that Middelveen et al study is exceptional, I presume you must have tallied up all the relevant studies on the material composition of the fibers. Thus could you kinldy post the links to the exogenous origin and endogenous origin studies you have tallied, so that we can all see for ourselves.
YOU have said Middelveen et al study is exceptional, so please provide the proper evidence for your statement.
If you cannot provide evidence of exceptionality, then we can assume that the Middelveen et al study is NOT exceptional, and so can be included in the article. Drgao (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It is the claim that is exceptional, not the study, read the link provided please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you are wrong Dbrodbeck. WP:EXCEPTIONAL says exceptional claims are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". The idea that the fibers are of endogenous origin (from within the body) is not surprising as this has been discussed ad nauseam, and is a completely mainstream idea, being found in all the literature. Ergo, you're wrong.
I'd really appreciate a bit more clarity of thought in the replies you provide here. You are wasting my time providing these logically flawed, ill-thought out answers. Drgao (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate you laying off the personal attacks. My thoughts are crystal clear. As are, it seems everyone else's. It could be you are right and we are all wrong, but you know what? A better conclusion is we understand policies and you do not. Go read WP:CONSENSUS again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You are evading the issue at hand, namely that the demonstration the fibers are of endogenous origin is certainly not a surprising one, and is completely mainstream. So I have demolished your argument that inclusion of Middelveen et al in the article is against WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
Do you have any other arguments to offer, or do you finally give in, and concede? Drgao (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
We don't 'give in' around here, and you have demolished nothing. This is a collaborative project that operates using consensus. Consensus is against you. Move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW Zad68, there is absolutely nothing in WP policy including WP:MEDRS that indicates a source must be MEDLINE indexed. Erythema (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Erythema— Erythema (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Why does Erythema have to make edits outside this topic? I may start to make edits elsewhere. I am a new user. This is an interesting topic and it is easy to get a grasp at all the relevant medical literature for this topic as the topic is not a large one. I am not going to plunge in and edit lots of different medical sites. I prefer to start small. I have not even made any changes to the actual Morgellons article, so I can't see why you are objecting to my joining this talk page and my contributions. I would like to point out the the CDC study does not really contradict the keratin or collagen content evidence. If you read the paper it says that 83% of non-biopsy material was composed of protein. Both collagen and keratin are proteins. It then goes on to say that this is consistent with cellulose cotton fibers -- which does not make any sense because cotton and cellulose are carbohydrates. The references that the current Morgellons article has on fiber composition are not suitable medical references according to WP policy. For example the evidence presented from interviews with Dr Wymore is not even published in a medical journal -- much less peer-reviewed. Erythema (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema
Removed Some Primary References Form the Article
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Since as discussed above, you said to me that primary sources are not appropriate for this article, I have removed the following primary sources from the article:
You have no idea what you're talking about. Schulte is a superb secondary source, as is the nature article. Perhaps you should read WP:PRIMARY? Sailsbystars (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you point me to the Wikipedia guidelines page which clearly states that a primary source from Nature is fine, but a primary source from Dove press is not. If I have a source, how can I officially check whether it is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia or not? Drgao (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, saying "You have no idea what you're talking about" is also a personal remark, similar to the personal remarks I made which were removed. So I suggest that you remove this remark. Drgao (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:RS, WP:SPS. I struck that bit of my comment, but it's not clear you understand the difference between a primary and secondary source and there's only so many ways of saying it. The Washington Post is one of the most obvious examples of a reliable secondary source appropriate to wikipedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I fully understand the difference between literature review secondary sources, and primary sources. What I would like to know is official Wikipedia policy you are referring to when you say that a primary source from Nature is fine for inclusion, but a primary source from Dove press is not. Drgao (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
WaPo is describing the cultural history of the disease, for which it is an appropriate source, not the nature of the medical condition, for which WP:MEDRS would apply. The nature article appears to be a more popularly oriented review article in one of the world's most preeminent medical journals. Dovepress is an obscure outfit where it's not clear that they actually are a reliable source in general, much less a medical reliable source. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sailsbystars. I am going to revert the changes, and please do not revert without consensus, thanks Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out to Sailbystars that the Washington Post is not what WP means by a reliable secondary medical reference. It is popular press. It is not a general or systematic review published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor is it from a medical text book, etc. Erythema (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema
creating a NPOV
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The Morgellons page is a violation of Wikipedia’s sacred NPOV policy to “represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By Wikipedia’s own rules, no one has been able to provide justification for not adding the evidence published in peer-reviewed medical journals that suggests that Morgellons is infectious in etiology to the Morgellons article’s content. If no one can provide justification then this evidence should now be included to the content of this article. This content is essential to achieve an NPOV. Please revisit the Morgellons article and explain how this is a non-biased piece of work. If you can demonstrate evidence of editorial objectivity, I would really like to see it. I have asked for reasonable justification as to why new evidence cannot be added to the article content and so far have not been provided with a defensible argument. Please note the following:
1) According to WP:MEDRES ideal medical sources should be systematic reviews published in reputable journals or in professional text books. There are no available systematic review articles on Morgellons. It is a medical topic where little progress has been made and it is an area that is undergoing active research, and thus current thought is evolving. WP:MEDRES states that in such situations original research papers can be cited providing that only the conclusions of the source are cited. It also states that significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia if presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The view that Morgellons is infectious rather than delusional is a significant-minority view. This POV accounts for approximately 17% of the published articles on Morgellons that are published in reputable medical journals. The fact that studies presenting data that supports this POV are able to pass peer-review is proof that it is has gained mainstream acceptance by acknowledged medical authorities. This is not a “fringe” or extreme viewpoint. To maintain a NPOV it should be presented in Wikipedia. To not do so shows editorial bias.
2) The sources cited in the Wikipedia Morgellons page as it stands now are mostly lower-quality sources according to Wikipedia rules. According to WP:MEDRES the popular press is not a reliable source of scientific and medical information. Newspaper articles and the like are considered low quality sources. The majority of references used in the article are popular press (over 50%), including magazine and newspaper articles, and TV interviews. These are not reliable medical references. The fact that articles published by Popular Mechanics and the like have been considered as acceptable medical references for the Morgellons page while articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals (that are contrary to the POV supported by the dominating editors) is a prime example of editorial bias and cherry picking that abounds in the Morgellons article as it now stands.
3) Case reports and non-evidence such as anecdotes are considered low quality evidence. Those references in the Morgellons article that are not popular press references and that are actually published in medical journals are predominantly opinion pieces that are based on anecdotal evidence and case studies. These are low-quality evidence. Of the few that are not opinion articles and case studies there 3 are original research studies. All three represent 1 POV – the delusional hypothesis – for Morgellons while the other POV found in medical literature – the infectious hypothesis – is ignored and not allowed. It shows editorial bias to include original research that supports only one POV when there is more than 1 accepted POV published in reliable peer-reviewed medical journals. One of the references that is from a peer-reviewed journal is from American Entomologist. I would like to point out that perhaps F1000 Research and Clinical Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology are more reliable journals for medical information than a journal specializing in Entomology.
4) The lack of NPOV is also apparent in the Morgellons talk and history pages where it is public record that individual words that have shown an attempt at neutrality are systematically eliminated and replaced with stronger words that reflect the POV that the active, dominating editors support. The unwillingness to accept published medical evidence from another POV amounts to cyber bullying if it cannot be reasonably and objectively justified. Please note I am not suggesting to remove the content that supports the delusional hypothesis, I am only asking that this article better reflect WP's NPOV -- to represent all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. That lack of neutrality that prevails in this article is suggestive of special interests and agenda editing, so let's do our duty to WP reader and give them something better. Prove me wrong and allow this article to evolve into something that resembles neutrality. Erythema (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Erthyema
Briefly (much of this has been discussed numerous times on this page): (1) broad scientific consensus, reflected accurately in this article based on reliable sources, is that the condition referred to as "Morgellons" is a form of delusional parasitosis and this article therefore respects WP's NPOV directive; (2 & 3) it's possible that the article contains some sources that should be removed or improved - we should discuss those specifically, but more generally there are different reliable sources for different things. For example, the general consensus I've just mentioned, and supported by reliable secondary sources, is supported by a reference to American Entomologist and therefore this does not violate WP:MEDRS - in contrast, refuting a highly-reliable secondary source with primary sources would violate WP:MEDRS.
As far as improving the article, could you make a succinct proposal for a specific change supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant publications? It's much easier to respond to a specific suggestion rather than a wall of text. -- Scray (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Scray, do you also have secondary sources to back up the claim in the article that the fibers and the lesions are not real? I have no major problem with the consensus that there are no parasites, but take exception to the statement that: "the fibers found were normal clothing fibers". If you do not have secondary sources for this claim about the fibers being normal clothing fibers, the article should not make such a statement in the introduction (in the second paragraph).
