Talk:Morgellons/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Recent external references edit- inappropriate

The inclusion of the following reference is unsupported and fringe - Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease It needs removal and then discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, but you're welcome to make such edits to the article yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to update the latest medical research. There has been evidence of H.Pylori in the material from the wounds along with spirochetes B. Burgdorfi. What the fibers are is keratin. Look beyond the consipiracy theorists and look at the true medical research that is going on, for the sake of those with the disease. It may be you or yours some time soon.

Please be kind to others too. You ask that all be kind, your site is hurtful, biased and plays on those that are the extreme outliers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.1 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS and the archives here, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2015

Morgellons (/mɔː(ɹ)ˈdʒɛlənz/), also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome, is a condition in which people have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present.[1]

should be: Morgellons (/mɔː(ɹ)ˈdʒɛlənz/), also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome, is a condition in which people are assumed to have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present.[1]

---

People with the condition may exhibit a range of cutaneous symptoms such as crawling, biting, and stinging sensations (formication), unusual fibers in the skin, and persistent skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). These symptoms have been identified by a range of medical experts[2] including dermatologists,[3] entomologists,[4] and psychiatrists,[5] as consistent with delusional parasitosis (DP or DOP).[1] Some cases of self-diagnosed Morgellons have been more accurately diagnosed as known skin disorders.[3]

should be: People with the condition may exhibit a range of cutaneous symptoms such as crawling, biting, and stinging sensations (formication), unusual fibers in the skin, and persistent skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). These symptoms have been identified by a range of medical experts[2] including dermatologists,[3] entomologists,[4] and psychiatrists,[5] as consistent with delusional parasitosis (DP or DOP).[1] Some cases of self-diagnosed Morgellons have been more accurately diagnosed as known skin disorders.[3] However, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest that further study is necessary.

---

In delusional parasitosis, people hold a delusional belief that they are infested with parasites.

should be: In delusional parasitosis, people hold a belief they are infested with parasites. Razmanugget (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My reasons for these edits: 1) The tone of this article shuts the door on any possibility that parasites could in fact be the root cause of Morgellons. 2) I would argue that the Curse of Knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge) is keeping professionals from attempting to understand this very real condition. 3) Just as it took over 30 years for AIDS to be officially recognized, it seems short-sighted to dismiss the possibility that there are mites, fungus, or some other disease causing agent at work here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_HIV/AIDS) 4) Another parasitic-based disease, Lyme disease, is also incredibly difficult to diagnose. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Laboratory_testing) 5) If the article was a little more open-minded, readers may be less dismissive of those who report suffering from this condition. As it stands, it forces individuals to take sides. Those who feel they have Morgellons must argue the very possibility of their situation, while others sit in judgment with only this article as a foundation for their arguments. Don't we owe sufferers of Morgellons more than that?

Edits here on Wikipedia need to be sourced to reliable sources; in this case, medical information need to be sourced to sources consistent with our guideline on medical information sourcing. Since the reliable sources say this is DP, we should not inject our own opinions in this just because we personally believe differently. Yobol (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have reread the original work discussing the "delusional beliefs". In the original, the author clearly states that it is the patient's fixed belief that... http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1328.full

By immediately stating that it is a "delusional belief", the article is presupposing this condition as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razmanugget (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I don't have access to the BMJ so correct me if I'm wrong, but are you drawing this "fixed belief" bit from the "bottom line" section? If so, continue reading the rest of that sentence in which it says "fixed belief that they are infested with living or non-living organisms in the absence of medical evidence for this". Note that Morgellons can only be the diagnosis only when a patient incorrectly believes they have some sort of infestation going on. If a patient believes they have an infestation and this is proven to be true, then it is by definition, not Morgellons and is something else. Cannolis (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Usage of the Word

From the lede sentence, it sounds like this is a term applied by physicians/psychiatrist to describe the delusion rather than the skin condition. However, from the rest of the article it seems more like it is a term coined by and used by self-advocating patients to name the unidentified parastitic disease they believe they have. Maybe it's both? The article should clarify by whom and in what context the term is commonly used.Cyrej (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015

I suggest that the historical dubiousness of the condition and its name would be further illustrated by the inclusion of this link http://penelope.uchicago.edu/letter/kellett.html to an article in the 'Annals of Medical History, n.s., VII (1935), 467-479', with all its sources listed. An Editor that reads it will need no further explanation from me.Fitzmichael (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We already use this source. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

it's spreading

it appears 'delusion' arrived to Croatia as well. 178.148.3.41 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2015

the person whom made comment on this post/topic, is ignorant. -with all due respect. $ Stairing. at.the.sun (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: That was not an edit request, and this is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

why not add some images from medical journals?

147.91.1.45 (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Mostly because it is generally and widely accepted by everyone except Stricker and Savely (and their tiny, merry cohort of coauthors) that images like that one are just clothing (or other environmental) fibers that – in some cases – have become embedded in the skin by the patients' scratching. Decorating our article with mislabeled images circulated by fringe advocacy groups isn't a good idea, and unlikely to be helpful to Wikipedia's readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

wow! so many aww's words. 147.91.1.44 (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the article, so AWW does not apply. That image proves nothing anyway, in fact the opposite: "Black fibers and one red fiber, just under the epidermis of a healing lesion." Scabs often have all kinds of things in them, such as dirt, gravel, fibers, etc.. BTW, you are appearing under different IPs, and sock puppetry/multiple accounts is generally not allowed, so stick to one account. Use your registered account and always sign in. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

btw, DHCP has nothing to do with 'sock puppetry/multiple accounts', and is generally allowed. take a look at #2. cheers. 109.121.77.8 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Use your registered account and always sign in." and you double check your attitude, and stop telling people what to do.. cheers 109.121.77.8 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed paper: Morgellon's is real

Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to this 2015 article:

Middelveen MJ, Bandoski C, Burke J, Sapi E, Filush KR, Wang Y, Franco A, Mayne PJ, Stricker RB. Exploring the association between Morgellons disease and Lyme disease: identification of Borrelia burgdorferi in Morgellons disease patients. BMC Dermatol. 2015 Feb 12;15:1.

The abstract reads as follows:

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Morgellons disease (MD) is a complex skin disorder characterized by ulcerating lesions that have protruding or embedded filaments. Many clinicians refer to this condition as delusional parasitosis or delusional infestation and consider the filaments to be introduced textile fibers. In contrast, recent studies indicate that MD is a true somatic illness associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are keratin and collagen in composition and that they result from proliferation and activation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in the skin. Previously, spirochetes have been detected in the dermatological specimens from four MD patients, thus providing evidence of an infectious process.

METHODS & RESULTS:

Based on culture, histology, immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy and molecular testing, we present corroborating evidence of spirochetal infection in a larger group of 25 MD patients. Irrespective of Lyme serological reactivity, all patients in our study group demonstrated histological evidence of epithelial spirochetal infection. Strength of evidence based on other testing varied among patients. Spirochetes identified as Borrelia strains by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and/or in-situ DNA hybridization were detected in 24/25 of our study patients. Skin cultures containing Borrelia spirochetes were obtained from four patients, thus demonstrating that the organisms present in dermatological specimens were viable. Spirochetes identified by PCR as Borrelia burgdorferi were cultured from blood in seven patients and from vaginal secretions in three patients, demonstrating systemic infection. Based on these observations, a clinical classification system for MD is proposed.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our study using multiple detection methods confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Borrelia spirochetes that cause Lyme disease. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for this spirochete-associated dermopathy.

---

Perhaps you will consider updating the Wikipedia article. The paper is published in an open-access journal so you should be able to obtain it pretty easily.

Thanks! 128.218.42.124 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting acknowledgements section in that paper. "The authors thank Drs. Stewart Adams, Robert Allan, Gordon Atkins, Robert Bransfield, George Chaconas, Douglas Demetrick, Dorte Dopfer, Christopher Hardy, Doug Kahn, Alan MacDonald, Steve McClain, Elizabeth Rasmussen, Ginger Savely and Janet Sperling for helpful discussion. We thank Joel Israel for technical support and Lorraine Johnson for manuscript review, and we are grateful to Cindy Casey and the Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation for funding support."

Robert Bransfield happens to have been one of the three reviewers for this manuscript. The second reviewer, Michael Sweeney, had been thanked in their previous manuscript. Yet these conflicts of interest were never mentioned. Oh, and the third reviewer on this manuscript? They rejected the paper all through the review process. The other two? Accepted right from the start. Yeah, that manuscript has problems, as does that journal, and its editors. I am really surprised that they have not addressed this.137.111.13.204 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Bransfield and Sweeney (the two peer reviewers who recommended accepting the paper) have a long history of involvement with Middelveen and Stricker (the lead and senior authors). Sweeney is acknowledged (though not an author) for at least four of Middelveen and Stricker's papers since 2011. Bransfield is similarly acknowledged on a half-dozen-plus papers (in addition to this one, which he reviewed): [1], [2], [3], [4], [www.omicsonline.org/morgellons-disease-a-chemical-and-light-microscopic-study-2155-9554.1000140.php?aid=5477], [5], [6]. Bransfield, Stricker, and Middelveen are also all advisors to the Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation ([7]), which provides grants to Middelveen.

I suspect that someone at BMC Dermatology was a little too trusting (or a little bit lazy) when taking the corresponding author's suggestions for reviewers. In a sense, it's sort of understandable. It's probably really difficult to get competent independent reviewers who are willing to waste time on a manuscript about a fictional disease. (On the other hand, BMC shouldn't have been quite so eager to get their hands on the publishing fee, and their editors should have known to triage this manuscript without screwing around with an extended peer review process.) Really, this is probably how a lot of crappy papers get published; it's only with BMC Dermatology's "open" peer review process (that publishes the reviewers' names) that we get to see how flawed the reviewer selection is.

(If I were going to be particularly nasty, I would say that this is an improvement for the BMC journals. They got stung rather badly this year ([8]) with a string of retractions resulting from out-and-out fake peer reviewers, so real-but-badly-chosen reviewers are arguably a step up.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The obvious COI of the Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation funding the paper.... -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(I apologize in advance, incidentally, if I've misread your meaning.) I'm actually not that bothered by a group advocating for recognition of their imaginary disease funding researchers who think they're studying the same imaginary disease. I mean, the parallel for a real disease would be a group like the ALS Association funding ALS researchers, or the Red Cross funding blood transfusion research. Private charitable foundations should be able to fund disease research, and I'm generally okay with that.

The problem here is that the authors and the reviewers are so conspicuously involved with each other, for an extended period of time. Looking a little more closely, three of the paper's authors (Middelveen, Stricker, and Mayne) and one of its reviewers (Bransfield) are all members of the Holman Foundation's advisory panels. Between them, they're four out of just fifteen panel members (this isn't one of those journal advisory boards with a hundred members, or anything like that).

Now, all that said (and I've certainly said a lot!) I will note that Dbrodbeck's link below to the previous discussion is absolutely correct and entirely sufficient to dispose of the original question in the thread. We shouldn't use this source because it's a single primary study (rendering it generally inadmissible under MEDRS) bearing no particular hallmarks of exceptional value, quality, or secondary reporting (which might justify overriding MEDRS' usual rules of thumb). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

[9] please see this discussion of that paper. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Rephrasing seems to be in order

For example in the opening statement "is a condition in which people have the delusional belief".

Citing the https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200702/the-morgellons-mystery reference:

Though the fibers all resembled one another, he says, they looked like no other synthetic or natural fiber he compared them to. Ultimately, he asked the fiber experts on the Tulsa police department's forensics team to examine them.

First they employed a type of spectroscopy that identifies the chemical structures of fibers and compared them to their database of 800 fibers. No match.

Next they subjected fibers to gas chromatography. Compounds put through this process are encased in a vacuum chamber and exposed to high heat; the temperature at which they reach boiling point is a clue to what compound they are made of. The forensic experts had a database that included the boiling point of 90,000 organic compounds with which to compare the fibers. But the machine ran to its highest temperature, 1,400 degrees, and apart from some slight blackening, nothing happened. The fiber experts were mystified. "The conclusion we were left with is that they are unknown fibers, not simply contaminants from clothing sticking to scabs," says Wymore.

Wymore, who is not a physician, also asked Rhonda Casey, the chief of the pediatrics department at Oklahoma State University Hospital, to take a look at some of the patients for him, to get a medical opinion. "Honestly, when he first told me about it, I thought, they're all nuts," says Casey. But she changed her mind. "There was not one patient I saw who did not look ill," she says. What's more, they all looked ill in the same way, with neurological symptoms, including confusion, foot drop, in which a person loses control of their foot and has trouble walking, and a sagging mouth when they spoke. Many had been diagnosed with atypical forms of neurological diseases like Parkinson's or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease).

She examined their skin via a dermatoscope, a light tool with a magnifying lens. And she did biopsies on both their lesions and apparently healthy skin. She says she saw fibers embedded in both places. The white ones, she says, are hard to see. A dermatologist who either didn't look at all, or didn't use a dermatoscope, might not see them under the skin. But some—the black, red, and blue ones—are blatantly obvious, she says. One young girl had a small pimple on her thigh with a bundle of black fibers just barely protruding from it. Many doctors have accused these patients of embedding fibers in the sores themselves, but Casey doesn't believe it. "As a physician, I can't imagine reproducing what I saw in that little girl's leg." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.234.174 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

>>> I agree. And aside from the fact that their are medical clinics and physicians who have analyzed this skin disorder, and state that it is a skin disorder and in the very least an unexplained dermopathy, wikipedia allows some uneducated individual to refer to any individual claiming this disease to be "delusional"? Some medical professionals refer to it as not only being a skin condition but calling it "fibre disease", a "disease"... implying it is not delusional at all. Is this uneducated and delusional individual a physician? Simple research concludes this fact, so how is it this individual is allowed to demean those with a serious condition? Shame on wikipedia for allowing this nonsense and down right deceit and manipulation, even after others have requested it be corrected. Shame on the individual who edited this page, to think others would fall for their clear deceit and moreover, should only beg the question, why would anyone jump to such a ridiculous and demeaning statement? Perhaps to stop the truth? Perhaps another experiment being done on unsuspecting people, as in many cases throughout history in the US and many other countries? But I'm sure the delusional person who wrote this will now call me delusional and before you do, know I don't care what an uneducated and arrogant person says, next time do some research and know, that many know who and what "types" and "agencies" create wikipedia pages, not to mention the agenda behind many of them. And wikipedia, I simply don't care if you ban me again for telling truth and pointing out the absurdity of this page. I don't use wikipedia to find truth, in fact quite the opposite. So ban away, I'm tired of the lies and grotesque manipulation I see here, wikipedia should be banned for discrimination and slander of many ill people, for allowing pages like this, even after it has been pointed out by others. How despicable! In fact, a delusional person is who wrote this garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The evidence presented is not sufficient to justify the opening paragraph.