Furthermore, there is no justification for saying "there were no disease organisms present in Morgellons patients" in the second paragraph of this article. The CDC study reference next to that statement does not say or support that. The CDC study only says that "No parasites or mycobacteria were detected". So the CDC apparently only looked at parasites and mycobacteria. So all you can say from the CDC study is that "no parasites and mycobacteria were found in one study". Drgao (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, note that the CDC study referenced in the introduction to the article is a primary source, and therefore to place the conclusions of this CDC study in such a prominent position in the introductory paragraphs is itself a violation of WP:MEDRS, which states that "When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy." The article should not give high prominence and weight to the CDC study conclusions by placing them in the introduction of the article. So this violation of WP:MEDRS needs to be addressed. As a primary source, the CDC study can be perhaps mentioned, but not in any major detail, and not in a prominent position in the article. Drgao (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The CDC study was introduced in the lede as arising from lobbying, which was reported on before the study was completed, and is therefore relevant regardless of the conclusions of the study. The conclusions themselves are relevant, and are supported by the secondary sources which point towards a psychiatric basis for the condition rather than a specific underlying physical pathology. The CDC study was also cited in a 2013 paper by Wong & Koo. The clarification of the conclusions of the study may well benefit from directly quoting that particular section of the CDC article- "No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation." 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Then if the CDC study reference relates to the section of this article about lobbing, then it should appear there, but not in the intro to the article. In particular, the CDC study is used as a reference to the statement in the article intro that "the fibers found were normal clothing fibers". You cannot make such a statement unless you have secondary sources to back up this statement. Drgao (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well which is it? Mention of the CDC study in the intro is improper because of sourcing issues, or it is improper because it pertains to the sphere of governmental reaction to lobbying? These are two different issues, neither of which seem to have any merit. A cursory description of what is known about the condition is given, with a brief description of the context in which research of the condition took place. The fact that the results of that research don't please a particular organisation or demographic is beside the point to how the condition is described in the intro. As for the primary vs secondary sourcing issue, it is a non-issue. The CDC study was cited in a later research article as a result of a lit review, which is the secondary source you would be demanding. Citing the CDC study- "The fibers that were collected from the patients' skin were skin fragments and fabric material"- Wong JW, Koo JY. Delusions of parasitosis. Indian J Dermatol 2013;58:49-52. Since you feel the absence of the citation to this secondary source so keenly, I will let you add it. I wouldn't want to scratch someone else's itch.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You need to remove the phrase "whereas in reality no such parasites are present"
Latest comment: 10 years ago32 comments9 people in discussion
In the intro sentence to this article, namely:
Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given to a condition in 2002 by Mary Leitao, where sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in reality no such parasites are present,
you need to remove the phrase in bold.
This is a point of science: anyone that knows about infectious disease research is fully aware that you cannot prove the absence of an unknown micro-organism. If a study does not find a micro-organism present, that does NOT provide proof that there is no micro-organism. Thus the above phrase extrapolates beyond what is known scientifically.
If you are unsure of this, consult with some infectious disease experts. They will tell you that micro-organisms are extremely difficult to detect, especially new ones, so no matter how many studies do not find a micro-organism in a given disease, this is NOT proof that no micro-organism is present. Drgao (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The current state of knowledge is that there are no parasites. You really have to learn how it works around here, read the links people have shown you, or move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The current state of knowledge cannot comment on whether there are parasites or other microbes or not. The phrase in bold goes beyond current knowledge, and is a fabrication. Drgao (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You might want to look at reference 16. And really stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a point of science and logic (you do know about science and logic, I take it): you cannot prove a negative. Therefore what you have said in the article is logically incorrect. No reference you provide can resurrect this; it is a fundamental logical error that needs to be expunged. Drgao (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I also cannot prove there aren't little green men forcing me to edit wikipedia, but I am relatively sure there aren't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That is a silly point. If you cannot take this issue seriously, then pass it over to someone less flippant. Perhaps others here with a better understanding of logic will appreciate that the phrase is bold is a non sequitur. The phrase in bold may be what people here think is probably true, but it is not supported by fact or any studies, so it does not belong in Wikipedia. Drgao (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
"...it is not supported by fact or any studies..."? Sounds like you have not looked at the references already provided to you. Wikipedia must represent reliable sources, even if we do not agree with them. -- Scray (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Scray, if you don't have sufficient grasp of the finer points of logic (as appears to be the case), then go find a friend who does, and ask their advice. It is not possible to prove the absence of an unknown micro-organism, no matter what the study. All you can correctly say is that such-and-such a study did not find any micro-organisms. So you can correctly say that the CDC-funded study did not find any micro-organisms, but you CANNOT say the CDC study proved there are no micro-organisms in Morgellons patients. That would be a false statement.
If you don't have sufficient understanding of this sort of logic, you should not really be editing a scientific article, because you will end up doing a bad job. Drgao (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Your personal attacks on this page have gone far enough. By WP policy, we must aim any negative comments toward edits, not the editor. -- Scray (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not an attack, it's an observation: if you don't possess sufficient ability to follow logic, you are going to make a hash of the issue at hand. At present we have a situation in which there is a blatantly unfounded statement in the first sentence of the article. That should be of serious concern. Yes, my tongue has been sharp in expressing this point to you, but your inability to appreciate this point unfortunately called for it.
If you properly consider the issue I have raised — and if necessary, speak to any acquaintances you have who are more familiar with logic — then perhaps we can proceed in a more friendly tone, which will be better for everyone.
Any mention in this article of the CDC proving that there are no disease-causing micro-organisms in Morgellons patients, or words to that effect, must be removed, or else amended to say that the CDC did not find any micro-organisms in Morgellons patients. The latter statement is acceptable and correct; whereas the former is false. Drgao (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you look for just one instance of the word "prove" or "proving" (your quotes/emphasis) in the article currently? I think you'll then realize there are none. I'm done with you. -- Scray (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
When you say, as you erroneously do, in the article that "whereas in reality no such parasites are present", you clearly are telling the reader "that in truth, no parasites are present", as if it is a proven fact. But this is not a proven fact, as you don't know this is true. Drgao (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Scray you are wrong it's not that bad to be wrong but ignoring what the guy is saying and pointing out unrelated facts is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Psychiatric conditions involving delusional infestations don't involve actual infestation, by definition. The definition of a delusion pretty much explains why this is so. In fact the argument that you can't "prove" a negative (that there are no parasites) is an important dimension of delusion. It is precisely the unfalsifiability of this belief which protects the delusion from ever being disproved in the mind of the sufferer. Essentially it holds the delusional belief outside of the domain of science, where reality can't undermine it.
If any physician were likely to even label anyone as having "morgellons" they would have to provide evidence that they screened for parasites and did not find any.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments from an uninvolved editor. First of all I want to remark that after reading comments Drgao tone crosses the personal attack line way too often. Additionally, regarding his comments about proving a negative, it is not a valid reasoning, since no negative can ever be proven but we can still say with quite some certainty that the earth is round (even if theoretically all could be an illusion). WP is not about thruth but about consensus in sources and scientific consensus here is that Morgellons does not exist.
Now: I do agree Drgao that the inital lines of the lead are misleading, since it can be understood that Leitao proposed that patients have a delusional belief, while it is the opposite case (she does believe in it). Moreover, the validity of the condition seems to be questioned as proposed by Leitao. It does sound similar to an article I have worked with (See CCSVI), in which a condition was proposed but has not been really accepted. This should be explicited in the lead
I would change the lead to something like: Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition proposed in 2002 by Mary Leitao in which sufferes had XXX as symtoms. While medical consensus is that patients suffer from delusions Leitao and some patient associations have proposed that it is caused by parasites.
I believe a similar wording would make clearer the gap between medical consensus and the history of the term.
--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not the only one here that makes personal comments. I have been told three times already to "move on" by the rather arrogant Dbrodbeck. No editor should tell another to "move on" or "go away", since this is not only an extremely rude comment to direct to an editor, but worse still, Dbrodbeck's comments, thrice made on this page, suggest that he is implying "we don't like strangers around here, and we certainly are aren't going to accommodate them". Dbrodbeck is making the cardinal sin in Wikipedia: thinking he owns the article.Drgao (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate you removing those personal attacks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have struck them. Drgao (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Getting away from comments about editors and back to the article content: Dbrodbeck's comments are based in Wikipedia content policy and supported by good-quality sources, and they are also in line with consensus regarding this article. Unless a much more authoritative source can be brought to support the proposed content addition, there isn't a good basis to include it in the article at this time. Zad68 14:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Well regarding sources: the CDC study that you quote in this article does not appear to be a secondary source. Since a big issue was made above in this discussion page of the need for "multiple high-quality secondary sources" before inclusion in this article can be considered, why then have you included this non-secondary source CDC study? You set rules that you want me follow, but then you go ahead an break these same rules. You are not following your own standards here. Drgao (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I made a specific proposal than nobody has commented: I would change the lead to something like: Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition proposed in 2002 by Mary Leitao in which sufferes had XXX as symtoms. While medical consensus is that patients suffer from delusions Leitao and some patient associations have proposed that it is caused by parasites.--Garrondo (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My fear there is that we are giving weight to the idea that there are parasites. The direction you suggest is ok though I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not plan to edit the article, but just for curiosity: In reliable sources about Morgellons is common that history section indicating the origin of the term? Such description has a lot of detail explaning on how relevant the term has been for the public? From my experience in the CCSVI article this may indicate that the concept has had more "resonance" in the media and patients culture than in scientific circules.--Garrondo (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm against this change of wording, it gives weight to the 'patients' diagnosis, which really can't be valid considering the fact they're suffering from psychosis. --Judgeking (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Dbrodbeck's concerns about giving weight to the idea that there are parasites. I share that concern, and probably there are no parasites in the skin of Morgellons patients.
However, the trouble with the current introductory paragraph to this article is that it focusses on the delusional parasitosis hypothesis for Morgellons, and this delusional parasitosis hypothesis also tends to reject the idea that the fibers and the skin lesions are real (suggesting instead that the lesions are self-inflicted, and the fibers are just from clothes). I think this is unfair, as the intro should also mention the competing view, which is that the fibers and the skin lesions are real and caused by the disease, even if there are no parasites.
What confuses the situation is that some Morgellons patients think that the fibers themselves are the parasites. However, the study I thought would add value to this article found that the fibers were in fact made of human keratin and collagen. This study thus tends to demonstrate that the fibers are real, but are NOT parasites or any form of micro-organism.
The other issue is that although there may be no parasites in Morgellons, conceivably other types of infectious micro-organism might be present, and may be the cause of the disease. The study I mentioned found some evidence of spirochete bacteria in the skin of Morgellons patients, and Morgellons has been previously linked to Lyme, a spirochetal disease. So Morgellons patients may be incorrect about being infested with parasites, but they may conceivably be right about being infected with some other micro-organism like spirochete bacteria. The statement currently in the article: "whereas in reality no such parasites are present" is misleading, because it may make the reader think that it has been proven that there are no infectious micro-organism at all in Morgellons, but in fact the studies show that there is a link to Lyme / spirochete bacteria. Drgao (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Drgao, I don't have a response to your content questions yet, but I just needed to say this was an excellent and productive Talk-page comment. It was focused only on content and made thoughtful use of specific sources, thanks for this! I need to think about what you wrote now... Zad68 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
From the Disclosure section in that paper- "MJM, PJM, and RBS serve without compensation on the scientific advisory panel of the Charles E Holman Foundation". The initials are the authors. I imagine people might find it interesting to google that foundation.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
And a recent press release addresses this page with complaints about a specific user. Apparently recent research is not getting traction on this page, and the author of the linked article wants attention drawn to this. Circumstantially, no doubt, the contact given for the foundation is none other than the lead author of the research paper- http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2013/5/prweb10707772.htm. If anyone is interested, you can support the foundation by buying t-shirts! It is partially how that research article was funded, some might notice. I'm sure there are no conflicts of interests here at all.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The authors' disclosure statements have no relevance in determining their suitability as medical references. Furthermore, I agree with Drgao about the parasite statement. Evidence published in reputable peer-reviewed journal articles have confirmed the presence of spirochetes -- this represents a significant minority POV. The fact that the CDC did not find these organisms is not relevant. It just means that they used methodology that was not sensitive enough to detect those particular organisms. This is often the case in medical science. For example Helicobacter pylori was not associated with stomach ulcers, but now we know that this organism is involved. Medical knowledge evolves. New knowledge deserves to be cited. Erythema (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema
I would also like to point out that the CDC study did find folliculitis in the skin of patients. Something had to cause the inflammation so the evidence in this paper does not indicate that no pathogens were present. It only means that none were detected in the study. The CDC study did find that patients had cognitive disabilities that could not be explained and that this differed statistically from the general population. If you are using the CDC study as a reference then please read it thoroughly. Erythema (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema
Folliculitis, as in irritation of hair follicles commonly caused by friction from clothes and... scratching? As for the cognitive impairments (not disabilities), you seem to have misunderstood the sentence which I will quote for you- "Nearly 60% of case-patients had evidence of some cognitive impairment that could not be explained by deficits in IQ". Could not be explained by deficits in IQ. Case studies in traumatic brain damage clearly illustrate the cognitive impairments caused by anxiety that can be specifically dissociated from physiological damage to the brain. Anyway, I doubt any of this will change the way you feel about the CDC study being sourced on this page, so this conversation is futile.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
reliable medical references
Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion
I am repeating myself, but the dominant editors on this topic have repeatedly ignored WP policy and my objections to their misuse of WP policy. There seems to be a lot of confusion about primary and secondary sources, and high and low quality sources. 1) According to WP policy on medical articles, ideally secondary sources should be used. These are medical guidelines, general or systematic reviews (published and peer-reviewed in a reputable journal), professional text book etc. Examples of reliable secondary sources do NOT include TV interviews or popular press (newspapers or magazines). The Morgellons article is over 50% popular press. 2) Having said that -- WP:MEDRS indicates reliable peer-reviewed medical journal articles that are PRIMARY sources CAN be used when reliable secondary sources are lacking. THAT is the case with Morgellons. Dove Press and F1000 articles are peer-reviewed and are published in reputable scientific, medical journals. No, WP:MEDRS does not say a source has to be MEDLINE indexed or even Pub Med indexed for that matter. It only recommends these indexes as good resources for finding reliable literature. 3) Anyone questioning the quality of Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol or F1000 Research should provide proof that they are lacking in quality. You will note that the editorial boards of both these journals are highly qualified professionals who are acknowledged experts in their fields. The editor-in-chief of Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol is Dr. Jeffery Weinberg. He is an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, NYC. As I mentioned before the editorial board of F1000 Research includes internationally renowned experts in their field, including Nobel Prize winners, fellows of the Royal Society, Lasker Award winners, members of the National Academy of Science, and Members of the Institute of Medicine. The F1000 Head of Faculty for Dermatology is Dr Stephen Katz from the National Institutes of Health, USA. I would think very carefully about saying that these people are not capable of putting together a quality publication. Do you actually believe that a newspaper reporter knows more about medicine that Dr Weinberg? Or a reporter from Popular Mechanics can provide more reliable medical information than Dr Katz? Your irrational arguments about these journals shows editorial bias. As a reader of wikipedia, I expect better neutrality. The entire article should be re-examined for NPOV. For the time being how about including the infectious evidence -- that is published in peer-reviewed medical journals? It is a SIGNIFICANT minority POV. Significant minority POVs are considered to be essential for maintaining NPOV by WP policies.Erythema (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Eythema
The problems with these refs have been pointed out to you, if you don't get it that is your problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No, the problems with your arguments, Dbrodbeck, have been amply pointed out to you, and it you who is slow on understanding. Drgao (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and, all of the other policies that have been pointed out to you. This is not a debating society, we have rules, and you do not seem to understand them Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes we have rules, and the rules are not on your side in this case. How do you answer the point made above by Erythema about significant minority POVs being essential for maintaining NPOV? Don't waffle or put up smokescreens, just answer this question.
To quote Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
As it stands, this article is violating the NPOV policy, and even if there is a consensus of crony editors here supporting that lack of neutrality, you are wrong, and what you are doing is fundamentally against Wikipedia policy. Drgao (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The article is neutral with respect to high-quality sources. -- Scray (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't give me your smokescreen twaddle Scray. The article needs to be neutral with respect to reliable sources. As it stands, it is not neutral with respect to reliable sources, largely because the editors appear to be biased. Drgao (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Drgao, if you wish to succeed here and not get blocked, you'll have to stop violating policy. A very important one is to assume good faith (AGF). Denigrating other editors and accusing them of (what they may view as) your own behavior and motives doesn't help matters. Use more neutral language and discuss content, not editors. Remember this cuts both ways and you are not immune from bias, so don't point fingers. We are all imperfect and we all have to work together here, so we must maintain a collaborative environment. If you can't do that, then please find something else to do. If you're willing to give it a try, then you are very welcome here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I always assume good faith, at least at the beginning, until the behavior of an editor provides evidence to the contrary. Good faith is defined as honesty or sincerity of intention. However, it seems to me that editors Dbrodbeck and Scray and others have not displayed honesty. If these editors were honest and sincere, they would not engage in the deceitful practice of quoting Wikipedia rules that support their polarized, biased views on what material is to be included in the article, while at the same time, not bringing to my attention Wikipedia rules that support the inclusion of the material I have suggested. If they were honest people, they would look at the Wikipedia rules in an objective, dispassionate fashion, and try to do what is correct and right by these Wikipedia rules. If they were honest people, they would say, yes, there are Wikipedia rules that support the inclusion of the material I suggested. That is what an honest, sincere person would do. That is good faith. But no, these editors are very selective about the Wikipedia rules they bring forward, and only mention the rules that favor their views. Dbrodbeck and Scray are apparently quite happy to manipulate Wikipedia rules for their favor, like clever lawyers.