The article should begin by pointing out that the condition is controversial. From the research listed, it could, in fact, be more than one condition with a somatic cause, or it could be a psychiatric condition as the opening sentence insists. . It is clear from the article that numerous people in numerous locations are presenting with strange fibers under their skin. Different nominal experts have expressed contradictory opinions concerning the nature of these fibers, including the idea that they are clothing fibers embedded in the patient's skin as the result of scratching and that they are related to tick infestations. . Web MD's article seems more balanced, starting with:

"Morgellons is a controversial and poorly understood condition in which unusual thread-like fibers appear under the skin. The patient may feel like something is crawling, biting, or stinging all over.

Some medical experts say Morgellons is a physical illness. Others suggest it is a type of psychosis called "delusional parasitosis," in which a person thinks parasites have infected their skin.

Your doctor may call it an "unexplained dermopathy," which means a skin condition that occurs without a known reason. Other medical professionals have dubbed the condition "fiber disease."" . The most controversial opinion expressed in this present article is the notion that someone had "Munchuausen's by proxy" which a controversial, poorly-defined and frequently abused diagnosis. . That statement should probably be removed.

We follow the reliable independent sources. There is no credible evidence that this condition is distinct from delusional parasitosis. Morgellons is diagnosed only by quacks or by patients themselves, there is a strong possibility that some patients might also have something else, but morgellons itself is not a disease, it is just a word coined by someone who did not like a reality-based diagnosis. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016

Your definition defines Morgellons Disease as being a delusional belief that they are infected and ill as well. Yet the Mayo Clinic states it's contravercial. That patients do have sores and also they have collected and examined the threads so again your article attributed the threads to delusion. Please view Mayo Clinic and see if it does require an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.188.151 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Mayo Clinic's position has been previously discussed. See, for example, Talk:Morgellons/Archive 12#the term "delusional" is NOT neutral. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Morgellons' and Borrielia Spirochetes (Lyme Disease)

This article from January 2016 confirms the connection between Morgellon's and Borrelia spirochetes the bacteria that is associated with Lyme disease.

http://atlasofscience.org/morgellons-disease-the-search-for-a-perpetrator/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.87.76 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not a reliable medical source. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"self-diagnosed Morgellons"

This phrase is difficult. Does it mean "people who diagnose themselves as having a delusional belief that they are infested"? or rather "people who mistakenly or delusionally diagnose themselves as being infested"? And then when there is a line like this in the article - "Some cases of self-diagnosed Morgellons have been more accurately diagnosed as known skin disorders" - there is the added ambiguity of "scientifically unexplained infestation" or "scientifically explainable infestation". I suspect very few people diagnose themselves as having a delusion. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, the wording isn't clear. The "self-diagnosed" phrase appears a lot... should be changed to "people who believe they are infested" or something like that. Zad68 17:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There's not really any such diagnosis as "Morgellons", so we should be very careful with that sort of wording. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

CDC /Morgellons Study Feedback request brings to light how flawed the study was

This 6 page letter makes me question why the CDC study is given credibility. On Sept 24, 2009, CDC convened an external panel of experts to provide feedback on the UD study activities conducted to date, including scientific quality and approach; relevance to CCID’s mission; and research gaps and opportunities; and to provide recommendations for future study and research. This report summarizes the panel’s findings and recommendations to the Agency.

I will not quote the entire article but the following passage is very telling:

"There is no universal agreement as to how to define the condition; nor is there is a diagnostic test. The case definition used in the study was broad in order to include patients who may have – or believe they may have -- a condition that is popularly referred to as “Morgellons.” Although the definition required fibers or particles to be coming out of their skin, no patient had a fiber extruding from normal skin or visible within normal skin. If there are such patients, the study did not identify them."

http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/docs/external_peer_review.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.87.76 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok? Not sure why that makes you question the study, or why you think it's "telling". Cannolis (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is actually a sign of commendable open-mindedness. Given the absence of any coherent definition or diagnostic criteria they would have been within their rights to simply ignore "morgellons". Actually they looked into it and found - amazingly - that the self-diagnosed "sufferers" had no coherent set of symptoms, the diagnosis was arbitrary and the pathology uniformly failed to show any signs of any organic disease. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • • • > What is telling, is this whole page on the subject, which is a real subject. Funny enough, the Study that the University of Oklahoma concluded is not mentioned here, which identifies who it targets; adults and children alike, and even witnessing multiple members within, having what they clearly call 'a disease', disease being the key word and there are doctors who do recognize it as a disease.

Auto immune disease was once laughed at and now, it is finally recognized, but what isn't told is the fact that many say it was caused by vaccines, many have stated this and people know their bodies. There are also people who have also stated that Morgellons was also caused by a vaccine and again, people know their bodies and when something foreign is forced into the body through the biggest organ which protects the body, it is only common sense to conclude something foreign is causing the problem, a problem that the individual has never had and to say it is all in their head is just as ridiculous as this page.

Many talk about this page and that is why I came here and I have to say, I am disgusted also, but like everyone says, "what do you expect, it's wikipedia" and there is more on that subject but is not for me to say. I give this page an F for fail and the person who wrote it, an F- for having no proof of anything it said, yet has the audacity to demean and belittle and call these poor people crazy because there is no proof, so where is your proof it isn't a disease? Not looking for an answer, you have your opinion and I have mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That might conceivably make sense if it wasn't for the very obvious fact that there is no evidence that "morgellons" exists as a condition distinct from delusional parasitosis. True, some who believe they have "morgellons" may indeed have some other real condition, such as psoriasis, but that is not an argument for taking "morgellons" seriously, it's an argument for getting them out of the clutches of the delusional echo chamber of "morgellons" believers and into reality-based medical treatment. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morgellons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://morgellons.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples of Typical Morgellons taken from infected patient

These photos depict the fact that, as stated here, Morgellons is not a psychotic delusional condition but a real and very adaptable organism. Too much direct evidence now exists. As to what Morgellons is, classification etc. is still unknown but it resembles a fungal organism, but in parts of the U.S.A, it seems to be associated with the spirochete "Borrellia Burgdorferi" ~~Rodney K. Burgess~~

References

If there really was a disease at least one pharmaceutical company would have developed a treatment for it, and adverts would be everywhere selling the drugs. Since their is not, and since every doctor and scientist on the planet agree that there is no disease, well.... TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS; talk pages are for discussing content relative to reliable sources. (While we are on the topic of other sources, PMID 27269255 is interesting.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wording of the lead

The lead of this article typifies the dismissiveness towards Morgellons patients. Rather than acknowledging the real discomfort and distress of Morgellons patients, it hammers with judgements that they are "delusional" and "hallucinating," which I find inconsistent with NPOV. Here is another way to go about it:

Morgellons ... is a largely self-diagnosed skin condition characterized by lesions from which the patient produces fibers or particles. People who claim to have the condition experience itching along with the belief that something is crawling, stinging or biting the skin.(ref1)(ref2)(ref3) A range of experts, including dermatologists, entomologists and pyschiatrists, have examined Morgellons cases. Predominant medical opinion holds that the produced items are textile fibers or other external materials, that the lesions result from the patients' own scratching in response to the sensations, and that the symptoms are consistent with the existing diagnosis of delusional parasitosis.(ref1)(ref4) The delusional parasitosis may in some cases be secondary to a common skin disorder.(ref3)

Also change "proof" in scare quotes to evidence, without quotes. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is quite solid. Until and unless that changes, the article is accurate as it is. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't read my proposed wording. Please do so before you reply. The "but actually" tone of the current lead, which elevates prevailing medical opinion on a controversy to eternal fact, is inconsistent with NPOV. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories is pretty clear: A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight Morgellons has been studied, and it has been researched, and everything consistently leads to the same point: It. Does. Not. Exist. Can you provide ANY references of similar quality to the ones that reach this conclusion? References on par with the Centers for Disease Control, the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, and the American Journal of Psychiatry?

The principle of neutral point of view means sticking to established facts. And the established fact is what the article currently supports: Morgellons is a delusional disease. Trying to soften that scientific consensus would violate NPOV, not support it. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Morgellons/Archive 13

Would it make sense to put delusional parasitosis in the infobox too since the MeSH entry for Morgellons says "See also: Delusional Parasitosis" and vice versa? If so, would this be the right way to show that? —PermStrump(talk) 01:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that would make it seem to be an actual diagnosis, which it is not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, First I was thinking there shouldn't be an infobox at all, because that made it seem like a real diagnosis, but I couldn't believe it really had a Mesh ID, so then I thought maybe also linking to delusional parasitosis would make it seem less like its own thing. I guess the extra numbers would make it look more legit... Is that what you were thinking? —PermStrump(talk) 07:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In essence yes. There aren't any MDs (or perhaps there are a vanishingly small number of them) who would diagnose someone with Morgellons, but I fear that this would make it look like that happens. I guess we could look at other articles on other, I dunno what the term is oh, 'hoax disorders' let's go with that, and see what we do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

doesn't make sense to have a "disease" infobox for a society and culture topic. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think we should look for a way to include the reclassification in 2008/2009, away from parasitic skin diseases. The current MeSH descriptor means it should probably be classified as psychiatry / dermatology, it's under skin diseases and psychotic disorders. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

article structure

I just fixed this article in these difs. The WP:Biomedical information is now sourced to MEDRS sources and the rest is society and culture. There is no point duplicating the delusional parasitosis article here.

If anyone wants to contest this, please bring only sources that comply with MEDRS for discussion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A substantial improvement. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

There is a strong bias presented throughout the whole article.

for instance: "...is a condition in which people have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present, or are present only through benign causes, such as a piece of thread falling onto the skin.[1]" [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons#cite_note-Freudenmann-1

This is cherrypicked information, an opinion, in fact.

The second reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons#cite_note-Schulte-2), published 1 year AFTER the publication of the first reference, explicitly proclaims that no conclusions have been reached:

"So, is Morgellons real? Or is it a delusion? The CDC won't say right now, for fear that releasing information might jeopardize the study's publication. Mark Eberhard, director of the CDC's division of parasitic diseases, said, "We were very clear from the outset that no one study, not even this one, would likely provide the whole answer."

Symphanticade (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read the archives. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Er, reference [1] (Freudanmann and Lepping) was published in October 2009, whereas reference [2] was published in January 2008. Reference [1] was published nearly two years after reference [2], not before. (And in any case, Ref [1] is a review article from a highly-regarded, highly-cited medical journal; Ref [2] is a column from the Washington Post, written by an author with no obvious relevant skills, knowledge, or credentials.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to say I feel it is strongly WP:POV, said this long ago. The thing is that it doesn't mention the one remaining scientific hypothesis that is still being investigated - that it is caused by spirochetes. It mentions biological warfare, nanotechnology, chemtrails and extraterrestrial life as hypotheses on the basis of a single Washington Post article - but it never mentions the papers by Marianne Middleton and others who are currently actively investigating the spirochetes hypothesis. It should be mentioned. Some of the people with Morgellons go half crazy with pain and become delusional. But there are scientists who are working on it who publish in peer reviewed articles. And they actually have quite a lot of data in their favour. The CDC study had many flaws. Harry Shone, in his MSc dissertation for University College London, the only person to do an in depth review of the CDC study that I found, wrote this:

"It is indeed true that the CDC were being cautious, that they found no positive evidence for the claims made by Morgellons sufferers, but it does not mean that the study can go without critical appraisal. Although expensive and lengthy, the research only clinically evaluated 41 people. Furthermore, since the population was selected by criteria other than self-identification it has been argued by critics of the study that some of those included did not have or even consider themselves to have Morgellons. The validity of these criticisms may rest on somewhat pedantic points, but what is certainly true is that an awful lot of reading between the lines has been passed off as something more substantial."

41 people is not a strong basis on which to make such a wide ranging conclusion, especially since their selection criteria have been challenged. And the study itself did not totally rule out that it had a medical cause. It just said that they hadn't found one.

"We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features. We found little on biopsy that was treatable, suggesting that the diagnostic yield of skin biopsy, without other supporting clinical evidence, may be low. However, we did find among our study population co-existing conditions for which there are currently available therapies (drug use, somatization). These data should assist clinicians in tailoring their diagnostic and treatment approaches to patients who may be affected. In the absence of an established cause or treatment, patients with this unexplained dermopathy may benefit from receipt of standard therapies for co-existing medical conditions and/or those recommended for similar conditions such delusions infestation"

There were many competing hypotheses for it at the time of the study. But the remaining researchers have converged on a single hypothesis now. They think that it is caused by spirochetes, and is a possible result of chronic lyme disease, if not treated in time. The main proponent of this hypothesis is Marianne J. Middelveen, MDes, a Veterinary Microbiologist from Alberta, Canada. She made a connection with a disease of cattle, called Bovine Digital dermatitis which has similar symptoms - and in that case, it is well established that there are microfilaments of keratin and collagen which form beneath the skin. She analysed the filaments that form beneath the skin of sufferers, and found out that these also are made of keratin and collagen. She also found spirochetes, which are usually associated with Lyme disease in humans. More details here in my article about Morgellons with links to the papers.Mystery Of Morgellons - Disease Or Delusion - Scientific Hypothesis Of Connection With Lyme Disease. That article started as a serparate article here in wikipedia, but it was merged away, you can read about that in the archives, and as a result I put it up in my science blog instead.

I think this hypothesis and research should be mentioned somewhere in the article. It's far more notable and WP:RS than extraterrestrials, chemtrails etc. Robert Walker (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS we base biomedical content on reviews in the biomedical literature or statements from major medical/scientific bodies (like the CDC). here is a pubmed search for reviews about Morgellons. I didn't find any mention of the spirochette hypothesis there. If there is a MEDRS source that discusses the spirochette hypothesis, would be happy to include that content - please cite it. Please do not take up time/space here on the Talk page bringing refs that don't comply with MEDRS. If you don't understand MEDRS, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I know, that was the argument before. But then why do you include mention of the chemtrails and extraterrestrials hypothesis? I think it is highly WP:POV to mention conspiracy theories only and not to mention scientific research. I agree it is currently a minority view but it is being carried out according to scientific methods and I wouldn't say it even counts as fringe science. (If it was you should include it and label it as fringe but I don't think it is). Just minority view science.