I have been looking for some official way to report editors Dbrodbeck and Scray to Wikipedia administration, on account of their less than honest behavior. Is there an official way to report such behavior to Wikipedia administration? Another question I have is how do you ask for a higher level authority to arbitrate a dispute like the one here? Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy clearly states that "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." So when editors here seem to flout this nonnegotiable Wikipedia policy, they need to be reported, and arbitration is required. Perhaps you can advise on how this can be achieved, BullRangifer.
On your own userpage, BullRangifer, you eloquently write: "Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. One must: Present the facts about each side's POV. Not sell each side's POV as facts." I completely concur.
I agree that I am not immune from bias, and I have my own views and options. But the difference is that I also understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for people's opinions, including my own, but rather is charged with presenting objective, reliable and unbiased material. Thus because I act in good faith, I would never try to suppress a viewpoint that is contrary to my own view in a Wikipedia article, because that would simply be wrong, by Wikipedia's policies. Dbrodbeck and Scray are apparently not mature enough to understand that Wikipedia must come before their personal view and opinions. Drgao (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Another lovely personal attack. If you want to report someone you take it to WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Drgao, AGF is also non-negotiable. You fail to realize that you don't understand our policies well enough yet, and that's why you are failing to AGF and end up attributing nefarious motives to other editors when there are a whole host of other possibilities that are much more benign, and are in fact based on a better understanding of policies. Your comments are a serious violation of several policies and and are indeed personal attacks.
You asked if there is "an official way to report such behavior to Wikipedia administration." Yes, there is. I would certainly love to see you go further with this and see how far you get. Take it to WP:ANI before you do anything else.....and don't comment here again until you've gotten the issue resolved there. Editors here will meet you there because this is not the place to continue this type of discussion. You've made this a very personal matter and your attacks and POV pushing need to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't you think your tone is somewhat presumptuous and patronizing, BullRangifer, when you say "don't comment here again until you've gotten the issue resolved there". Some editors seem to think they own the place. Dbrodbeck has a similar attitude, having said to me (three times) on this page "move on". It was similarly presumptuous of some editors to rudely delete my edits on this page without even offering any discussion beforehand. If you want polite, civilized behavior, then ensure that you behave that way yourself.
I agree that AGF is also non-negotiable, or at least should be, and that is why I am trying to reinstate good faith here. As I explained above (and you seem to have missed that), it is a breach of good faith to reduce writing an article to some kind of legal squabble, whereby editors manipulatively use Wikipedia rules to thwart the efforts of other editors. I would like to feel that writing an article was a team effort, in which other editors would help, and would take a fair and balanced approach. But all I get here is "clever lawyer" type approaches, with little effort being made to understand the points I am making. Why don't you consider taking a fair and balanced approach? That is good faith. Drgao (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
'Move on' simply meant that the discussion was pointless, it was hardly patronizing, if you took it that way, well, I cannot control that. Accusing others of article ownership and wikilawyering is yet another personal attack. STOP IT. We don't do fair and balanced here, read WP:UNDUE. If you think the behaviour of some editors here is a problem please take it to WP:ANI. Remember to notify those you have reported. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
When I say fair and balanced, I mean with respect to the rules of Wikipedia, which includes the Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy which you are flagrantly flouting.
Saying my discussion is pointless is itself rude and patronizing. And I have only just begun; I have many more points to make.
In the mean time, have a look at the infectious etiology section of the Multiple Sclerosis article. There seems to be no problem in that article about including information on the possible infectious causes of MS. Many common medical conditions are linked to infectious agents which may play an etiological role. Why is it that the MS article can have a good 12 lines of text detailing the infectious connections to MS, but here you argue against even one line. You rudely deleted the one line of text detailing the infectious connections of Morgellons that I added to the article.
Please explain why the MS article can have 12 lines of text looking at infectious etiologies, but you say you cannot here. Drgao (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is that NPOV stipulates that the views must come from reliable sources. It has not yet been established that the proposed source to be used here meets the WP:RS requirement. Zad68 13:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Zad68, that does not answer my question. Dbrodbeck has stated WP:UNDUE as the reason my proposed edit cannot be included. So I want to ask Dbrodbeck why he says my edit would be undue weight, and yet in the MS article they see fit to include 12 lines of text detailing the infectious connections to MS. Drgao (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You would be giving undue weight to sources of questionable reliability. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
That does not really make sense, Dbrodbeck. If journal reliability is a concern, then you should say so, rather than talk about undue weight, which is a separate issue. Do I take it then that you have no problem with including 12 lines of text detailing the infectious connections of a disease, provided the sources are reliable? Do I have your agreement on this?
As for the reliability issue of Dove Press, this is of course a legitimate concern. I had a quick look on this list of Dove Press journals, to see how many Dove Press journal articles were cited within Wikipedia articles, and it seems that many Dove Press papers are indeed cited in Wikipedia, as these Google searches (restricted to Wikipedia) on various Dove Press journal names show:
And those are just the Dove Press journal names beginning with "C". So clearly other editors have found that Dove Press is fine to cite in Wikipedia. Drgao (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Please see what Zad, Scray and Techbear have said above about Dove Press. What happens at other articles has little to do with what happens here. Please walk away from the WP:DEADHORSE. Just because you don't seem to WP:HEAR what we are saying is not a reason to continue this. Really, please, this is quite tiring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Morgellons is associated with delusional parasitosis. People who make money off Morgellons don't like the information on this page because it essentially undermines their ability to sell snake-oil. An attempt is being launched to try to change the name from Morgellons to Borrelial dermatitis, so as to rebrand it and thus avoid the connection with delusional parasitosis. That, at least, is my prediction. I would be surprised if this does not become an issue on this page soon enough. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are too lazy to properly indent your comments on this talk page (margin indentation is performed using colons ::::), Mr user 137.111.13.200, you'll no doubt be too lazy to think clearly too. (You might also consider making the effort to get a proper username).
I think your above comment is nonsensical and completely off the mark; but if one were to indulge you, and consider the financial side of disease labels, then giving a disease a psychiatric categorization might be construed as profit seeking on behalf of the psychiatric profession, not only in terms of profiting from treating patients using psychotherapy, but also in receiving significant grants to study Morgellons disease from a psychological and psychogenic perspective. The Wikipedia Morgellons article certainly very much caters for the psychiatric profession, and the money they receive through Morgellons study grants and psychological treatments.
In terms of this psychological versus physiological debate, the whole history of Morgellons disease closely parallels the terrible history of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). In the case of CFS, even though CFS is strongly linked to being triggered by infectious agents, there are people in the psychiatric camp who prefer to categorize CFS as purely psychological (specifically, as purely psychosomatic and psychogenic). If you have knowledge of the history of CFS, you will know that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were the chief proponent in categorizing CFS as psychosomatic, and the CDC were very negligent in ignoring evidence of the infectious etiologies of CFS. Thus history is repeating itself with Morgellons disease. Morgellons has been categorized as purely psychiatric, even though the existence of skin lesions and the finding of infectious pathogens in the skin lesions suggests Morgellons has a physiological basis.
If you are ignorant of the terrible history of chronic fatigue syndrome, and the entirely inappropriate psychosomatic label the CDC gave to CFS, I suggest you address this major gap in your knowledge by reading the book Osler's Web by Hillary Johnson, which details the CDC's biased view on chronic fatigue syndrome.
The psychiatric profession are one of the least scientific of all the medical fields, and they tend to proclaim things without offering any empirical scientific evidence. In the case of Morgellons, the psychiatric profession have simply stated without any shred of evidence that Morgellons is a purely psychiatric condition, rather than one caused possibly by an infectious etiology. Now it cannot be denied that Morgellons disease does involve psychiatric symptoms such as psychosis; but many infectious agents do cause such mental symptoms. Indeed, before syphilis (another spirochetal disease) became treatable, asylums were full of patients who had syphilis-caused schizophrenia. From our historical experience with the syphilis spirochete, it should be clear that spirochetes can cause severe mental symptoms like psychosis. So if a disease like Morgellons manifests such psychiatric symptoms, this should be good reason to instigate a very thorough search for infections agents, especially spirochetal infections. Drgao (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"If you are too lazy to properly indent your comments on this talk page ... Mr user 137.111.13.200, you'll no doubt be too lazy to think clearly too." Is yet ANOTHER personal attack, stop it NOW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
My comment was responding to the section, not a comment within the section, the lack of indentation indicated this intention, or at least was designed to. Are there any editors here that are associated with the Charles E. Holman Foundation? Perhaps we can get that sort of declaration out of the way before we proceed.137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
New Evidence supporting infectious etiology
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Please note that exclusion of a source on the basis of minority opinion is not a legitimate argument on wikipedia because the inclusion of minority point of view is essential to maintain neutrality and maintaining neutrality is supported and considered to be a priority by wikipedia policy. The primary source policy should not be applied to exclude a source when the source is from a peer-reviewed medical journal (particularly if it is PubMed indexed) as the Wikipedia policy states that primary sources can be included when they are reliably published, and the inclusion of peer-reviewed journal articles follows the letter and spirit of this policy. Up-to-date primary sources are considered appropriate sources for actively researched areas; and policy needs to be relaxed in such circumstances where little progress is being made and few reviews are published. If primary sources are not permitted for inclusion then the CDC and Mayo Clinic studies should be deleted on the same grounds. Please note that the magazine interviews and the like should not be included as they are not considered by Wikipedia to be high quality sources – they are not even published studies – and they do not meet the criteria for reliable medical references. The fact that these are included when peer-reviewed sources are deleted shows editorial bias. Before editing and adding new evidence – peer-reviewed and Pub Med indexed, and listed below – that suggests Morgellons has an infectious etiology, I would like to know if Yobol, Mast Cell or any other users intend to undo the edits that include content from the references listed below, and if so on what justifiable grounds? To maintain neutrality, editors should not reject a source due to personal objections to the study’s conclusions. <www.dovepress.com/filament-formation-association-with-spirochete-infection-a-comparative-peer-reviewed-article-CCID><www.dovepress.com/characterization-and-evolution-of-dermal-filaments-from-patients-with--peer-reviewed-article-CCID><http://f1000research.com/articles/2-25/v1> Erythema (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)erythema
First, you may wish to read WP:FRINGE. It is very well established Wikipedia policy that neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to theories or ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. In this case, the overwhelming consensus of medical science is that Morgellons has no basis in objective reality.
Second, regarding the links you provided: Both Dove Medical Press and F1000 are for-profit open source journals, with very little quality control. Anyone with a paper to publish can have it "reviewed" and published online as soon as their check clears; as such, they should be treated with careful attention when determining their reliability. That the papers are indexed with PubMed is irrelevant, as PubMed is merely a database of published articles and makes absolutely no claim as to the articles' quality or reliability. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You may wish to revisit WP:FRINGE . It states that “reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner” and “material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source”. Peer-reviewed journal articles certainly qualify as such. Peer-reviewed articles are evaluated by known experts in a particular field of study before the article is published. This assures that an article maintains a high standard of quality, accuracy, and academic integrity. Before attacking the F1000 perhaps you should be aware that – according to Wikipedia – the Faculty members include 7 Nobel Prize winners, 81 Fellows of the Royal Society, 12 Lasker Award winners, 146 members of the National Academy of Science and 104 members of the Institute of Medicine. The F1000, citing a paper on Morgellons written by some of the authors of the papers you are attacking, indicated that the paper was in the top 2% of published articles in the field of dermatology. Furthermore, F1000 Research does open peer-review, allowing for transparent peer-review. I am quite sure that esteemed researchers such as, Judith Miklossy MD, PhD, DSc, who is Board certified in Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Neuropathology; John English, MB, BS, FRCP, a dermatologist at University of Nottingham, UK; or Bernhard Zelger, department of Dermatology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, would appreciate the implication that their approval was bought. Dove Press has guidelines for peer-review and reviewers are advised to provide an objective critical evaluation, and they must be experts on the topic they are reviewing. I already established that Wikipedia policy allows primary sources that are reliably published, especially on a topic like Morgellons where little progress is being made and there are few published review articles. If you take a look at the Morgellons page, as it is now, there are many sources that do not meet the criteria for reliable medical resources according to Wikipedia policy. In regards to Pub Med you may want to visit WP:MEDRES as Pub Med is listed there as a useful resource for writing medically related articles and that WP:MEDRES is intended to complement WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Talk page guidelines suggest that Wikipedia users "be positive and should not criticize, pick apart, or vent on the current status of an article or its subject". You are bringing your personal POV about Dove Press into this discussion. Erythema (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)erythema
libel -- TechBear, please note that your statements about F1000 Research and Dove Press are libelous and Wikipedia has a strong policy against the inclusion of libelous material. Erythema (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)erythema
Calling F1000 Research and Dove Press journals "peer-reviewed" is libelous.
Post-publication peer-review could be legitimate if the reviewers were selected by the editorial staff, and the editorial staff has some respectability.
Dove Press journals are clearly not peer-reviewed, except possibly for grammar.
Connection between microbial infection and mental illness
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In case any people here are ignorant of the connection between infectious microbes and mental illness or mental symptoms, the following articles may be of interest:
Thanks for these, they were very interesting. So the general idea is that Morgellons may be caused by a genuine microbial infection, with an unfortunate psychological disorder as a secondary problem, and that it's generally being misunderstood as only a psychological disorder? That really turns the current understanding on its head. I understand the idea but it will of course always require sufficient sourcing for this to result in article content. I know, I know, we're already going over the sourcing in the other sections here. Zad68 00:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Pleased you found them interesting. I have offered some further comments on this subject area in the section just above on this page (see the text beginning with "Please also note that the two perspectives of Morgellons — the delusional parasitosis perspective of Morgellons and the skin spirochete infection perspective of Morgellons — are not necessarily contradictory"). Drgao (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Morgellons not Delusional issue - Medical article now posted here
Latest comment: 10 years ago38 comments12 people in discussion
The lymes bacteria is associated with Morgellons. People are not delusional. I have it, my children have it, my mom has it, my sisters and their children have it. We are of the 10% of suffers that have fibers coming out of our pores and I can show anyone the proof. All I do is put organic coconut oil on my skin and it penetrates deeply to pull out the most bizarre stuff. I am not planting these fibers on myself or my family. I find this entry of Morgellons offensive and it needs to be changed to represent the new information the Dr.s have found the spirochette bacteria in sufferers. So we are not delusional!!76.10.184.168 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There are many published studies that support the idea that Morgellons may be caused by a spirochete infection of the skin, and that support the view that the skin lesions in Morgellons are genuine, and that the fibers growing beneath the skin of Morgellons patients are genuine. These supportive studies include the following:
In spite of this abundance of studies supporting the association of Morgellons with a spirochete infection of the skin, several editors on this Wikipedia page have formed a consensus against including these studies on an infectious etiology of Morgellons, for no justifiable reason. These editors prefer to maintain a biased point of view, which suppresses information about the infectious microbial associations of Morgellons, and seeks to present Morgellons as a purely psychological condition in which the skin lesions are not genuine (but self-inflicted by the patients — a ridiculous notion!). These editors are blatantly flouting the neutral point of view policy of WIkipedia (WP:NPOV).
The above-cited studies MUST be referenced in this Wikipedia article, to ensure that all the material on Morgellons is covered in the article. Failure to include these studies flouts the neutral point of view policy of WIkipedia.
These flouting editors always try to give some excuse for not including these above-cited studies, but their arguments and excuses are not valid. Drgao (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you verify that any of those are peer-reviewed and not superceeded by more recent research? Please start by removing those which are not peer-reviewed (F1000 is not peer-reviewed, and not all PUBMED-indexed journals are peer-reviewed). — Arthur Rubin(talk) 00:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, Arthur Ruben: all but the first study out the 8 studies I cited above are fully peer reviewed (and the first study will be peer reviewed in a few months, I think). Please note that F1000 journals are actually peer reviewed.
I don't think there is any more recent research; indeed, the first 3 studies cited above were published just months ago.
If you want the details these journal publishers, then let's take each of the 8 above-cited studies in turn:
If you simply scroll down to the bottom of each F1000 article, you can see how many peer reviews each study has already received, and you can actually read each peer review there and then.
So by scrolling down to the bottom of the article, you can see that first of the two F1000 studies has received 1 peer review (out of a minimum of at least 3 required reviews) but is not yet fully reviewed (but it will likely be fully reviewed within a few months from now) ; and the second of the F1000 studies has received 3 peer reviews, which means that the second article is now properly peer reviewed.
You can read about the F1000 review process in their document here. On page one of that document, F1000 states that each article will be sent to 3-5 expert referees.
Study (4) above, namely [www.omicsonline.org/2155-9554/2155-9554-3-140.pdf[predatory publisher] Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study], this study is published by the [www.omicsonline.org/jcedrhome.php[predatory publisher] Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dermatology Research], which is a peer reviewed open access journal.