The main published articles include:

• Middelveen, Marianne J; Burugu, Divya; Poruri, Akhila; Burke, Jennie; Mayne, Peter J; Sapi, Eva; Kahn, Douglas G; Stricker, Raphael B (2013). "Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease". F1000Research. doi:10.12688/f1000research.2-25.v1. ISSN 2046-1402.
• Middelveen, Marianne J; Bandoski, Cheryl; Burke, Jennie; Sapi, Eva; Filush, Katherine R; Wang, Yean; Franco, Agustin; Mayne, Peter J; Stricker, Raphael B (2015). "Exploring the association between Morgellons disease and Lyme disease: identification of Borrelia burgdorferi in Morgellons disease patients". BMC Dermatology 15 (1). doi:10.1186/s12895-015-0023-0. ISSN 1471-5945.

• Marianne J Middelveen, Raphael B Stricker, Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease, in Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology 2011

• Marianne J Middelveen1, Divya Burugu2, Akhila Poruri2, Jennie Burke3, Peter J Mayne1, Eva Sapi2, Douglas G Kahn4, "Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease", F100 research

• Marianne J. Middelveen1, Jennie Burke2, Eva Sapi3, Cheryl Bandoski3, Katherine R. Filush3, Yean Wang2, Agustin Franco2, Arun Timmaraju3, Hilary A. Schlinger1, Peter J. Mayne1 Culture and identification of Borrelia spirochetes in human vaginal and seminal secretions, F100 research [10]

• Marianne J. Middelveen1, Elizabeth H. Rasmussen2, Douglas G. Kahn3 and Raphael B. Stricker1*, Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study, Journal of Clinical & Experimental Dermatology Research [www.omicsonline.org/morgellons-disease-a-chemical-and-light-microscopic-study-2155-9554.1000140.php?aid=5477]

• Peter J Mayne, Clinical determinants of Lyme borreliosis, babesiosis, bartonellosis, anaplasmosis,and ehrlichiosis in an Australian cohort, International Journal of General Medicine, 2014 [11]

BMC Dermitology is peer reviewed [12], so is the International Journal of General Medicine, and the [www.omicsonline.org/clinical-experimental-dermatology-research.php Journal of Clinical & Experimental Dermatology Research], and Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology. The F100 research is not peer reviewed prior to publication [13]. But the others are.

They are far more notable and WP:RS than the Washington Post or online forums which is their original source for their information. If you don't include this you should also remove the Washington post and the references to conspiracy theories in my view. But I think you should include this as it is surely sufficiently notable to be included, peer reviewed research by multiple authors in multiple different journals. There has to be some way that it can be mentioned in the article. Robert Walker (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed' is not sufficient to meet MEDRS as you know. I asked you not to post references that don't comply with MEDRS and you did anyway. I am uninterested in being bludgeoned so will not respond further in this thread. If you wish to ask simply, in a non-WP:POINTY way, about other sources and how they are used I would be happy to answer (but see the third paragraph here and please take note of the section of our article in which those sources are used, and the kind of content they are supporting). You can do that in a separate thread as I am done with this one. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about sources for medical articles

Okay you said to start a new thread for this, will this do? Sorry, I don't understand. I understand these cites do not satisfy MEDRS - which basically means if I understand right, that the research is at such a stage at present that it can't be a basis for medical advice and health information. But the same applies to the Washington post and the conspiracy theories there.

It says in WP:MEDRS

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources."

Surely it is alright therefore to cite this, as WP:RS in the general sense, so long as it is clearly labeled as minority view cutting edge research and not as medical advice? Or are we not permitted to mention such research at all in medical articles? If not, why not, if it is generally WP:RS? Is there some guideline about medical articles having to include only research that satisfies MEDRS? Surely there must be some way that you can do it, some acceptable way to mention notable WP:RS research of this type? Robert Walker (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how the Washington Post article falls under that paragraph you cite - as it says "As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines." I'd say the quality of the Washington Post article is very low, and it is just referring to forum posts and such like which would not normally count as WP:RS in wikipedia. It is not even a survey of the number of people that hold those views amongst Morgellons sufferers. Robert Walker (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The key sentence in the third paragraph is the first one. "Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." MEDRS (recent literature reviews in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies) applies to biomedical information; "social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical" content is not biomedical information. If you look in our article at the section where WaPo is used it is the "Media coverage" subsection of the "History" section - not biomedical. If you look at each instance of a non-MEDRS source, you will see it is not sourcing biomedical information but rather "social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information" content. Please take your time and consider how we parse the different kinds of content and the different kinds of sources required, and please do look carefully at how the article is sourced. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I understood that. But first - I have two points here, the first one is that I don't think the Washington post source should be used in the way it is used in this article. The journalist who wrote it could well be biased, it's not an impartial source and it is only based on reading forum posts online, it's not an interview or survey of Morgellons sufferers. If you want to say that most Morgellons sufferers believe in conspiracy theories (not my own experience of talking to them via email and messaging at all, I've had a fair number of comments and replies since publishing my article on Science20 and none have said they subscribe to any conspiracy theories), you need something more reliable than this. The washington post article is not a good source I'd say on the "social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information", those guidelines mention the Scientific American as an example there.

This is their source of information:

"Google it, and nearly 162,000 references show up, many of them chock-full of vivid color photographs of what people claim are strange, colorful fibers growing under their skin. Several other sufferers have taken graphic videos of themselves poking with tweezers at what appear to be fiber-entangled lesions and then posted them on YouTube. Long online discussions ramble on about the latest conspiracy theories that cause the disease -- poisonous chemicals produced by the government and spread by jet contrails, so-called chem trails; aliens; artificially intelligent nanotechnology; genetic engineering; or a government bioweapon gone awry. Others debate the latest expensive cure-alls -- antibiotics, antifungal creams, vitamin supplements, liquid silver, food-grade diatomaceous earth, deworming medication meant for cattle."

How is that better than just relying on a google search ourselves as a source of information about the views of Morgellons sufferers? It's easy for such results to be skewed by a few vocal people who write lots of information in web pages and even trolls and hoax websites made by people for their own amusement. I don't think we should use this as a WP:RS on the views of those who self identify as Morgellons sufferers. I don't think that section of WP:MEDRS is saying that we should use such sources in these articles.

Then the other thing is that I'm not saying it should be represented as WP:MEDRS. Just as you feel that it is okay to put other information in a "Media coverage" subsection of the "History" section - can you not also find a way to include this WP:RS research in a separate subsection which is not covered by WP:MEDRS? Find some way to label it so the reader understands its status? For instance you could label it as controversial, as in Lyme disease controversy. That is one way to mention research that is regarded as controversial. It then doesn't have to satisfy WP:MEDRS. Robert Walker (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert I understand you are passionate about this but you are pushing very hard for what you want and trying to figure out a way to make that work in WP. That is not how things we work here and we don't just bend the policies and guidelines because advocates show up demanding that. We start with reliable sources (MEDRS sources for biomedical information, and RS sources for society culture history etc) and we summarize what they say here. I'll see if I can find other reliable society/culture sources. That is what you should do. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog just want to say, I'm not an advocate. I'm an independent science blogger who read on this topic, with no prior encounter with Morgellons. I read the science literature on the subject, and the CDC report and Harry Schone's MSc thesis on it, and his criticism of their research. And I know you say that an MSc thesis is not a citable source in medical articles - but all this seems to me very much like double standards. Why can't that be mentioned, and yet you mention really flimsy journalist articles that back up the view that it is delusional? Harry Schone's criticisms are cogent. The scientific research seems valid. They found spirochetes in Morgellons patients and they analysed the threads and found that they are made of keratin and collagen. This does not read like fringe research and it is published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

I will be very surprised if you find independent reliable evidence that shows that the Morgellons sufferers have high levels of delusion, especially in view of this article:

Virginia R Savely1 and Raphael B Stricker2 Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology [14]

They found no evidence of a higher occurrence of pre-existing psychosomatic disorders in this group of patients than there is in the population at large (0.03%), which in their view distinguishes this group of patients from usual cases of delusional parasitosis. The only things I've seen suggesting they are delusional are journalistic anecdotal reports. My own experience also backs up what they say in that paper - the emails, and comments on my blog where as I say, out of many posts, not one suggests a conspiracy theory. They just talk about how much they suffer and about how they can't get doctors to take them seriously because of the CDC report. I have 62 comments on my article which you can read if interested, and there are no conspiracy comments there that I remember. No mention of chemtrails or extraterrestrials or anyting like that. I know that's anecdotal, but you are relying on anecdotal evidence in the article, by using the Washington Post as evidence.

I think that there is something wrong with the Wikipedia guidelines if it leads to this situation where you can write about conspiracy theories based on online forums, and can't write about minority view peer reviewed scientific research on the topic even labelled as controversial. Or something wrong with their customary interpretation. I don't want the article to say that this research is confirmed as it is work in progress. I just think it should be mentioned and think it would be of interest to readers of the article. As it is the article creates the impression that the entire scientific and medical profession backs up the view that it is a variety of delusional parasitosis. That is not entirely true. Robert Walker (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes you have showed up here with a very strong point of view and you are trying to figure out a way to get that expressed in WP - this is what advocates do. (read WP:ADVOCACY). Advocates (like you) refuse to acknowledge, or cannot see, that there is an actual foundation here for rational discussion The policies and guidelines are that foundation. Like most advocates, you shrug aside every attempt to base the discussion on the policies and guidelines and make arguments based on your experience, or from what you "just think". Neither are valid bases for arguments here. This page is not some general forum- it is intended as a space for discussing article content and sources based on the policies and guidelines. That's why it exists. (see WP:Talk page guidelines) So I am done here. No experienced editor is going to take you seriously until you at least express an interest in becoming what we call clueful (please read that link) . Future posts you make like the one above will probably be removed or will be ignored. That is how this place works. I guess that was a harsh thing to write but you really don't understand the context within which you are trying to operate. Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

All that said, I have to take back some of what I said earlier. This article is very badly sourced in some places and I am reflecting on what to do about that. Adding more bad sources is definitely not the right answer though. Jytdog (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I am here, I'm listening. Glad you agree the article is badly sourced in places. At least that's some progress. If you can remove the Washington post source, which is very low quality rather sensationalist journalism, and the remarks about Morgellons sufferers being prone to believing in conspiracy theories based on no real evidence at all, that's some progress. The wikipedia guidelines themselves say Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

" Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."

So the guidelines themselves don't take such a hard stance as you are taking here. And I'd say that it is not common sense to mention flimsy journalist extrapolations and to not mention peer reviewed research. Do you agree that readers of this article would be interested to know about the spirochetes research? And to have the opportunity to make their own mind up about it? I think it is a failing of common sense to say it must be omitted from the article entirely just because it is not suitable for use as medical advice. Why not include it, say in a new section "Controversial research into spirochetes as a cause for Morgellons" or some such? Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So once advocates start to think about engaging with the policies and guidelines, the very first thing they do is grab some bit that justifies what they wanted to do anyway and quote it here, like you just did. It isn't productive. There is really nothing new under the sun here. People have done a zillion times, are doing in other articles right now, and will do a zillion times in the future, what you are doing now. It is the opposite of cluefull work here - please do read WP:CLUE including the footnote.

The article needs major work and i am going to concentrate on improving it. This is my last reply. Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I'm a long term wikipedian and I'm perhaps not as clueless as you think about the guidelines :). And as I said, nor am I an advocate, I enter into this discussion in a spirit of dialog, presented one side of the argument of course, but listened to your response and you haven't really had one as far as I can see except just repeating that it can't be included because of MEDRS. I understand that they are needed as guidelines for articles that readers might take as medical advice. But you haven't yet convinced me that these guidelines mean that the research can't be included under some such heading as "controversial reasearch". It's your last reply, fine. But the way wikipedia works, anyone can reply to a thread and it is not possible for a single wikipedian to declare a thread closed to all participants in a situation like this, though of course anyone can declare that they will no longer respond to it themselves. Others might have interesting viewpoints on this however, different from either of us and I'll be interested to see if there are any further replies from anyone else. Thanks for the discussion, and hope that it helps improve the article! Robert Walker (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker I think that study you link is very interesting, and deserves some space as it really shows us clearly there is some mystery and controversy surrounding Morgellons. On the board WT:MED, some are are wanting to combine Morgellons with the article on "delusional parasitosis", which doesn't make much sense to me, as this is a controversial topic, and Morgellons is clearly a phenomena on its own terms which shouldn't be swept under the carpet as it were. I can't see how wikipedia has the right to discount something so certainly, when the primary CDC study on this is called "Clinical, Epidemiologic, Histopathologic and Molecular Features of an Unexplained Dermopathy", with the word "unexplained" being quite prominent here.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029908

You will only find the term "delusional parasitosis" in this study once!

If you look up the antonym of advocacy, I think you will find it does not represent a NPOV. So often with wikipedia, you can see people trying to push what looks like an agenda. WP:MEDRS seems to be used by some wikipedia editors to prevent the inclusion of a full spectrum of points of view, and the pushing of one point of view, often represented by the most conservative consensus. I can understand this, but understand that the most conservative consensus is not always right or even necessarily accurate, and it would clearly be foolish to think that it always must be. Are we really writing an article that should be useful to people and provide them with accurate information, or is the article pushing a point of view too hard in one direction or another?

In this case, we must ask hard questions: What if Morgellons is a real disease? If so, then could the present article be harmful to those who suffer a real disease? It seems to me a more neutral article would present Morgellons more as a mystery or an unknown, yet mysteries or unknowns seem to be unacceptable to many people, it seems to make them anxious, and that is afterall, a very human psychological tendency.

Probrooks (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The CDC used the term "unexplained dermopathy" as the framework for their investigation. The investigation supplied the explanation.

"We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons"

That means: Morgellons is not a thing. There was no evidence that it was a thing, so they were not able to conclude that it is a thing.

"We found little on biopsy that was treatable, suggesting that the diagnostic yield of skin biopsy, without other supporting clinical evidence, may be low. However, we did find among our study population co-existing conditions for which there are currently available therapies (drug use, somatization)

In other words, those who had real infections, had infections which are already known; and the rest were delusional.