Drgao, I agree that those are probably the strongest sources available for the microbe theory, and they get close to, but do not quite reach, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. They're primary research, opinion pieces, a letter to the editor, not PUBMED indexed, not MEDLINE indexed, or published in journals that don't quite meet Wikipedia's cutoff. I think that that this research is close to meeting Wikipedia's requirements but - as others have noted here - it isn't quite there yet. I'd bet that within the next 2-3 years there will be satisfactory sourcing that will merit inclusion here, but it's just not quite there yet. Zad68 01:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned, Zad, there is nothing in WP:MEDRS that suggests my above cited studies are unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. These are perfectly good references.
Please also note that the two perspectives of Morgellons — the delusional parasitosis perspective of Morgellons and the skin spirochete infection perspective of Morgellons — are not necessarily contradictory. To an extent, both these two views may well be correct, as I will explain in a moment.
So it is not a case of the spirochete infection view of Morgellons contradicting the delusional parasitosis view; and thus I do not suggest the delusional parasitosis view be removed from this article — I just would like this delusional parasitosis view to be tempered with the information about a possible spirochetal infection being behind both the skin symptoms and the psychosis symptoms of Morgellons.
Let me explain why both views of Morgellons may, to an extent, be correct: Many Morgellons patients suffer from psychosis symptoms, which leads to less than clear thinking, and because of this they can start believing in all sorts of strange things. For example, Morgellons patients may believe they are infested with not only strange parasites, worms or tiny creatures, but also with "nano technology" devices implanted in their skin: some patients imagine that the fibers in their skin are synthetic "nanobots", or that the Morgellons fibers have been created and sprayed into the atmosphere by the government! If you read the often mad sci-fi like theories that some Morgellons patients themselves have about their disease in Morgellons forums, it is very clear that they are unfortunately suffering from a degree of psychosis, and the thing about psychosis is that it can cause people to have all sorts of highly imaginative, crazy science fiction like ideas and beliefs.
Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that many Morgellons patients have not just delusional parasitosis, but also delusions about a nano technology or "nanobot" infestation of their skin! And there are plenty more crazy, sci fi like ideas like that which some Morgellons patients believe in. In other words, there are a whole bunch of strange delusions that Morgellons patients seem to have. Nobody would argue that their belief about having nanobots in their skin is anything but a sign of psychosis. It is common for a person experiencing psychosis to have delusions; delusions are part and parcel of psychosis. Nevertheless, this fact should not confuse the issue that the skin lesions and fibers of Morgellons disease may well be genuine, and may well be caused by a skin infection with the rather ordinary spirochete bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi. Just because some Morgellons patients have psychosis, this does not mean the skin symptoms are not real. Indeed, very much the reverse: it is extremely common to find skin disorders in those with psychiatric disturbances, as this study indicates: Skin disorders in chronic psychiatric illness.
It will be something of a challenge to word this Morgellons article in such a way that it encompasses and affirms both the delusional parasitosis and the spirochete infection view of Morgellons. My suggestion is that the article should not just mention delusional parasitosis, but also detail some of the many other strange delusional ideas that Morgellons patients have (like nanobots), as examples of the type of psychosis symptoms precipitated in Morgellons. But equally, the article must mention that the skin symptoms may well be real, and that infectious agents have been linked to Morgellons. And the article should mention the fact that infectious agents (such as the syphilis spirochete Treponema pallidum) are known to cause psychosis as well as skin symptoms. This is important, because it indicates that it is known that spirochete can cause skin disorders and psychosis.
I'd be very happy to work with the other editors here to create an article that encompasses and affirms both the delusional parasitosis and the spirochete infection view of Morgellons. As anyone who has been following these arguments can see, the situation is very nuanced; so as I say, it will be a challenge to word this article properly and accurately. This is best achieved by means of a cooperative effort of all the editors here. Drgao (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it, half of the patients selected in the study that found spirochetes had already been treated for Lyme disease, and all patients already tested positive for antibodies. That is before they were selected for inclusion in the study. The authors released two papers less than one month apart, the initial paper said that the spirochetes found in the patients could not be determined, whereas the second said they shared similar morphologies to some spirochetes associated with Borrelia. Did the authors suddenly stumble upon a new method of analysis, or were they premature in their submission? A third paper from the same research centre (conveniently funded by donations/t-shirt sales) now flatly states that Morgellons should be renamed borrelial dermatitis. I'm just curious; Are there any editors on this page associated with these papers? 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The repetition is tiresome, but to reiterate F1000 Research is peer-reviewed, as mentioned by others, so is Dove Press. F1000 is open peer-review so you can even see who were the reviewers and their comments. There has also been talk about these journals not being Pubmed or Medline indexed. This is not mentioned in WP policy are being required, but actually Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dermatol. is Pubmed indexed and F1000 Research has been accepted by Pubmed for indexing. These journals are both mainstream medical sources. A look at the CV of editors will support that fact. They are not are not fringe or extreme, and therefore represent a significant minority viewpoint. Significant minority views must be represented for neutrality. Yes, some of the articles that support infection are original research, but so are the Mayo and CDC studies that support the delusional POV. Although, original research is not supposed to be used in WP, exceptions can be made when reliable secondary sources (this means systematic reviews in peer-reviewed journals, not popular press) are lacking. This is the situation with Morgellons. The Mayo studies and CDC study supporting the delusional POV are original research. You cannot accept original research from one POV and not the other and maintain NPOV. From the POV that support the delusional hypothesis, the sources sited are predominantly popular press which are not (by WP:MEDRS standards) acceptable as medical references. The rest of the references supporting the delusional hypothesis that are peer-reviewed are pretty much opinion pieces, and as such are considered low quality sources. Morgellons is pretty new as a medical entity, and it is the subject of active research, so secondary resources are lacking. You cannot maintain a NPOV by rigidly applying rules to one POV while breaking them all for the other POV. Application of WP policy should be applied for both POVs or the entire article should be deleted. As it stands, it violates the NPOV policy -- a principle that is supposedly sacred by wikipedia. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of some editors to objectively adhere to the NPOV policy when it is supposedly the most important principle.Erythema (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema
I am in full agreement with Erythema. A NPOV is fundamental to any Wikipedia article. We need to enlist the help of editors that support the NPOV policy.
Have a look at this Stanford University treatise on Morgellons. This Stanford University treatise intelligently adopts a neutral point of view, and rather than make definitive assertions on what Morgellons is or is not, this treatise instead just describes both the Morgellons advocate and the Morgellons skeptic perspectives. This neutrality of presentation is what the Wikipedia Morgellons article needs to have.
TO USER 137.111.13.200: I have no connections whatsoever with any Morgellons researchers, papers, patients or organizations. What motivates me is my utter indignation at psychiatrists' attempts to nullify a real physical disease. It outrages me when psychiatrists claim that a real physical disease is "all in the mind". You will find that it is the psychiatric profession who have been heavily involved in propagating the view that Morgellons is entirely delusional and "all in the mind". Psychiatrists have little evidence for propagating such a viewpoint about Morgellons, but they propagate it anyway. Psychiatrists may publish in apparently learned journals; but that belies the fact that their methods often lack empirical evidence and scientific substance. This lack of an empirical basis to their ideas means that psychiatry can have a tendency to sink into bad science or pseudoscience.
Unethical and unscientific psychiatrists were responsible for undermining the reality of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Originally, CFS was classified as a real physical disease, linked to viral infections; but then several decades ago, psychiatrists began saying that CFS was not real, and that CFS was "all in the mind". These shrinks had no evidence to suggest the CFS was not real, yet they pushed their "all in the mind" viewpoint forward anyway, so that it became the official medical view of CFS. As a result, research into the physical and infectious causes of CFS significantly diminished, and doctors became very reluctant to treat CFS patients, as doctors now viewed their CFS patients' symptoms as being "all in the mind".
So CFS patients then just had to fend for themselves, with little help from the medical profession. This is what happens when psychiatrists decide to propagate a viewpoint that a disease is "all in the mind": it means that research into the physical causes of the disease is cut right back, and doctors abandon their patients. But conveniently for psychiatrists, research into psychiatric treatments for the disease is scaled right up, and they get awarded nice fat grants to study the disease from the psychological perspective, which is of little use if the disease is physical.
Only in the last 5 or 10 years has this "all in the mind" view of CFS become seriously questioned, and the views of these psychiatrists thrown into serious doubt. Nevertheless, the shrinks placed CFS into the wilderness of a psychiatric diagnosis for many decades, and as a result, these psychiatrists seriously damaged the CFS research program. The Centers for Disease Control were also heavily involved in propagating the view that CFS was "all in the mind": for decades the CDC entirely supported the psychiatric view of CFS, much to their shame. What psychiatry, and the CDC, did to CFS patients was a real low point in man's treatment of his fellow man. I have CFS myself, so this is why I know about the tragic history of CFS, and the unethical actions of the psychiatric profession is proclaiming that CFS was not real.
Now history seems to be repeating itself with Morgellons disease: the psychiatrists have again decided to push forward their unfounded "all in the mind" view onto Morgellons disease, and proclaim that the skin lesions are self-inflicted, not genuine, and that the fibers — even though they grow deep within the skin — are clothing fibers.
I am very angry with these psychiatrists, and this is what motivates me to redress the biases in this Morgellons article. I just don't want to see these poor Morgellons patients also being throw into the wilderness of a psychiatric diagnosis, where research into the physical causes of Morgellons gets abandoned. Chronic fatigue syndrome patients have been down that path, and it is a path you don't want to go down. Physical diseases need to be tackled by solid science, not thwarted by psychiatric pseudoscience.
TO USER 137.111.13.200: Regarding your point about "the authors released two papers less than one month apart, the initial paper said that the spirochetes found in the patients could not be determined, whereas the second said they shared similar morphologies to some spirochetes associated with Borrelia. Did the authors suddenly stumble upon a new method of analysis, or were they premature in their submission?" I take it you are referring to these two papers: Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease and Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease.
Tests for infectious pathogens can be broad spectrum or highly specific. When you are trying to determine which pathogens might be present in a disease, you presumably start with broad spectrum tests, and once you have narrowed down to a particular class of pathogen (spirochete bacteria in this case), then you can move on to determine the specific species or genus of spirochete present (Borrelia in this case). Drgao (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:Beware of the tigers is a great essay about how to approach editing Wikipedia. If you are angry, want to right a wrong, this is not the place to work out your frustrations. -- Scray (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the WP:Beware of the tigers, especially where it says Wikipedia is not a place for strong views. That is why I am advocating a NPOV, rather than a biased view, which in essence is the same as a strong view. The current Morgellons article strongly pushes the "it's all in the mind" view of Morgellons in a biased manner, and thus the editors who are resisting a more neutral point of view definitely need to read WP:Beware of the tigers. The article needs to be changed to something along the lines of the Stanford University article on Morgellons, which embraces in a neutral fashion the different perspectives on Morgellons. The editors here that are in favor of flouting the NPOV policy need to realize that they are putting their own strong opinions above the NPOV of Wikipedia. Drgao (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
.....that's a page written by undergrads for a class.... not an article by Stanford University.... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
When you click on the author link on that page you get this [8]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The actual author is not really the issue here; rather it is the fact that this Stanford article manages quite nicely to provide a relatively NPOV on Morgellons. That's the reason I gave that treatise as an example. This is what the Wikipedia article should be striving for. We all no doubt have our own points of views on Morgellons, but those individual points of view should not lead to a biased Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article should not take sides in the Morgellons debate, but like the Stanford article, should describe both side in a neutral, unbiased fashion.
My own personal opinion is that the "it's all in the mind" view of Morgellons is most likely nonsense. However, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, my personal point of view should not influence the requisite neutral balance of the Wikipedia article, which must cover in an unbiased fashion the major viewpoints. In Wikipedia, our personal opinions do not count; when I wear my Wikipedia hat, I know it is my duty to strive for a NPOV, and I fully appreciate that the Wikipedia NPOV must come before my personal opinions. Drgao (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually the author matters a great deal. The 'Stanford article' is meaningless, as the source is two second year undergrads. Now, if those two women publish such a thing in a peer reviewed journal and it gets cites, that is another matter, but this is, in essence, someone's blog. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be confused here Dbrodbeck. I will repeat myself, in the hope you will get the point: I am not citing the Stanford article as source, but as an example of presenting material with an unbiased POV. Is that clear, or do I need to explicate further, in a more detailed fashion for you?
I understand just fine thank you. I just think basing our article on the approach of two second year undergrads rather than our policies is not a great idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Quite clearly you don't understand. Myself and Erythema are pointing out that the Wikipedia Morgellons article must be based on WP:NPOV, and that at the moment it is not. Therefore, it seems that although two second year undergrads from Stanford are quite capable of writing a NPOV article, none of the editors here appear to have these skills. How is it that these undergrads can do it, but you cannot? Drgao (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Two editors does not a WP:CONSENSUS make. I am following policy, as are others. Perhaps your interpretation is incorrect, rather than everyone being wrong? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus among medical researchers is that Morgellons is delusional. According to the guideline for fringe theories, the article would be non-neutral to say otherwise. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 12:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no such overwhelming consensus. Where do you get this idea?
If you thought about it, TechBear, you would see that your own argument is logically flawed, and thus is self-evidently false. You are suggesting that the infectious etiology of Morgellons is a fringe idea. However, when you look at the CDC (who are not considered a fringe organization) and their $300,000 study on Morgellons, what was the focus and direction of that study? Answer: the CDC study was primarily focused on testing for the presence of an array of infectious agents in Morgellons patients. Therefore, unless you want to suggest that the CDC is a fringe organization, it clearly follows that the infectious etiology side of Morgellons research is not a fringe theory. Do you understand this, or do I need to explain this to you in more simple terms? Drgao (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
It was originally a minority position, bordering on fringe. After the CDC study, it's fringe. What's the conflict? (Furthermore, considering the government research on fringe therapies such as Reiki, I wouldn't expect the fact that something is fringe to significantly affect the amount of government research on it.
So you are saying that when one of the main official disease research organizations of the US government, the CDC, spends nearly a third of a million dollars on a multi-year investigation into the various infectious agents that it considered were possible candidates for causing Morgellons, that in your logic makes the infectious pathogen theory of Morgellons fringe. Hmmm.... Next perhaps you'll be telling me that 1 + 1 = 3, by the same logic. Drgao (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
After the CDC spent "nearly a third of a million dollars on a multi-year investigation into the various infectious agents that it considered were possible candidates for causing Morgellons." and found nothing, it's now fringe, yes. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, that remark indicates to me that you are entirely ignorant of the difficulties involved in detecting infectious pathogens in the body. Anyone person here who does not have a good understanding of the intricacies and complexities of microbe detection in the body simply does not have the knowledge base to comment on these issues. If you learn a few things about microbe hunting (which I strongly suggest you do, if you want to contribute intelligently), you will then appreciate that microbes are often incredibly difficult to detect, and this means that when a single study like the CDC's fails to find any microbes in Morgellons, it proves very little in terms of answering the question of whether Morgellons is a microbially driven disease or not.
The fact that you are apparently ignorant of these matters, and appear to have the erroneous belief that a single study like the CDC's can determine whether there are any microbial causes of a disease like Morgellons (or any other disease for that matter) shows that you really know nothing whatsoever about microbe hunting. And I suspect may other editors here are equally ignorant about the ins and outs of microbe hunting and detection.
And yet even with this gaping gap in your knowledge of microbe hunting and detection, you and many other editors here somehow think you are able to edit an article about a disease which, from the outset, has been assumed by many to have an infectious etiology. The sheer temerity of it! You know nothing about microbe hunting and detection, and yet you feel you can pontificate about a disease assumed to have an infectious etiology! Wow! Wikipedia needs to do some qualification checks on its editors, methinks.
But OK, I am sure that at least some of you guys are capable of learning, so let's clue you in a little about the intricacies of microbe hunting. Let's see if you can learn something new. First of all, you need to appreciate that to stand a reasonable chance of finding a microbial cause in a given disease, it can take dozens of studies over decades. And even then, the evidence gathered by these studies often remains equivocal. This is just the way it is: microbe hunting is often very difficult, and microbes can be very hard to find.
To give you an example: researchers have been looking for microbes (including viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa) that might be the cause chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) since the 1950s. There have been innumerable studies over the last 5 decades, each searching for the microbial cause of CFS, and several candidate viruses have been found, perhaps most notably enteroviruses. However even after 5 decades of research, there are still no clearcut answers about whether enteroviruses are the actual cause of CFS or not. They may well be, but we don't know yet. Even now, there are still further studies being conducted on enteroviruses in CFS.
If you decide to educate yourself, and learn a little about microbe hunting and detection in diseases, you will understand that part of the problem is that you sometimes get contradictory results. For example, out of the many studies looking for enteroviruses in CFS patients, some studies have found these enteroviruses, but other studies have failed to find evidence of an enteroviral presence. However, since is it very difficult, technology-wise, to detect enteroviruses anyway (enteroviruses are one of the most difficult viruses to detect), it is possible that the negative studies were only negative due to insufficient sensitivity of the enterovirus detection technology used. Incidentally, Borrelia spirochetes are also notoriously hard to detect, even with the best technology. So if Morgellons is indeed caused by Borrelia, it will take a lot of hard work to prove this to high standards of scientific rigor.
So now that you are clued in just a little bit about microbe hunting and detection, let me reiterate my point: which is that when a single study like the CDC's fails to find any microbes in Morgellons patients, this proves very little in terms of whether Morgellons is a microbially driven disease or not. You certainly cannot draw any strong conclusions from the CDC study. It will take dozens more microbe hunting studies on Morgellons patients before we start to a clear picture about which microbes may be present in Morgellons. But the fact that the CDC spent so much money exploring the microbial theory of Morgellons certainly is ample indication that this is very much a mainstream theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgao (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 June 2013
These posts that are 95% commentary on the editor, and not the edits, need to stop. This is not a battleground, and your condescending tone is unhelpful. -- Scray (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not going to comment on your claim that the CDC study was inadequate, but you brought it up as evidence that the infection theory was considered plausible; there are still no studies which support an infection theory. The CDC study was the first which produced a significant result of any sort, and it was a negative result.