This is just like "chronic Lyme": the symptoms are real, whether psychosomatic or not, the issue is not the symptoms, the issue is that a group of people have decided that Morgellons is the cause of those symptoms, and ther eis quite simply no evidence to support this, since there is no evidence that Morgellons is a thing.

This is, of course, entirely unsurprising: the number of new diseases discovered by people who have no medical research background, based primarily on rejection of a disgnosis on the ground sof personal distatse, is approximately zero. It wuld be astounding if Morgellons wass a thing, given its provenance. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your last two paragraphs are just empty rhetorics. Try to replace morgellons with any arbitrarily silly idea in your reasoning. The sentence

"we must ask hard questions: What if Morgellons is a real disease?"

turns into

"we must ask hard questions: What if Santa Claus is a real person?"

and still works "as well" as before, so it is empty rhetorics. Please leave unnecessary ballast like that out, it just clutters up the talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a few points:

• The Lyme disease hypothesis is already mentioned in the article.
• Washington Post and Atlantic are good sources for the fact that Morgellons are combined with other weird ideas in the same heads. And of course googling by a journalist is preferable to googling by a Wikipedia user. See WP:OR.
• Primary sources such as the CDC report are discouraged by WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: - what you are missing here is that this particular PlosOne cite is the CDC study - the entire basis of the claim that Morgellons is delusional parasitology. So it is certainly relevant to discuss it here. Many people say that it has settled the question but as @Probrooks: says, the very title of the study calls it an "Unexplained Dermopathy". They were not able to determine the cause. They did not prove that it was delusional parasitology and said clearly in the report that this was not their remit, and nor was it their area of expertise. There hasn't been an acceptable clinical proof that it is delusional parasitology published to date. Robert Walker (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I would not agree that googling by a journalist is preferable to googling by us.

I would not agree that googling by a journalist makes it WP:RS

. I don't think googling and using forums and youtube videos as a source is acceptable at all except for articles that specifically discuss forums and youtube itself because of the tendency of a few people to produce a lot of the content and because of the tendency for trolls and hoaxers to engage in conversations posing as genuine people. Journalists need to write compelling copy and they have a tendency to exaggerate things in order to make their story more exciting for the reader. Robert Walker (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you do "not agree" with the rules here, maybe you should go to another site with rules more to your liking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't disagreeing with any guidelines, as none of you have yet shared any guideline that says that it is okay to cite a journalist story which treats google search results as their only source of evidence for what they say. Please tell me where this guideline is. I don't see anything in WP:NEWSORG to support it. And the guidelines themselves say that they need to be interpreted using common sense and it flies in the face of common sense to rely on a journalist's interpretation of google search results, not backed up by any independent research by anyone, as any form of WP:RS. Robert Walker (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"as none of you have yet shared any guideline that says that it is okay [..]" Nobody said there was such a guideline. But I said "And of course googling by a journalist is preferable to googling by a Wikipedia user. See WP:OR." WP:OR says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." So, whatever you do, as a WP user, to research the subject, including googling, is not as good as the same research done by a source.

So, what you said "I would not agree that googling by a journalist is preferable to googling by us." is clearly a disagreement with the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The nub there is "reliable". If the published source is reliable, you can use it. But if it is not, you can't. A journalist who says "just google xxx and you get lots of search results" as their only basis for their assertion proves themselves to be not a reliable source at that point. The same article can be reliable in some places for some topics and not reliable in other ways. It is not preferable to googling by us because it is not acceptable at all as a WP:RS. Sorry I didn't express myself clearly. Of course googling by us is also not WP:RS either and is WP:OR. And journalists are sometimes sensationalist so WP:OR by a journalist is no better and can be worse than WP:OR by a wikipedia editor. It says "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis" - well in this case this is not a WP:RS for this particular statement. A paper in a scientific journal surveying Morgellons patients is reliable. The only one of that sort that I know of came to the conclusion that there is no higher prevalence in delusional beliefs than the population at large. I hope that is a bit clearer, and sorry for the confusion. 14:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"I would not agree that googling by a journalist is preferable to googling by us" is still a disagreement with the rules. Either take it back or acknowledge that you disagreed with the rules. Otherwise I can't take you seriously. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. It was just clumsiness on my part. Robert Walker (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe I was too literal, but that sentence just pressed my "original-research-by-WP-users-is-an-absolute-no-no" button. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Oh I'd missed that somehow. If the "some people" there was replaced by "some scientists" it would be a good starting point to help with redressing the balance. I don't think it needs a long section necessarily, maybe one or two sentences, but I think it would be good to add mention of spirochetes and the keratin and collagen analysis of the fibres and links to the most WP:RS of the research papers by these scientists, also to say specifically that it is linked with Digital dermatitis rather than chronic lyme disease, though there is of course a connection with the hypothesis of chronic lyme disease as well. Robert Walker (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No reason to do that. Actually "some people" or "some scientists" is WP:WEASEL, so neither wording should be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay so what wording do you recommend? I think it should somehow mentioned that there is on going research, that it is based on the hypothesis of spirochetes as the cause, and on the hypothesis that humans suffer from a disease similar to bovine Digital dermatitis which is a known disease of cattle, and based on analysis of the fibres as containing a mix of keratin and collagen as for bovine digital dermatitis, with cites to the most WP:RS of that research. Something like this

"Not all scientists agree that the CDC closes the book on Morgellons. There is research still continuing by a number of scientists based on the hypothesis that it is a disease similar to bovine Digital dermatitis which is a known disease of cattle. These researchers report discovery of spirochetes in the wounds and fibres containing a mix of keratin and collagen as for bovine dermatitis. [cites]. This research is minority view and controversial."

Or some such. Just a suggestion, comments welcome! It doesn't need to be much. Just a mention, I think it is notable enough to mention. Robert Walker (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No. No ongoing research. Too many users who are fans of pseudoscientific ideas want to add "ongoing research" to articles, as if the existence of that research somehow were a reason for believing in the pseudoscientific ideas. We describe what has been found out, not what will possibly be found in the future. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes but this isn't pseudoscience. It's ongoing research which shows that not all scientists think that the case is closed on Morgellons. There's a difference. But I can see we aren't going to settle this, I think we have both said our say on this matter of whether it should be mentioned. Will have to see if anyone else comes into the debate with new viewpoints on it. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question: Iff I had a suggestion, I would have given it in the first place. And "Not all scientists" or "a number of scientists" is as weaselly as "some scientists". Even "scientists" is weaselly. Scientists should always be characterized by area of expertise. Neurologists, psychologists, parasitologists may be relevant here, but "scientists" could also be geologists or meteorologists dabbling in subjects outside their field. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair point. The principal author of most of the recent WP:RS papers is Marianne J. Middelveen, MDes, a Veterinary Microbiologist from Alberta, Canada. Another principle author is Peter J Mayne, a dermatologist from Australia who graduated from Cardiff university. So you could say

"Not all scientists agree that the CDC closes the book on Morgellons. There is research still continuing, lead by Marianne Middleveen, a veterinary microbiologist, based on the hypothesis that it is a disease similar to bovine Digital dermatitis which is a known disease of cattle. These researchers report discovery of spirochetes in the wounds and fibres containing a mix of keratin and collagen as for bovine dermatitis. [cites]. This research is minority view and controversial."

How does that sound? I would not call it pseudoscience. There is nothing in it that rings any alarm bells of that sort. It is just research in progress with interesting results that suggests that the case is not yet completely closed on Morgellons. Robert Walker (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (But I am not an expert for this specific subject - maybe others will disagree.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear it. But I have to stop this line of discussion as I have been told on my talk page that I may be topic banned or have some other sanction imposed if I continue it[15]. I take this seriously as I am currently in the middle of a six month topic ban on another talk page in which I was rather outspoken, in a completely different topic area, and the situation was similar, no editing, just talk page discussion. This time the editor concerned had the decency to warn me first :). Robert Walker (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Probrooks: Yes I agree. For as long as it is not totally settled, and the CDC study has definitely not settled it, they say so themselves, then it needs to be presented as a mystery or unknown and the minority views also presented. If some day we had definite proof accepted by the medical community that it is delusional parasitosis, or indeed, that it is a spirochete caused illneess related to Digital dermatitis as Marianne Middelveen has proposed, then we can present just those views, and present anything else, if at all, in a historical section. But at present, it has not been settled. There is no proof that it is delusional parasitology in any published paper, never mind one that is accepted widely. All we have is an expensive but somewhat inconclusive CDC report that's been promoted as saying more than it actually does if you read it in detail or even just read its abstract. Robert Walker (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the CDC did not come up with the answer you wnated, does not make it any less settled. The CDC investigation was patient, thorough, and robustly failed to demonstrate that "morgellons" is a thing. The CDC is about as reliable as it gets, when it comes to medical sources. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't get what you are saying here. How does the CDC failure to find an explanation for it count as a proof that it is delusional parasitosis? Especially since they say in the report itself that as experts in infectious diseases, they were not qualified to diagnose delusional parasitosis. And though it was a long and thorough report, they only found 41 patients to examine them, and they didn't ask them if they were suffering from Morgellons so many of them may not even have self identified as having Morgellons. The Harry Schone MSc thesis makes these points. Since scientists are continuing to research in this topic area, it's clear that not all scientists are convinced that the report closes the book on Morgellons. I think this needs to be said in the article, somewhere. Robert Walker (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the original diagnosis was DP, but the self-diagnosed "Morgellons" community decided they had something else instead. The fact that the CDC's investigation found there was no evidence of a distinct condition means that it reverts to its former status, which is DP. The MeSH code also makes this clear. It's not proof of DP because that wasn't the question, the quesiton was: is this a new condition? And the answer was: no. The CDC findings are ocnsistent with DP and other known conditions. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply and restatement of case for including it using wikipedia guidelines as best I can

I don't see the relevance of the CDC here to diagnosis of DP as they specialize in infectious diseases - no more than a study that found that they don't have DP would prove that it was an infectious disease, whatever the previous default assumption was. Nobody seems to have done a psychological evaluation of them, except for that one report I found which found that they were no more prone to delusion than typical members of the population prior to the symptoms, which distinguishes them from typical sufferers of DP. The main problem here as I understand it is that both DP and Morgellons are very rare conditions, so rare, that most doctors will not see many instances of either. So it is hard to build up enough evidence to get a clear picture of what is going on. When you say "the original diagnosis was DP", I don't think that was a clinical evaluation either. Just an observation that the symptoms resemble DP, not a large scale study to prove that.

Also, the abstract of the CDC report makes a much stronger statement than the discussion section in the report. That just says

"We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features. We found little on biopsy that was treatable, suggesting that the diagnostic yield of skin biopsy, without other supporting clinical evidence, may be low."

As for what the CDC study showed - I know we don't have any highly rated third party review of all this. But Harry Schone's thesis is as close as we can get to that. It's an MSc thesis for UCLA UCL which is fourth ranked of all the European universities, so a prestigious university. His main aim is not to establish a particular view on the CDC report but as he says in the conclusion

"In this essay I have endeavoured to show how instructive this case can be in demonstrating the functioning life of a modern, contentious, chronic disease. Morgellons teaches us lessons about how conflict plays out between patient communities and health care professionals, and how those communities perform a second (though not secondary) pastoral role."

It's as close to neutral as you can get, basically a third party review of the literature. It's for a thesis in the philosophy of medicine. It would be the result of a year of supervised work and then examimed and passed. Now the main problem with it is that it is not cited by anyone else, which is of course a common situation for theses. Also he hasn't published any papers on it, though he gave a talk on it to a conference. His thesis is here Learning from Morgellons. He goes into it in some detail, but in his summary he says

"It is indeed true that the CDC were being cautious, that they found no positive evidence for the claims made by Morgellons sufferers, but it does not mean that the study can go without critical appraisal. Although expensive and lengthy, the research only clinically evaluated 41 people. Furthermore, since the population was selected by criteria other than self-identification it has been argued by critics of the study that some of those included did not have or even consider themselves to have Morgellons. The validity of these criticisms may rest on somewhat pedantic points, but what is certainly true is that an awful lot of reading between the lines has been passed off as something more substantial."

Another point on this discussion as a whole - I did a PubMed search for "Morgellons + Spirochetes" and it turns up several results, including some of the peer reviewed articles I mentioned above. [16]. This doesn't prove that it satisfies WP:MEDRS as there is more to it than having cites in a PubMed search - you need review articles or similar, something that elevates it above ordinary medical research. But it does help establish that the research is medically respectable and not fringe science. I'm not arguing that we include it under WP:MEDRS but under a more general WP:RS labelled as controversial, and the reason for that being that the article suggests that the case is closed for Morgellons, but the combination of Harry Schone's thesis + these PubMed articles shows that not all researchers agree that the case is closed, so it is not accurate to give that impression. I think, for the sake of avoiding WP:POV we should mention that, that there are some scientists - lead by a veterinary microbiologist who found similarities to a disease of cattle in the condition and who has confirmed that connection in all the tests she and the other researchers following this hypothesis have done so far - who think the case is not closed and have a specific scientific hypothesis that they are investigating via respectable scientific methods. That's my case for including it, now restated as best I can using Wikipedia guidelines. Robert Walker (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A Master's thesis and an amateur search result are not reliable sources at all. The CDC source is super reliable. The case is closed and Wikipedia shall reflect that until or unless that changes in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Robertinventor, you have repeatedly and over a long period of time been explained by multiple users what kinds of sources are required for biomedical and health content on Wikipedia, and asked to limit your responses to those supported by MEDRS sources, and yet you continue to fill the talk page with speculation based on original research and opinion. You operate a blog, and you have taken a position on Morgellons on that blog, which indicates a position of advocacy. Please refrain from posting further off-topic commentary and opinion on this talk page; for that, you can use your own blog. For Wikipedia content, we have guidelines for reliable sources to avoid unhelpful and dangerous speculation in health content such as what has been furthered by the internet. Please stop. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've made my case as best I can here, the rest is up to you. I'm not an advocate for the view that spirochetes cause Morgellons, and I haven't taken a position on that, I'm like Harry Schone in his thesis, coming to it as an uninvolved party who neither has Morgellons nor is involved in the research in any way. It is however the only current ongoing scientific research into Morgellons. That's why I wrote an article about it. I don't know what you mean by an "amateur search" - earlier in this conversation I was challenged that there are no MEDRS results for "spirochetes + morgellons". The link I posted show that there are - I think the reason the earlier search by @Jytdog: turned up no results is probably because they spelt it as "spirochette" when the correct spelling is "spirochete". Apart from that - well I've made the case, so it is over to others here to decide. I thought I had enough new here for it to be worth restating. The main new thing in my restatement here was more careful attention to the wikipedia guidelines as well as the PubMed search results and more careful explanation of my reasons for suggesting Harry Schone's thesis as being worth consideration although it is a weak source I agree, but sometimes a weak source may be all you've got. It is over to you now and you have made your reply. Others of course are free to reply here also. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: has told me on my talk page that the link he posted only listed reviews. I didn't understand this point, sorry, a lot of the talking at cross purposes here is due to that. He has also posted a warning that I am becoming a trouble maker by posting in this way and could face sanctions for so doing[17]. I thank him for the warning and just want to say I have no intention at all of doing anything that might disrupt wikipedia in any way. If that is the general consensus here I have to stop whatever my own thoughts on the matter. Robert Walker (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Robert Walker that the case is not closed, and that to posit a one sided position on this matter, (which may turn out to be incorrect as I have stated) makes this article farcical. It just looks like North Korean propaganda which represents only one "official" scientific study. Of course there are other studies, and other viewpoints which should be taken into account, and actually many people are reporting suffering here. And I don't believe that rushing to conclusions or trying to tell people what Morgellons is, is going to be taken seriously by many people. Obviously, this is very far from NPOV. Intelligent people who are really interested in finding out Morgellons and the current research and theories behind it, are going to be turned away from this article. I don't believe Robert Walker has been disruptive and his points seem fair.

Probrooks (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Probrooks: Thanks for your support and glad you don't think I have been disruptive. Normally at this point I'd suggest an RfC (Request for Comments). We have two in support of the change, two against, and one weakly in support so it is quite evenly balanced at present. However on reflection, I have realized that even without a consensus to take me to AE, I can't continue any further unless @Jytdog: withdraws this threat. There are two reasons. One is that an AE action would be time consuming, to defend myself, also emotionally stressful, and I don't wish to set aside the amount of time needed at present as I have a lot on, and I don't want to escalate such a minor matter (as it seems to me) to AE. It would also be distracting and time consuming for any other editors who join the debate on the proposed TBan. The other is that I have a project proposal on meta which I wish to publicize for comment on wikipedia (in suitably neutral ways of course), and because of the subject matter of the proposal, I can't publicize it for as long as I have a topic ban against me however minor the ban. I will be able to publicize it two months from now. A new ban however minor would mean I can't publicize it for anything from six months to indefinitely depending on the decision in AE. So I can't participate any further here for as long as there is a risk I could be taken to AE as a result. I hope you understand. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess you counted me as "weakly in support" but that would be wrong. I still don't think that stuff should be included but I am not qualified enough to argue against it. I agreed that your last suggestion was better than the previous ones, but I obviously did not say that clearly enough.

Also, WP is not a democracy. What counts is good reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your headcount is wrong. You have 4 very experienced medical editors including one Admin (Guy, SandyGeorgia, Alexbrn, and me) saying "no" unambiguously, and each having explained why; Probrooks has all of 149 edits.

And a weak source is not "all we've got". We have strong sources that are cited in the article and that I have actually provided to you, personally, on your Talk page. They just don't say what you want, and ignoring strong MEDRS sources that don't say what you want is the epitome of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

You are still not listening and you continue to blow off MEDRS. This is your last warning. If you write here again pushing non MEDRS sources and ignoring the strong MEDRS sources we have, we are off to AE and you will not have a leg to stand on. I doubt it will be time-consuming; it will probably be very swift. Just look at how you have WP:BLUDGEONed this Talk page. Look here and look here - 214 comments and 126,000 bytes, and blowing off a widely respected guideline the whole time - only finally hearing that we use reviews published in good journals after you have made 213 comments here, and ignoring that even in your 214th. Jytdog (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

While I've not commented on this time sink of a thread I can say that the majority opinion here is correct. Read WP:MEDRS. Understand it. Trust that people who have been here a long time actually know what the heck they are talking about. There is no reason to make the changes you want. (Oh that makes the head count five now). Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Robertinventor, your comments above about other issues relative to Arbitration Enforcement would be better placed on your talk page, as they have no bearing on this article, its content, and the need for reliable sources in this article. Please use this talk page for discussing article content relative to reliable sources so as not to extend the time sink. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, you have nothing to be upset about, I get the message. I only posted about @Jytdog:'s warning to explain to others here why I would no longer be contributing to this discussion. I will not discuss the other points you raise, in my experience to do so is likely to be seen as aggravation and that's the last thing I need. I am going to log out of wikipedia for a few days so will no longer get message alerts. Goodbye. Robert Walker (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

comment

I am concerned on the knowledge of where you base your information off of. If wikipedia is going to "pose" as an encyclopedia/fictionary, it should cite it's quotes. Otherwise ur walking a thin line. Especially on controversial issues! Brea nail511 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This defiantly seems to bias. Which Wikipedia claims not be! Brea nail511 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This is sensitive subject, which I dont believe any company trying to succeed should lean one way towards. It's only a matter of time until it is at your doorsteps. Brea nail511 (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'll leave a message on your Talk page with links describing them. If you want to be part of this community you need to follow the policies and guidelines - article content is not driven by what people like and don't like. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Joni Mitchell and Morgellons

JzG, I'm surprised you reverted my edit containing information about Joni Mitchell and Morgellons, and you claim WP:MEDRS is needed to cite such information? Well that is clearly just not the case. I am not presenting bio-medical information, just communicating some cultural background and interesting information about a famous person who is self diagnosed with Morgellons. What I quoted was the quote most commonly quoted by newspapers at the time.

Probrooks (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Joni Mitchell's opinion on Morgellons is non-encyclopedic trivia. Alexbrn (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker says in an article here

http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/mystery_of_morgellons_disease_or_delusion_scientific_hypothesis_of_connection_with_lyme_disease-155742

he found out about Morgellons through Joni Mitchell. This time magazine article uses Joni Mitchell's case to communicate about Morgellons.

http://time.com/3768710/what-is-morgellons-joni-mitchell/

I think this is relevant, because often times celebrities represent a human face of something. IF we are to talk about Morgellons as a cultural phenomena, Joni Mitchells diagnosis represents a big part of that surely, enough to warrant a short mention I would have thought. There is no good reason not to mention her as far as I can see.

Probrooks (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is already a huge block quote from her that is close to being UNDUE; why do you want more content about Mitchell? Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between a news magazine and an encyclopaedia? Guy (Help!) 22:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Open Minded Writing and Research

WP:MEDRS is a red herring here. The real issue is how the CDC report is worded and interpreted in a way that is proportionate to the nature of that report. That could include criticisms of that report as Robert Walker stated, it is a very small study (something not mentioned in the present article!) and also the controversial nature of this disease. Some seem to be saying that saying this disease may be a thing, represents "advocacy"!!! The CDC report is far from conclusive in any sense, and I do not think the wikipedia article should reflect a greater degree of conclusiveness than the CDC report.

Others here say, there is no way it is a thing or a disease, that it doesn't exist categorically. This attitude is not disimilar from advocacy, but perhaps more pernicious as it denies communicating the debate and controversy in a reasonable and neutral manner, and could be viewed as being closed minded.

And what is important I think is how the information from secondary sources about Morgellons in filtered into the page in a way that is balanced and fair. This is not a fringe topic, as it is not a practice, but what many say is a disease; apparently 14,000 people claim to have it! (something not mentioned on the article either)

I think this is quite well covered in this article, which I think is well written.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/14-thousand-people-have-morgellons-disease-but-cdc-says-it-doesnt-exist/

Shouldn't we also report what many morgellons people say it is?

"Many Morgellons patients say that their symptoms are related to “chemtrails.” The chemtrail conspiracy holds that the long trails of condensation made by planes in the sky are actually trails of chemical vapor that contain nano-robots which are being used for population control as well as mind control.

However, how these nano robots are connected to the exact symptoms Morgellons patients suffer is never fully explained in any online media, at least not in an easily understandable way. Some people say their symptoms act up whenever the chemtrails are being sprayed while others say they feel they must have inhaled the nano robots that are now spinning these fibers inside of their bodies. Other explanations include: the fibers are fungal in nature; the fibers consist of plant genes; the fibers are a side effect of lyme disease, and numerous other stories which have yet to be proven."

I think something of nature should be paraphrased in the article, as there appears to be some sort of consensus among morgellons suffers, but I will need to do more research and try and find some reliable sources.

I have met a woman with Morgellons before, and this is what she said it was. I honestly simply don't know. I believe your man on the street doesn't know either, but is probably looking for information to TRY make up their mind about what it is, rather than simply being told what it is by "the authorities".

I also know this woman was suffering and believes she has a disease, I think some element of compassion is in order in society itself, and not just a blanket denial, "shuddup and take your anti-psychotics you loony tune" kind of attitude, which seems to me be lacking humanity and understanding.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts about how to make this article more informative and balanced.

Probrooks (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Always keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out. The findings are that Morgellons is not a thing. Many self-diagnosed Morgellons patients have delusional parasitosis. Others have other skin conditions. The fibres reported are of textile or other environmental origin and are the result of scratching the lesions. And as soon as the consensus of reality-based opinion moves away from this, we will follow it. But not before. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:Biomedical information must be sourced per WP:MEDRS. That is not a "red herring", that is community WP:CONSENSUS, the bedrock of everything that happens here. Consistently ignoring community consensus is disruptive and has consequences, usually in the form of loss of editing privileges in one way or another (blocks, topic bans, etc). You will do as you will, as will the community in response. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Probrooks wrote: "This is not a fringe topic ... "; Probrooks, please read WP:FRINGE. Because there are arbitration rulings with respect to fringe topics, you should be aware of them to stay in compliance and avoid being blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, Please let me know what you believe to be the right WP:MEDRS source is for my edit! I only used an reference that was already used, as the 2nd sentence wasn't backed up with any reference. What I am saying here, is that paying attention to good writing and wording is important. I'm trying to improve this article, and I do not consider that disruptive. In future if you can help reword or spend some time collaborating with me in good faith, rather than just reverting my edits, it would be appreciated! Remember, "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia". WP:CONSENSUS

Probrooks (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:Biomedical information. Anything that falls within that, needs to be sourced from a reference that complies with WP:MEDRS - a literature review published in a good journal or a statement by a major medical/scientific body. The way to edit like a WIkipedian, is to find the best sources that comply with MEDRS, read them, and generate content based on them, keeping appropriate WP:WEIGHT in mind per WP:NPOV. You should not come in with ideas already established and try to find sources to support that - this is entirely backwards from how a Wikipedian operates. We follow the sources, not vice versa. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You're not going to find a MEDRS source that mentions chemtrails being anything. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem: [18] :-) Guy (Help!) 23:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, except that one...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Since we are addressing a question from a new editor, let me point out that a) whether chemtrials exist or not, is not WP:Biomedical information and b) even if it were, the article Guy linked to, is not a review in a good journal or a statement by a major medical/scientific body - it is not a MEDRS source. It is a primary source describing the results of a survey of experts, trying to describe the scientific consensus on whether there is a secret government spraying program - so field is sociology of science or the like - not biomedical, not MEDRS. Just to be clear, for Pobrooks. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• With respect to MEDRS, Probrooks is not a new user-- discussion and warnings on his/her talk page about MEDRS go back almost a year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually wasn't suggesting anything about chemtrails existing or not, just wondering whether this article could reflect more the content on mainstream articles which try and explain why people believe they have morgellons and what they believe it is? Is the entire article considered biomedical information? If so, then it seems it is doomed to not say very much... which means people will go and find information elsewhere, which means, is this article serving the function it should be?

"You should not come in with ideas already established and try to find sources to support that - this is entirely backwards from how a Wikipedian operates. We follow the sources, not vice versa."

I'm just been reading articles about Morgellons and understanding more about it, and thinking how the article can reflect mainstream sources which communicate about it. I am not coming in with "established ideas" here and I should have thought I had previously made that clear!

Probrooks (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome tot he post-factual world of the Internet. If you have been reading articles about morgellons, then you have almost certainly been learning less about it with each article you read - just as reading articles on the dangers of vaccination and its links with autism, or on the fraudulent nature of climate science, reading the articles has a negative impact on your knwoledge of the subject because you increase the amoutn of incorrcet information in your brain. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not Neutral? Please explain!

‎Alexbrn, can you please explain what is not neutral about my last edit?

Probrooks (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ASSERT. Don't make it look like facts are "just" (medical) opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In this case, there is an element of uncertainty, and this is an area which has a lot of mainstream bandwidth, so I cannot say how it can be called "fringe". The wording here is a very small concession to the ongoing dispute about morgellons I would have thought. There are no FACTS. There is not medical opinion, only the CDC study which is considered here and what the consensus medical opinion is, which is actually based on that.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/morgellons-skin-disease-485638.html

"And there was no evidence that infection caused the lesions or other commonly reported symptoms, like brain fog and fatigue. Politely implied by the researchers—but bluntly voiced by every outside observer—was that the only other likely cause of Morgellons was a delusional belief that manifests in self-inflicted wounds as the sufferers obsessively search for an affliction choking their body."

That's it. Do we bluntly voice? or accurately reflect the CDC findings? Or take into account articles like this which express elements of UNCERTAINTY and make clear some of the issues at hand.

Probrooks (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The use of the CDC source is currently good. There is no need to try and crowbar in "uncertainty" when there is none in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is actually a lot of uncertainty and careful wording in the CDC study. As the newsweek article points out, this is case is not closed by many people.

Probrooks (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• The Newsweek article link is dead.
• "Many people" don't count. Experts count.
• I cannot find any uncertainty in the CDC article: [19] [20] Could you please quote the sentence containing the uncertainty? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The newsweek link works for me!

From: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029908

“The fibers and materials collected from case-patients' skin were largely consistent with skin fragments or materials such as cotton and were either entrapped in purulent crust or scabs, suggesting the materials were from environmental sources (e.g., clothing) or possibly artifacts introduced at the time of specimen collection and processing.”

i.e. they were not able to ascertain what these fibres were.

“However, our focus on persons with active or recent illness likely increased our ability to detect abnormalities and recover fibers or other materials. Our cross-sectional study design and lack of a comparison group did not allow us to determine the temporal relationship between symptoms and potential exposures or co-morbidities or to assess risk factors for illness. As there is no established definition or diagnostic test for this condition, our case definition was based on self-reported symptoms and hence subject to reporting biases and potential misclassification of cases. Some case-patients did not complete all phases of the study, but those who completed all phases of the study were demographically similar to those who did not.”

“To our knowledge, this represents the most comprehensive, and the first population-based, study of persons who have symptoms consistent with the unexplained dermopathy referred to as Morgellons. We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features [26]–[31]. “

They are saying Morgellons is STILL an Unexplained Dermopathy, and they were NOT able to conclude it was a delusional infestation!

“In the absence of an established cause or treatment, patients with this unexplained dermopathy may benefit from receipt of standard therapies for co-existing medical conditions and/or those recommended for similar conditions such delusions infestation [31], [32].”

So they were not able to establish a cause and state again, it remains an unexplained dermopathy. That is an admission of great uncertainty, when they cannot even say what it is.

Probrooks (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly is the uncertainty on the CDC page? I see "Upon thorough analysis, most sores appeared to result from chronic scratching and picking, without an underlying cause. The materials and fibers obtained from skin-biopsy specimens were mostly cellulose, compatible with cotton fibers." and "This comprehensive study of an unexplained apparent dermopathy demonstrated no infectious cause and no evidence of an environmental link. There was no indication that it would be helpful to perform additional testing for infectious diseases as a potential cause. Future efforts should focus on helping patients reduce their symptoms through careful attention to treatment of co-existing medical, including psychiatric conditions, that might be contributing to their symptoms." Neither of those seem uncertain. --tronvillain (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Note it said MOST sores were from scratching and picking, what about those which were not?

"The materials and fibers obtained from skin-biopsy specimens were mostly cellulose." - again what about those which were not?

"including psychiatric conditions, that might be contributing to their symptoms." They said it MIGHT be psychiatric conditions which are contributing to this condition, but they didn't say it was "delusional paratosis" as wikipedia is presently saying.

See what I wrote above about this also, it is all softly worded and not definite in wording. All I'm saying is that the wikipedia article should be worded more softly, and not rush to conclusions.

Probrooks (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Tronvillian, the PLoS source is not used to support any biomedical information in this article. Please do not pursue this entirely WP:OFFTOPIC discussion, which has nothing to do with the actual content of this article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. --tronvillain (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Pobrooks, I am not going to respond to further comments you make here that do not engage with the MEDRS sources cited in the article or that bring other MEDRS sources. I suggest others do the same, but they will do as they will. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The CDC source is not a MEDRS source and is not supporting any biomedical information at this time. The biomedical content is currently sourced to five MEDRS sources; one of them in the lead. Pobrooks, you must engage with those five sources and you can't add biomedical content that isn't supported by those sources. This isn't optional; it is how we edit Wikipedia per V, OR, NPOV - the key content policies. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are now saying the CDC source is not MEDRS, when you have stated above you thought it was!

Where you say: "Per WP:MEDRS we base biomedical content on reviews in the biomedical literature or statements from major medical/scientific bodies (like the CDC). here is a pubmed search for reviews about Morgellons."

While the five studies you mention are paltry.

I don't MUST engage with these five sources! Obviously you have an agenda here, stating on my talk page you would even like the Morgellons page deleted and placed under delusional parasitosis. I am going to bring eyes to these disagreements and inconsistent arguments against people such as myself and Robert Walker

Probrooks (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you do have to engage them, per the NPOV policy. Not optional. We have five very strong sources - reviews published in the biomedical literature. The PLoS paper from the CDC study is not cited to support any biomedical information in the article. The five MEDRS reviews are used that way - they are what you need to engage with if you are going to contest how Morgellons is described. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't even read those articles and neither can most wikipedia users. Have you read them? How do we know they are strong? If I can't read them, how am I am supposed to generate content from them? The CDC study is the strongest source here, and it is WP:MEDRS WP:MEDORG Anyway, I'm giving this a break, there is too much personality and dispute talking here that is not focused on making a better article, maybe I'll come back to it another time.

Probrooks (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't restrict articles on Wikipedia to what readers can access on the internet; you could be better informed about the best sources for this article if you would visit a library. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I've read them. So have others. Really, as SandyGeorgia says, if you head to your local library, or even better a local university library, you'll be able to get access to them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As SandyGeorgia says, sources aren't required to be freely available online (see WP:PAYWALL and WP:RSC). --tronvillain (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick note on CDC source

this is a MEDRS source, in that it is a statement from a major medical/scientific body. We don't cite it per WP:MEDDATE; the five MEDRS sources in the article now are all much more recent. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

November 26, 2016 additions

I encourage jjreedreed to engage here and to first read the archives. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Dbrodbeck. I am new here. I am also concerned by the perceived bias in this entry that has been explained in the archives as I am now reading. For example, why was the full quote from the CDC report removed that I edited to for context? The CDC study ends with the direct quote: "We were not able to conclude, based on this study, whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional parasitosis." The current partial quote which is displayed at the top of the entry stating that the CDC concluded that the condition was "similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation" upholds only one side and is partial. --Jjreedreed (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, sites that tend to lag behind wikipedia include much more recent information from the study of Morgellons as of 2015 than is being permitted to be updated to this page (e.g., mayoclinic.org, webmd.com).--Jjreedreed (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi jj, please read WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not the CDC's [21] position. In fact it even says so at the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, thank you for linking to that exact quote (as I specified above) in the second sentence, final paragraph of the study. Oh, and for claiming on my user page that I have a conflict of interest for disagreeing with you. Nice and professional. --Jjreedreed (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not disagreeing with you that lead to the COI notice but that it appears you are writing about yourself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Where am I writing about myself? Is this a go-to accusation to silence people with legitimate questions? --Jjreedreed (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I imagine Doc James means this edit [22]. Anyway, that is not the subject of this talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the subject of this talk page because I was targeted on another WP page for a disagreement with Doc James on this page. Is that a normal and acceptable WP practice of intimidation? I was fine with the edit being reverted once I learned WP procedure, yet he colluded to wipe out a large part of the page way beyond my edit right after our disagreement here. --Jjreedreed (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you don't understand how things work here. This talk page is about improvements to this article. This is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. In the spirit of WP collaboration, can you direct me to the appropriate place to report such behavior? --Jjreedreed (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User conduct issues are dealt with at WP:ANI. Before submitting such a thing you ought to also read WP:BOOMERANG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, again. --Jjreedreed (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• read the edit. No thanks. For example, doi:10.1186/s12895-015-0023-0 is cited only twice, one of which papers says the following: "Our results prove the self-introduction under the epidermis of environmental filaments. For the first time in the literature, we have scientifically demonstrated the self-induced nature of Morgellons disease, thereby wiping out fanciful theories about its etiopathogenesis." Guy (Help!) 23:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I now understand the criteria of secondary sources for WP medical/health pages. These two other papers you mention fall outside of this criteria as well. I have obtained and will review the five secondary sources on which much of this page is reportedly based. --Jjreedreed (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The CDC study [23] used in the entry ends with the direct quote (final paragraph, second sentence): "We were not able to conclude, based on this study, whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional parasitosis." Why was this edit removed? The current partial quote which is displayed near the top of the entry stating that the CDC concluded that the condition was "similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation" leaves out the context. --Jjreedreed (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

The "medical description" section is very sparse. I wish to add two sentences: Morgellon's makes sufferers believe that they've been bit or stung and have parasites all over their body. This leads to those affected scratching at their skin, making large bruises and sores. It's been nicknamed Morgellon's disease, my apologies. http://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/art-20044996 Sjmtz (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done That edit would suggest that something called "Morgellon's disease" actually exists. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

agreed. for the OP, the content you want is at the wikilinked article delusional parasitosis Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Images of disease

Hi,

I apologize for my inability to upload images, but I noticed there was a request. The paper referenced below has representative images of the condition in figure 4. It is a PLoS One paper, so I think it is free/fair use?

Lopez, Ph.D.

73.252.226.136 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is from a paper written by propagandists, so we don't need it, thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

New URL for the Pittsburg Post-Gazette article

Reference 2, ‘Mom fights for answers on what's wrong with her son’ has moved to this URL: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2006/07/23/Mom-fights-for-answers-on-what-s-wrong-with-her-son/stories/200607230221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.117.43 (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently that link has been dead since 2011, but it's fixed now. --tronvillain (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

neuropsychiatric diagnosis has been shown to be false - borrelial dermatitis appears to be the culprit

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia contributing, but this article appears to be out of date and could be steering people in the wrong direction and causing harm.

The paper referenced below gives a description of the microbial origin of the disease and explains psychiatric conditions as a symptom, rather than a root cause.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/

Int J Gen Med. 2016; 9: 349–354.

Published online 2016 Oct 14. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S116608

Morgellons disease: a filamentous borrelial dermatitis

Abstract

Morgellons disease (MD) is a dermopathy characterized by multicolored filaments that lie under, are embedded in, or project from skin. Although MD was initially considered to be a delusional disorder, recent studies have demonstrated that the dermopathy is associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are composed of keratin and collagen, and that they result from proliferation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in epithelial tissue. Culture, histopathological and molecular evidence of spirochetal infection associated with MD has been presented in several published studies using a variety of techniques. Spirochetes genetically identified as Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto predominate as the infective agent in most of the Morgellons skin specimens studied so far. Other species of Borrelia including Borrelia garinii, Borrelia miyamotoi, and Borrelia hermsii have also been detected in skin specimens taken from MD patients. The optimal treatment for MD remains to be determined.

Thanks, Lopez, Ph.D.

73.252.226.136 (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The "cited by section" of the original Morgellons paper that indicated mental disorders has a few more interesting papers suggesting borrelia/spirochets as the microbial culprist. Here's a link to those papers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266263/citedby/

Lopez, Ph.D.

73.252.226.136 (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This looks like the first paper to start to shift the idea about morgellons from mental issue to somatic disease:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328066/

Maybe a sub-section in the wikipedia article about the evolution of scientific/medical thinking on the subject?

Lopez

73.252.226.136 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Author affiliation: International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, Bethesda, MD, USA. Nope. ILADS are "chronic Lyme" cranks - *everything* is Lyme to them. They are not in the least bit reliable. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a review, and a recent one, so that nominally makes it a MEDRS source. However, what Guy notes above is important (no COI but obviously/blatant scientific partisan author and funding) and it makes an extraordinary claim, and extraordinarily strong sources are needed to support such a claim. Along with the author and funding, the journal and publisher are dicey; the journalpublisher was on Beall's list for a while and subsequently removed (as discussed in this NYT article), and the journal has a history of publishing dicey papers. (see here for example). I don't think we should use this source at all; if we do use it to support some content it must be attributed. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC) corrected via redaction Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I should add, that primary sources by Middelveen, the first listed author here, were subject of extensive discussion in the past, at Talk:Morgellons/Archive_13#NPOV_dispute. The "review" bar that was not met before, has been met. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's almost as if they are writing to try to get their crap on Wikipedia, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 18:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please keep a neutral tone Guy or people will doubt your veracity.-revscrj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revscrj (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the journal is not MEDLINE indexed: [24]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! Yes that is a reason to exclude per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

New large scale study finds with out doubt MD real

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328066/

They mention CDC study and the short sighted analysis method were destined to fail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9099:5900:BDFC:8C0E:DC39:41A0 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. it is not a new study. It was published more than 2 years ago. It was also already discussed. Please see this section on the archive. --McSly (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I see, there didn't seem to be any basis given as to why the information should be ignored and blackballed from the article There is just a conversion that underlines some pretty profound confirmation bias. The absence from the Medline database is a valid criticism, but by no means disqualifies the review. The article should be cited as a competent review in the ongoing discussion about morgellons in the medical community The points made as to why the CDC study was unsuccessful in its findings is tremendously compelling

Didn't seem to be? Why don't you read both archived threads? The other is here.

We need good secondary sources, not this primary one. The primary source is obviously so dubious that is has not had any influence on the discussion within science in two years. So, yes, the basis for excluding it has been there from the beginning, and it has not weakened since. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Morgellons fibres

I have worked professionally as a Dye Technician & Colourist for over 20 years here in Australia. I know textile fibres better than most and more than the person who has made the original post regarding Morgellons. I have Morgellons, they are a protein fibre, not a cellulose fibre. They are formed inside the epridermis and tear and rip the tissue as the fibres progress through the tissue. They are not delusional and is a real, but vary rare, Epidermal fibrosis generally with co-infections. I am being seen by professionals at a research Hospital here in Australia and my condition will be proofed without any doubt. The person who keeps changing the original post here on Wiki will find his reputation will be revealed as a fool as he obviously has no real knowledge on the subject. For the proper information regarding Morgellons Disease please visit.... or www.omicsonline.org/morgellons-disease-a-chemical-and-light-microscopic-study-2155-9554.1000140.php?aid=5477 which identifies the fibres as keratin and describes the cause as a borrelia infection49.197.195.227 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)49.197.195.227 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please disregard the post of Morgellons being delusional and the fibres as being of textile origin, The Charles E. Holman Foundation have already proven they are not textile in origin but a definite epidermal fibrosis. -- Rodney K. Burgess~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodroger (talk • contribs) 07:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ; edited 00:34, 3 May 2017‎ (UTC)

How about you please read WP:OR and WP:NPA? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, note I made reference to the Charles E. Holman Foundation and not to my own work,... ~~Rodney K. Burgess~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodroger (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

The Charles E. Holman Foundation solicits donations from people suffering from delusional parasitosis, and in effect exists due to these donations. Such a practice is borderline unethical, and any advertisement for it here should be met with such a reminder. 134.21.35.50 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@49.197.195.227: If the cause is a bacterial infection, it clearly is not morgellons... —PaleoNeonate - 05:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

OMICS Publishing Group publications are emphatically not reliable sources, let alone suitable for sourcing medical content. And 49.197.195.227, please don't edit other people's remarks to add your own links. Just create a separate comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

2016 review

....*Morgellons disease causation has been identified..... Morgellons disease (MD) is a dermopathy characterized by multicolored filaments that lie under, are embedded in, or project from skin. Although MD was initially considered to be a delusional disorder, recent studies have demonstrated that the dermopathy is associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are composed of keratin and collagen, and that they result from proliferation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in epithelial tissue. Culture, histopathological and molecular evidence of spirochetal infection associated with MD has been presented in several published studies using a variety of techniques. Spirochetes genetically identified as Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto predominate as the infective agent in most of the Morgellons skin specimens studied so far.

Source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/ Steve Knows (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Not a clear request. Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Middelveen has been producing primary sources for a while now on this Borrelia hypothesis that were cited by RobertInventor a year ago or so. She has now published a review, published in the biomedical literature, in a journal that is not high quality but is not predatory. So what shall we do with this ref? Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A review consisting almost entirely of their own research? It's not clear how gathering it all into a pile makes it more credible. Even then, they acknowledge "The diagnosis of LD is controversial, and research showing a connection between MD and LD has been challenged. A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that MD was not caused by a pathogen." --tronvillain (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Dove Medical Press doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation, and Int J Gen Med is not MEDLINE indexed. Wikipedia is not obliged to blog about Middelveen and Stricker's weak-sauce publications in order to satisfy a fringe desire for (false) balance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The not-MEDLINE-indexed point is good one. Here is the indexing. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

New and old references

Please note that the references below have more information on a multiple patient study and the findings are confirming that it is a real disease of significant relationship with Lyme Disease.

https://www.omicsonline.org/morgellons-disease-a-chemical-and-light-microscopic-study-2155-9554.1000140.php?aid=5477

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047951/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.176.50 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The first ref is the classic predatory publisher and we will not cite that. The second is a primary source and not OK per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh look; Dove Medical Press again. Another not-MEDLINE-indexed journal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Middelveen 2016 review redux

This paper from the International Journal of General Medicine ought not be ignored:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/

In the name of scientific integrity, I think it is poor practice to brush people off with arguments attacking the integrity of their sources. When a climate change denialist presents me with Lord Monckton videos, I do not respond with "Oh yeah he's a known liar", even if it is true! I respond by pointing out the flaws in his arguments.

Not to mention - On almost every other Wikipedia article, very poor quality citations are routinely accepted. News websites are but one example. The arguments contained within these papers ought to be criticized, if criticisms are valid, and that ought to be done publicly. If your arguments are as reasonable as you seem to believe, then put them forward for all to see, along with claims to the contrary. You surely should not be able to respond to articles from the published literature simply with "oh look, Dove Medical Press again!", especially if the intention is to then block these publications from appearing on the Wiki article. This is really poor, in my view. If the journal mentioned above is good enough to be indexed by PubMed, Scopus, which are used routinely by academics throughout the world.

Also it might pay to fact check your claims before making them, particularly when they are accusatory in nature and make serious allegations like those made above. Dove was removed from Beall's list of predatory publishers several years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html

Who exactly has been granted the role of gatekeeper over this article? I implore you to act in a more responsible manner than it appears is the case from this talk article. Freedom of speech, and transparency, is important in academia...Let the arguments see the light of day, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.169.226 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, regarding Dove and the statements made above:

"After satisfying The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association Membership Committee that new editorial and peer review procedures were in place to address the concerns raised during its investigation, Dove Medical Press was reinstated as a full member of Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association in September 2015.[16]"

Really not liking the way this page is being run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.169.226 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

see Talk:Morgellons/Archive_13#2016_review Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It's quite offensive that the claim is made "to satisfy a fringe desire for (false) balance". This is obviously a strawman...Do I really need to respond to that with my credentials, back it up with whether I happen to accept any other known conspiracy theories, etc. etc.? I can't even respond to the points being made on that page, it does not allow me to edit!

What I will say is that, if the arguments presented on that page are valid justification, then present the publication with those counter arguments along side. All you're achieving here, whether you are right or wrong, is to jeopardize Wikipedia's credibility & give potential quacks another source with which to attack your arguments. I.e. you are censoring publications from journals that are not predatory. It simply isn't good enough to make hand wave statements like "their reputation isn't stirling". It looks bad, it feels bad, and if the counter arguments are that good then let the argument see the light of day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.171.136 (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, for what it's worth, i) sorry for being an asshole. and ii) having read your comments on that page I am becoming more convinced that you are right, as far as conclusions about the disease go. But not only do I still feel, for reasons mention above, that the article and counterarguments ought to see the light of day, I also feel the fact that your counterarguments are reasonably compelling ought to constitute even more reason for letting this discussion get aired. Alternatively people like myself will read the 2016 review mentioned, look to see what Wikipedia has to say on it, find that it hasn't been mentioned anywhere, open the talk page and see that it's presentation is being blocked for fairly (IMO) poor reasons, and start to wonder what is going on. As I said I can't see how this is a good look, let alone constructive for anyone.

Also BTW - I have just read the guidelines around biomedic citations on wiki. Apologies if I misunderstood, but regarding articles not being MEDLINE indexed. It states that this *may* be an indication that the citation is not suitable. It doesn't say absence of MEDLINE indexing disqualifies a citation, in and of itself. I am struggling to find the original talk page, but I got the impression that the argument had been made that lack of MEDLINE indexing disqualified this citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.171.136 (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that "A review consisting almost entirely of their own research? It's not clear how gathering it all into a pile makes it more credible." is demonstrably false. Yes they have cited their own research, but there are more than enough MEDLINE indexed papers cited as well that this comment can't be justified, IMO. Does that not suggest that there is some form of bias active, on that side of the argument? Someone has convinced themselves of the above statement, but I could go through and list all of the citations in the paper that aren't their own work, let alone that are MEDLINE indexed themselves. I hope that great care is being taken by all involved to ensure human biases aren't having too significant an impact on this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.171.136 (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you can't see the importance of having some independent set of scientists write the review of work coming from one lab, there is no helping you. Of course a review of work from a lab, written by that lab is of dubious value. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia and not a research journal or directory (WP:NOT), should reflect the mainstream consensus, not fringe views (WP:FRINGE). Even in the case of real research (if that is the case), the information should have been peer reviewed and discussed enough by reliable independent sources (notable enough, see WP:WEIGHT) to be part of the encyclopedia. In the case of medical topics, the sourcing requirements are more strict (WP:MEDRS). The "gate keepers" are the volunteer editing community who care about appropriate representation and understand the importance of the policies. My advice to researchers would be to not use "morgellons" if attempting to describe a physical condition, in order to avoid confusion between psychiatric disorders and ailments which are unrelated (or may be side effects of self-inflicted damage from delusional parasitosis). WP:COI and confirmation bias may be good reasons supporting what Jytdog said about the importance of independent review. This is also a consideration in WP:RS and WP:IS for Wikipedia inclusion. —PaleoNeonate – 07:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the paper certainly contains other citations, but you kind of have to read the article and see what they're being used in support of. The actual Morgellons related claims are still from the same small group, usually including Middelveen or Stricker themselves. --tronvillain (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Revision to previsous edit of article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article include sources other than CDC's 2012, and not represent it as fact in the introduction of the article Cameronbrooks (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion of more than one consensis of more than one peer-reviewed articles on the topic.
• Oppose, Support the 2012 CDC study as fact. Cameronbrooks

Threaded discussion

• This isn't a properly worded RfC. All of your edits have either failed MEDRS, been unrelated to the subject, or been original research. --tronvillain (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support

There is blatant guarding.

Issues: WP:ASSERT

There are many reports on the topic of the skin disorder, the majority of which do not reach this consensus. The CDC report is widely accepted as controversial, while its study is 100% legitimate, including ""The sores are the result of compulsive scratching, and the fibers, when analyzed, turn out to originate from textiles." violated WP:ASSERT - Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

The introduction of the article violated WP:ASSERT again by Indicate the relative prominence of opposing view

The first paragraph clearly fails to meet a NPOV.

Issue: Source Bias

The, now 5-year study from the CDC is given disproportionate importance compared to any other number of other peer-reviewed studies. There is a clear Bias in sources dictated by the moderation of this article

Suggestion:

The clear guarding and bias in the introduction of the article are scientifically offensive. I propose including the suggested conclusions from more than just the CDC study. The CDC study is unique in that it is not mirrored by other worldwide studies and it by no means claims to definitely prove their findings. It is their hypothesis and finding of one study. This study should not be given priority as if it were fact. This violates the Wikipedia neutrality guidelines.

Concerns: A look at the edit history of this page shows that there is blatant guarding of this bias, and views should take note in their consideration.

I propose to revert to my previous post

Cameronbrooks (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• This RfC is malformed. If you have complaints about behaviour they need to be taken to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but if you have a position, please support or oppose this editCameronbrooks (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Na, not going to comment on this. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Further sources on the topic

https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/diagnosticprocedures/other/leish.html

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19912078894

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0843-3

https://web.stanford.edu/class/humbio103/ParaSites2006/Leishmaniasis/Index.htm

Cameronbrooks (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• RFC is malformed and therefore not much more to say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible misdiagnosis of Leishmania amazonensis

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076380

http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/9/150118

symptom description are identical --Cameronbrooks (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's WP:OR . Natureium (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We need secondary sources for health content like this. See WP:MEDRS. Then sources also need to be about the topic in question. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Neither here nor in the now-closed RfC thread immediately below have you offered any source, reliable or otherwise, that draws the link that you would like to present. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research—one cannot use a Wikipedia article to announce and publicize a novel theory. You need to find a reliable source (see our guidelines at WP:MEDRS to get an idea of what might be appropriate) that directly and explicitly makes the connection for you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Paper

Although MD was initially considered to be a delusional disorder, recent studies have demonstrated that the dermopathy is associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are composed of keratin and collagen, and that they result from proliferation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in epithelial tissue. Culture, histopathological and molecular evidence of spirochetal infection associated with MD has been presented in several published studies using a variety of techniques. Spirochetes genetically identified as Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto predominate as the infective agent in most of the Morgellons skin specimens studied so far. Other species of Borrelia including Borrelia garinii, Borrelia miyamotoi, and Borrelia hermsii have also been detected in skin specimens taken from MD patients. The optimal treatment for MD remains to be determined.

---

Conclusion

In summary, MD is an emerging dermopathy that is associated with Borrelia infection, and the growing number of MD cases reflects the increase in tickborne diseases around the world. Although some medical practitioners erroneously consider MD to be caused by a delusional disorder, studies have shown that MD is a somatic illness that appears to be triggered by Borrelia infection. The optimal treatment for MD remains to be determined.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/

   Journal ListInt J Gen Medv.9; 2016PMC5072536

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rraldous (talk • contribs) 07:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

References

This study has already been discussed many times. Please review this talk pages archives, which are linked above. The extraordinary claims being presented, and the generally poor reputation of International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, significantly limit the utility of this source for improving this article. Grayfell (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not related to the NIH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the reputation of the ILADS- is this denouncement based on the 2004 article in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal? If so I would suggest that one look into the basis of the accusations which regarded the false negative and false positive percentages for standard Lymes testing as well as incorrect information on their website. If this is all that the "questionable reputation" is based on then what is pointed at as questionable is at worst their web designer. Revscrj (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Connection between Morgellons and Lyme disease

Recent studies have confirmed that the disease is a specific skin infection. The filaments, that have been found in the skin of patients, are composed of keratin and collagen. The bacteria responsible for lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, predominates as the infective agent in most of the Morgellons skin specimens studied so far. Morgellons disease: a filamentous borrelial dermatitis.

• Please see the section immediately above this one, where the exact same link was discussed. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(now at Talk:Morgellons/Archive_13#Paper). —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits today

User:Jacobwsl about:

• this and
• this,

Please do read WP:MEDRS. The refs you are bringing are not OK.

There is a recent ref we have not cited that is OK per MEDRS, namely PMID 27282746, which basically confirms what the article says now.. Jytdog (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits are generally hanging on the Middelveen ref (PMID 27789971), which we have discussed to death on this talk page. Please do see the last archive. Jytdog (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Truly sad to see what Wikipedia has become. A platform for advocates like yourself to guard which sources are allowed and declare yourselves the arbiters of the soundness of peer-reviewed research. This is an unbalanced article and by any standard should at least reference the vast research linking Morgellons and similar skin conditions to Borrelia. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• diff, now another, and no discussion here yet.. Jytdog (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I was about to make the same edit and edsum regarding WP:BRD but Jytdog beat me to it. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you two "dogs" make a good tag-team. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad that you have found the talk page. Please do review the archived discussion of the Middelveen 2016 review, which is the nearest-to-MEDRS ref you have brought. and please do make sure that you sign your posts. thx Jytdog (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that is the farthest from MEDRS source I added--you betray the fact that you did not review the others.Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, very old primary sources like PMID 8491994 are much farther. Gah. Jytdog (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

1) 1994 is hardly considered "very old" in terms of medical research. 2) you selected the oldest paper I linked to associating itchy skin lesions with Borrelia: I linked to 9 more that together comprise more than two decades of peer-reviewed research, as recently as 2016. None of the researchers who published any of these papers are associated with the "Morgellons Research Institute" or the "Holman Foundation." This substantiates the existing peer reviewed research that implicates Borrelia in what afflicted individuals are calling "Morgellons." Borreliosis causes neurological and psychological pathologies, which could explain some of the strange conspiracy theories and obsessive behavior of sufferers (as several of the research papers connecting Morgellons to Borrelia, rejected here for being tied to the aforementioned foundations, note). And Moreover there are dozens more reliable, peer-reviewed studies linking chronic inflammatory dermopathies to Borrelia. I will be happy to compile them all here if you would like, but it will take a little time to put it together. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's called a watchlist. an editor with your time served ought to know how to sign posts. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

POV Tag

A select few editors are arbitrarily choosing research citations to be considered MDERS. At the very least, research going against the CDC finding and the lack of consensus on the issue (which Mayo Clinic and other MDERS sources note) should be honestly acknowledged. We need a wider discussion here. I think Mayo Clinic information pages are MDERS, as are a collection of more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies which come to the same conclusion. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope we have discussed Mayo as potential MEDRS and it is not. Please see the the talk page history of MEDRS (you can search for "mayo" there). Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

btw if you are unaware, MEDRS has broad and deep consensus. It was created by the community to deal with truly insane stuff going on at the Autism articles many years ago (desperate parents grasping at bad refs about diagnosis and "cures"; people shilling stuff, etc. A situation not unsimilar to Morgellons). It is exactly on pages like this that we hold to it, as we do everywhere, consisently. Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

... and I removed the tag because, frankly, there is no problem in regard to meeting a neutral pov as defined by our policy. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Collection of more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies which come to the same conclusion I suggest to post those sources here (on this talk page) for evaluation. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You're reading something into that Mayo pamphlet that really isn't there. It's a public-facing web page with patient-appropriate content and writing, on a website seeking to recruit patients to the Clinic. They're good doctors who know that patients will ignore health professionals who start off with "You're wrong". As an encyclopedia, we're not burdened by quite the same challenge. Even then, look at what guidance Mayo offers to patients (my comments in italic):

---

The signs and symptoms linked to Morgellons disease can be distressing. Even though health professionals may disagree about the nature of the condition, you deserve compassionate treatment. To manage your signs and symptoms:

• Establish a caring health care team. Find a doctor who acknowledges your concerns, does a thorough examination and talks through treatment options with you.

That's "acknowledges", not agrees with. Only crappy doctors don't acknowledge their patients' concerns, however wrongheaded.

• Be patient. Your doctor will likely look for known conditions that point to evidence-based treatments before considering a diagnosis of Morgellons disease.

That's about explicit as you can get without slapping the reader with a wet dishcloth—unlike other diagnoses and treatments, neither the diagnosis nor the treatment of "Morgellons" is evidence-based.

• Keep an open mind. Consider various causes for your signs and symptoms and discuss your doctor's recommendations for treatment — which may include long-term mental health therapy.

The best studies we have tell us that most people who self-diagnose with Morgellons actually improve with appropriate mental health care.

• Seek treatment for other conditions. Get treatment for anxiety, depression or any other condition that affects your thinking, moods or behavior.

No really; we mean it. Mental health problems are real health problems that need real treatment—but they're not Morgellons.

---

Compare and contrast with, say, lichen planus. (That's a dermopathy that I had never heard of until Jacobwsl/Martin Friedrichsen linked it in his edit to this article's lede. It's of unknown etiology.) The corresponding Mayo page on lichen planus offers up three specific diagnostic tests, and describes at least five specific medical therapies, plus some potential home remedies for relief of symptoms. That's what a Mayo page looks like when the Mayo writers believe they're dealing with a real disease instead of an internet-acquired syndrome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You are literally reading into the Mayo page (your comments in italic), whereas I was sticking to what they state explicitly: that there is not a scientific consensus on whether Morgellons is a form of delusional parisitosis, or a distinct dermopathy. The research implicating Borrelia is plausible precisely because of the vast amount of research linking lichen planus and lichen sclerosus (two idiopathic conditions that are symptomatically nearly identical to "Morgellons") to Borrelia infection of the epidermis. Obviously, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. But research going against the CDC findings, as well as criticisms of the CDC study from within the scientific community, should at the very least be mentioned, even if they are qualified under a separate heading and with appropriate responses. After all, many many WP pages have sections labeled "Research" which address novel research, clinical trials, potential causes/effects, etc. and do not cite meta-analyses/reviews/textbooks etc., but rather cite just one or two peer reviewed studies (look at literally any WP page on a pharmaceutical compound or potential pharmaceutical compound). This is why this page does not meet NPOV. It seeks to hide information from readers and misrepresent the current situation re: "Morgellons." There is a debate within the scientific and medical community and this WP page deliberately hides this, because it is written from the emotional/advocacy position of someone intent on debunking pseudoscience/conspiracy theories. Obviously, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory has been an issue with this page, and among people who self-diagnose with Morgellons but that does not mean we should hide relevant peer-reviewed research and scientific debate for WP readers, even if it is coming from what is currently a minority position in the medical community. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

There's what we call WP:FALSEBALANCE which is to be avoided (representing each side as opinions or suggesting that new research is leaning towards diagnosing Morgellons as something else than delusional parasitosis, etc, could lead to such false balance). emotional/advocacy position of someone intent on debunking pseudoscience/conspiracy theories there's nothing emotional there, we also have WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE... —PaleoNeonate – 12:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I said that this contradictory research should be MENTIONED, not that it should be framed as an equally plausible or equally accepted hypothesis: please re-read what I wrote. WP:FRINGE is about not giving undue weight to minority scientific views. This does NOT mean pretending they don't exist, which is an issue of false balance in itself (creating a false picture of consensus). There is no longer a clear consensus re: Morgellons, however the majority opinion remains that it is DP. Again, reread what I wrote. We should mention the research about Borrelia in the context of it being a minority scientific viewpoint. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The existence of disagreement from fringe researchers does not mean there is no longer a clear consensus.--tronvillain (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that makes peer-reviewed research published in a major journal "fringe," in your eyes, is that it is going against the CDC findings and existing consensus. As I wrote previously: my contention is that this contradictory research should be MENTIONED, not it should be framed as an equally plausible or equally accepted hypothesis. WP:FRINGE is about not giving undue weight to minority scientific views. This does NOT mean pretending they don't exist, which itself is a form of false balance. We should mention the legitimate research about Borrelia in the context of it being a minority scientific viewpoint and the subject of continuing research. In reviewing the talk page archives, it is clear that many other WP editors share my judgement on this matter. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the "major journal" publication that you're referring to? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Guardian Article

User:Black Kite, please do not revert a good edit without basis, see WP revert policy. Make edits that are limited in scope, do not mass revert a contribution that adds useful and relevant information to the article. Don't engage in contentious edit-warring behavior. If you want to discuss the Guardian article and Oaklander's comments further, here is the place to do it. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The quote is misleading when pulled out and dropped in our article. I have removed it, and you need to discuss it and seek consensus before you add it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the burden was on the reverter/editor who removes information to seek consensus if there is a dispute? In any case, there is absolutely no reason not to include this Guardian article and the comments of a Harvard Medical School professor stating that Morgellons is a neurological itch disorder (not DOP). Refusing to allow this source betrays the deep bias of the few WP editors active here and skews the article's POV. One cannot pick and choose which newspaper sources you allow in this article purely to support your notion (and/or the general consensus) of what Morgellons is. This causes false balance in the WP article. This article includes newspaper articles referring to fringe theories that Morgellons is linked to UFOs, biowarfare, and chemtrails, all of which are far more "fringe" than Oakland's statements--the views of an established medical expert--who is stating that Morgellons is a neurological (not psychiatric) disorder. Frankly, this is egregious. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong. You can't pick and choose quotes from an article to suit your POV. It's made quite clear in the article that Oaklander does not believe Morgellon's to be anything other than self-inflicted and to cherry-pick those quotes is basically misleading Wikipedia's readers as to the article's overall commentary. Either include both sets of quotes or none - anything else is synthesis and disallowed here. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You're also wrong about the burden. WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. You insert something contentious, if it's reverted, you discuss. Incidentally, I have reported you to WP:AN3 now because your editing is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, I will look back at the Guardian article and pull quotes that are more reflective of the overall commentary. But I will correct you that, while Oaklander does believe the wounds are self-inflicted, she does not believe the condition is (nor do the medical professionals who think it is DOP). Rather, she believes those afflicted are driven to self-inflict wounds based on a neurological problem rather than a purely psychiatric one (re-read the article). On a separate note, I would remind you to assume my good faith. My only interest is in improving WP, and my interest in this page stems from my interest in idiopathic medical conditions. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a suggestion, not a policy. I engaged with BRR, an alternative way to reach consensus, as I genuinely felt your revert was in error. Reporting me for edit-warring after a 2 reverts (you also made 2 reverts) seems necessarily contentious and certainly shows you don't assume I am editing in good faith.Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's an explanation guideline for WP:CONSENSUS which is policy. —PaleoNeonate – 19:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I reported you to AN3 not because you reverted me twice, but because this was there was a pattern of reverting a number of editors over the last 3-4 days. Unfortunately you simply can't keep editing against consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

Nitajain (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not done. No suggested edit. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018

I wouldn't change anything but I would add: The other common denominator in this disorder is very often methamphetamine use. Methamphetamine is known to cause formication (sensation of something crawling on the skin)in a small subset of users. This causes the subject to scratch and "skin pick" which is the original source of the sores. Over time they then start to find microscopic fibers in the wounds, usually from their clothes and if their investigation leads them to expose subdermal layers they can interpret their own tissues as worms or other parasites. Emergency Physicians see this phenomenon on a regular basis and will confirm it with a drug screen and lack of occurrence of sores where the patient can't reach (i.e. between the shoulder blades). Because formication and other delusions are more frequent during withdrawal, and because amphetamines are not the ONLY cause of delusional thought the drug screen isn't always positive. Formication is not itself a delusion but a real sensation reported by amphetamine users, in alcohol withdrawal and occasionally psychotic disorders. The central nervous system, bone and skin arise from the same embryonic layer and are the three systems affected by methamphetamine. Daniel Ziegler, M.D. Emergency Physician Ziphler (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC) ziphler 16:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Ziphler (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion but Wikipedia content is built from reliable sources. For content about health, "reliable sources" are defined in WP:MEDRS - basically, recent reviews in good quality journals or statements by major medical/health bodies. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Ziegler, thanks for catching this. I'm surprised it's missing, and it needs to be added. Please try to find some RS which mention this connection. BTW, I added your missing sig. The one there was no good. It didn't link to your talk page. Just use four tildes and automation will place a properly formed signature and time stamp. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It could be added if there were MEDRS sources for it. I check pretty regularly on this topic, and I am not aware of any. I just checked again and there are no refs at all in pubmed). Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18467002 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That would support cocaine abuse as a cause at the related delusional parasitosis page. Will add there. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew I was in trouble as soon as I started writing. Emergency Medicine is very much a clinical specialty and there is a subgroup of common presentations that aren't true emergencies so get no research attention from our membership but we still have to deal with them and this one happens at least a few times/month. Determining that sores are likely excoriations by looking where they are not is a basic physical exam technique and can be found in physical exam texts and probably dermatology texts. Amphetamine induced psychosis and its propensity to evoke formication is in the pharmacology literature. My 1st degree was in pharmacology and I remember reading about it in Goodman and Gilman albeit a million years ago. That somebody has decided to suddenly give it a person's name and call it a rare disease is typical of the modern era and it would seem in this case someone has pulled an end-run on your WP:MEDRS by even getting "Morgellons" listed. The wiki article spells it right out. There is no scientific basis and the name was not even from a doctor but from "a mother who rejected the medical diagnosis" Of course if its out there in the popular rhetoric it needs to be addressed but it reminds me of a story my histology teacher told us about an international meeting of anatomists, pathologists, and histologists that took place in the 70's at which they adopted modern day nomenclature under threat from the russians that if there was one more structure, characteristic, or disease given a persons name they would retaliate by naming everything they could after russians. I'll see what I can dig up and will behave myself henceforth. BTW I did put four tildas for a sig and then went back to correct a word and signed it that way again but I also put my name. 10:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler (talk • contribs)

"Informal name"

Using the informal name text in the first sentence violates WP:NOTDIC. I understand the need to ensure the reader knows it is a delusional disease, but the first sentence says that it is 'self diagnosed' and the 2nd sentence explicitly states that medical community thinks it is a delusion. Furthermore, say it is an 'informal name' in no way makes it clear that the medical community thinks it is a delusion. Fairies are also fictious but that article manages to talk about them without saying that it is an informal name. Ashmoo (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I got a question. If Morgellons is the informal name, then what's the formal version? LookWhosBack (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no formal name for the invented condition other than delusional parasitosis. What else would you like to name the article? The form of delusional parasitosis wherein people believe textiles emerge from their epidermis? Natureium (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

The entire article needs to be updated. Morgellons is no longer considered a "form of delusional parasitosis". It is now considered "a skin condition characterized by the presence of multicolored filaments that lie under, are embedded in, or project from skin." Please see newer sources, below.

Sources: 1. History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition Marianne Middelveen, Melissa C Fesler, and Raphael B Stricker https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/

2. Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease Marianne J Middelveen, Peter J Mayne, Douglas G Kahn, and Raphael B Stricker https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3544355/ Cnadel (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done. Please search this talk page and its archives for "Middelveen". Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Concur with Jytdog; low-impact journal, both articles written by Middelveen.[25] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2018

Change: "Morgellons is the informal name of a self-diagnosed, unconfirmed skin condition in which individuals have sores that they believe contain some kind of fibers.Morgellons is poorly characterized but the general medical consensus is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis; the sores are the result of compulsive scratching, and the fibers, when analysed, turn out to originate from textiles."

to:

"Morgellons disease (MD) is a dermopathy characterized by multicolored filaments that lie under, are embedded in, or project from skin. Although MD was initially considered to be a delusional disorder, recent studies have demonstrated that the dermopathy is associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are composed of keratin and collagen, and that they result from proliferation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in epithelial tissue."

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/ Dawaozer (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This source has already been discussed several times. Please search the talk page and its archives for "middelveen" for more info. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Previously discussed and rejected. A collation of one's own works isn't a proper secondary source. Int J Gen Med is a Dove Press journal and is not MEDLINE indexed. A poor source in a number of other ways as well, but the listed ones more than suffice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Not up to date

Article isn't up-to-date, there are multiple peer-reviewed articles linking MD to Borrelia infection, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ --Kraligor (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read before posting. Middelveen and Dove Press were just discussed, in the section directly above this one. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"That"

Recent changes have been made to remove a, uh, "relative pronoun." Anyway, it is the word "that." Well, I restored it the old way because the sketchier way was just too, mmm, sketchy. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, better in than out. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Patients' Point of View

I am an associate professor of composition and rhetoric. I teach my students the importance of academic responsibility in identifying reputable sources (and how to use Wikipedia in identifying them). I also teach them to be skeptical of the establishment's monopoly on knowledge, and to consider alternative viewpoints. I am also the spouse of a patient who has suffered from Morgellon's Disease for seven years. Therefore I implore you to consider the consistently dismissed request to provide alternative viewpoints in this article. The best of these is History of Morgellon's Disease: from delusion to definition, published by Middelveen, Fessler, and Strickler, who conclude their article thusly:

"The history of MD has taught us that scientific evidence must be carefully considered before a disease is written off as a purely psychiatric disorder. Delusional disorder is a diagnosis of exclusion that requires clinical judgment, and all underlying causes for delusional symptoms need to be ruled out before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Medical practitioners continue to consider MD a delusional disorder, although studies have shown that MD is strongly associated with spirochetal infection. According to the best-available scientific evidence, MD should be considered a dermopathy associated with tick-borne disease. Further study of the genetics, pathogenesis, and treatment of MD is warranted."

Because this disease is so contested, I propose that rather than editing each section, a section at the end of the article be added with a heading such as "Patients' Point of View," with a summary of and links to this study and others. I would be happy to provide it. Surely those of us who value knowledge understand the value in knowledge presented by patients themselves. Thank you for considering.

Eleanorofithaca (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

We've discussed Middelveen here several times. Please see above and the archives of this page (the archives are accessible in the mustard-colored box at the top of this page) Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)