At this point, the infection theory is not accepted. This could change, but, at the present time, it's not even a minority theory. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 04:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the CDC study was politically inspired, as is noted in the article. The assertion that it indicates that any theory was taken seriously by the CDC is questionable. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 05:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You are not going to comment on my claim, Arthur, because you just don't have the requisite background knowledge to do so. And even the comments you have made here are incorrect: firstly the studies I quoted above do indeed support an infection theory, although these are early days. Surely you must remember that. It was only a few days ago it was discussed, in this very section! Sometimes I think nobody listens here. And secondly, I brought up the CDC study on infectious agent to demonstrate that the infectious theory was not a fringe one, to be precise.
Scray, it is not condescending to point out that editors do not possess the requisite background knowledge. If you are not qualified for the job, this needs to be pointed out to you. Don't take it personally. But I have to say that I am at a loss to understand why editors that do not have the requisite background knowledge in microbiology feel they are qualified to edit this article. It's ridiculous that you are here. I am sure you guys must have your own areas of expertise, but microbiology is clearly not one of them. I think you would be better off going to find a Wikipedia article which matches what knowledge and expertise you do have. This article is not for you. Drgao (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As for your claim: I don't have to comment on your claim, because it's not in a reliable source, nor does it relate to WP:MEDRS sources. It might be the case that we cannot say definitely that there are no parasites, but we can say that none has been found.
As for the references; references 1-7 are not in reliable peer-reviewed journals, per consensus, and reference 8 is in an opinion section of the journal, with Leitao as a co-author. (I wouldn't call it a "letter", exactly, but it's not a peer-reviewed section.) If you have any reliable sources for the infectious nature of Morgollons, you might provide them. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 07:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources are defined by WP:MEDRS, not by consensus, Arthur. Drgao (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
And there is consensus that F 1000 and Dove Press are not reliable. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 08:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Another point that needs to be made: you should not say in the intro to the article that "CDC researchers issued the results of their multi-year study in January 2012, indicating that there were no disease organisms present in Morgellons patients". For the reason I explained just above, this is too strong a statement. But the problem is that editors here seem to be completely ignorant of microbiology and the ins and outs of microbe hunting, and due to this ignorance, you don't seem to be aware that this statement in the article is not really supported by the CDC study results.
This ignorance of the editors here is inexcusable. You cannot edit an article like this if do not possess the appropriate background knowledge. Drgao (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that is not even remotely how it works here. It does not say 'Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia only experts in the field (as vetted by certain users) can edit'. This is why we have policies, policies which have been pointed out to you, apparently to no avail. Please stop commenting on editors and comment on content. Please read WP:AGF, WP:IDHTWP:CONSENSUS and the other many links that have been pointed out to you. You have been asked many many times on this talk page and on your own to stop this behaviour (see [9]) please stop this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I will also ask you, Dbrodbeck, to stop commenting on editors (specifically, myself) and restrict your comments to matters related to the article. You have been a nonstop catalogue of moans.
It is important to raise the subject of an editor's background knowledge. You don't necessarily need formal academic qualifications, you can be self taught, but in this article, if you don't have a reasonable grasp of microbiology and various related vitally important related subjects like psychoneuroimmunology, then you cannot possibly be in a position to edit this article.
I am not talking about Wikipedia policy, I am talking about common sense, and even ethics: you would not perform surgery on someone without studying anatomy and physiology, and likewise, your own ethics and common sense should come into play here, and preclude you from dictating what goes on in this article. It seems that the editors here are ignorant of some absolutely essential subjects necessary to tackle an article like this one. And yet for some reason, your own common sense and ethics do not seem to prevent you from editing and making dictatorial decisions in this article.
The reason this article is not very good is because it is edited by people with insufficient grasp of the requisite areas of biology. This is not to say that you don't have skills, knowledge and talent in other areas — I am sure you do — but I would really like to know why you attach yourself to this article if you don't have the requisite background knowledge. Please, I really do want to know this. Why?
And this is a general question to Dbrodbeck, Scray, Arthur Rubin, TechBear, Sailsbystars, (and possibly Zad, though Zad seems better informed than most): what is your knowledge base in biology, microbiology, psychoneuroimmunology and the like? And if you don't have the requisite background knowledge, why you attach yourself to this article?
I think that most of the difficulties in our above discussions can be traced back to your lack of background knowledge. This knowledge deficit means you are unable to properly understand the remarks I and others make. I can tell you, it is exasperating and very tiresome to deal with people that do not have the proper background knowledge, but yet present themselves as authorities in the field, and who presume to dictate policy.
To reiterate: I would really like to know why you attach yourself to this article if you don't have the requisite background knowledge? I would be most grateful if you could answer these questions. Drgao (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Arguments from authority will get you nowhere here, really. I am not 'moaning' I am trying, apparently in vain, to explain to you how things work here. I have rather extensive training in biology and psychology, and I make a killer martini, but that is not important at all. If you think people are behaving inappropriately take them to WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Drgao, you are exhibiting strong ownership behavior by seeking to exclude other editors based on your ignorant claims about their possible expertise/lack of expertise. There are very good reasons why some editors do not disclose their professional backgrounds. We have many experts editing here, but it is their application of policies that weighs strongest. Other editors here are more experienced than yourself in the understanding of Wikipedia's policies and use of sources. Deal with those issues, not anything about the background of editors. The CDC is considered a RS, you are not, regardless of your professional background. If your background is so good and you are published, then you might have a COI and should recuse yourself and stick to making suggestions, not actual editing. I don't know, but that does happen here. Whatever the case, stop attacking other editors. Either take the matter to ANI or shut up about it. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, BullRangifer, please stop this incessant moaning and criticism of my personal approach. I don't claim to be published. I have self-taught myself the biological sciences over the last 10 years, though originally I studied theoretical physics, with some postgrad studies in cognitive science.
Dbrodbeck, I find useful to know people's background, as it helps to create understanding and sometimes even rapport. And it is human nature to want to know about people. The fact you tell me you have extensive training in biology and psychology is of much interest. That is a very good combination of fields, and it should put you in good stead regarding understanding the connections between mental symptoms and biological processes, including infections. Do you have interest in psychoneuroimmunology? A lot of recent research into the causes of mental symptom and mental ill-health has focused on the effects of immune activation in the brain, and how inflammatory cytokines arising from infections can perturb brain function, and lead to symptom such as depression, anxiety, memory problems, and even psychosis and schizophrenia. Morgellons may well turn out to be caused by a microbial infection which creates immune activation in the brain, leading to its characteristic mental symptoms. Of course, that is not something that can be said in this article without a good reference; but it is something editors here ought to be aware of, so that they know the context with which to understand the research being done on infectious etiologies of Morgellons. Drgao (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As it happens, I'm pretty knowledgeable about biology, immunology and a few other related fields, as I'm involved in HIV research. But that is irrelevant: at issue is Wikipedia's policies, which are pretty clear on the matter. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that Drgao has a point here, although it is quite subtle and perhaps is being misunderstood. Regardless, Morgellons is a controversial issue that has received widespread media attention. Both sides of the argument are given serious consideration by media sources. It is not Wikipedia's place to render judgement about controversial issues but to describe the controversy and accurately represent the argument. Whilst Wikipedia should not present fringe theories as fact or give them equal consideration to accepted facts, the Morgellons issue has yet to be resolved and there are many medical professionals and academics who believe that it is not just a delusional disorder. Wikipedia should reflect this and not prematurely pass judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptified (talk • contribs) /ˈɛptifiɛd/ 05:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting, TechBear. No doubt you know about the neuropsychiatric symptom that infection with HIV can cause — another example of microbe-induced mental symptom.
Agreed that it is about Wikipedia's policies, but what we don't seem to get is agreement on the actual interpretation of those policies. If you can suggest a way in which those policies can be read with objective precision, so that the right course of action in the article becomes unambiguous, that would solve a lot of problems. When both sides of a discussion page dispute present their case, with both sides basing their case on Wikipedia's policies, this creates an argument that does not seem to have a natural mechanism of resolution.
Furthermore, regarding what /ˈɛptifiɛd/ said just above, about people misunderstanding the points I am making: Perhaps this is true, and you have not really listened to and understood the points I have made. If I asked any of you to briefly sum up my perspective, could you actually do this? That would demonstrate that you have understood my perspective. Anyone care to do this, to demonstrate that they have listened to and understood my perspective? Drgao (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm
