Talk:Morgellons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morgellons article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Rational Skepticism      (Rated Start-Class) This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. WikiProject Medicine (Rated start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. Start This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Archives
Archive 1 (prior to March 2007) Archive 2 (March through June 2007) Archive 3 (July 2007) August 2007 sandbox version August 2007 sandbox discussion Archive 5 (August 2007—

Contents 1 CDC Section 1.1 Here we go again 2 Treatment section 3 Proposal to revise introduction and history sections 4 Proposal to remove "In the news" and "videos" 5 Request for revision of lead to include "name given...." 6 Fix reference 7 Edit requests 8 Symptoms and Causes ready to go live? 9 Proposal to remove the disputed and current event tags 10 treatment 11 CDC Updates 12 page protection for ever?:) 13 Treatment section 14 Bacterial hypothesis 15 treatment section 16 Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome 17 Morgellons wikipedia page is hate speech against disease sufferers. 18 Morgellons wikipedia page is hate speech against disease sufferers. 19 Morgellons Comes with Nanoprobes and Arrays 20 Lead 21 why are you people even discussing "the lead" as if you're going to accidentally expose a hideous truth 22 Treatment section discussion 22.1 Section break 23 NPOV treatment section 24 user:Thatcher131 deleted this, claiming "advocacy"... how much harder can you keep your heads in the sand?? 25 treatment of DP 26 treatment 27 History section biased 28 Dramatic changes to MRF case definition 29 Morgellons ~ Agrobacterium ~ Monsanto Patents 30 Possible sources of the Morgellon 31 Nanobot infection 32 revision [92] 33 treatment for infectious disease 34 Is this new external link to Randy Wymore's project acceptable? 35 New Scientist Article 36 Onchocerciasis: Diagnosis and Treatment 37 Sections 38 Nielsp (t) 39 discussion of edit [citation needed] [103] 40 Post Oct. 30. 2007 41 Removal of link to www.morgellonswatch.com? 42 Removed Template:press mention of the New Scientist article 43 Blocked/banned editors 44 Protected edit request 45 morgellonswatch.com 46 Noticed error in last reference in CDC investigation section: [19] 47 CDC in lead 48 Morgellons article needs to be greatly revised--it's hijacked by extremists 49 reply to JzG about the content of the Mayo clinic quote 50 propose Morgellons external links be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 51 delusional parasitosis - ref material 52 Histological and electron microscopic appearance of skin biopsies? 53 William Harvey in the Washington Post 54 Wrong word. Would "[sic]" be appropriate? 55 NPOV tag 56 Drafting proposals for new lead 57 Biologist 58 why is there such a problem excepting this decease? 59 California Department of Health Services 60 Organic versus psychological 61 NPOV 62 Morgellons Research Foundation article to be merged here 63 ref section for convenience, please keep on bottom of talk page

[edit] CDC Section

Look on the Charles E. Holman Foundation website for some really good clips to add to morgellons. What happened to the LINK Tab? were it had a list of other places on the internet to go to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.188.211 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links as to what is acceptable to link. There probably is some accurate information from WP:RS on that site, but per links to avoid, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"." In particular on Charles E. Holman Foundation website the links Classic Quotes and Cindy's Diary clearly are problematic and there are probably others. The MRF and Morgellons watch have also been not linked due to the same argument. Ward20 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering, in light of the recent announcement regarding the investigation, whether the following paragraph still has any relevance and whether it should be included. It doesn't help or hurt either "side" -- it is just outdated:

"Earlier, prior to June of 2005, "Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), asking whether the organization had investigated the illness. The answer was no. "Our laboratories are available," said CDC spokeswoman Jennifer Morcone. "But we need a clinically appropriate sample." So far, she said, they've only received samples sent in by patients."[15] This statement is at odds with a 2006 report in Time Magazine from Greg Smith, a physician with Morgellons, and former Medical Director of the MRF, who attempted to send samples from his own body to the CDC, but stated that the agency "blew it off." The MRF also attempted to share the findings of their OSU research team with the CDC, but the CDC said "it would conduct its own research first, then vet the findings with outside scientists".[16] Pez1103 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)"

I agree, the paragraph is outdated, and adds nothing. Herd of Swine 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the lead in should include some info on the planned CDC Study....

The CDC study is the first official US Government attempt to find the root cause of Morgelloms and as such should be mentioned at lead in to the topic as it is a one of the most significant event in Morgellons story. Propose: To clearly put in perspective the current unknown nature of this disease. The CDC has awarded Kaiser Permanente in Northern California a contract to assist the CDC in conducting an extensive investigation of this condition and it is expected the the studly result well become available by end 2008. [User:Zip|Zip22045]] 9:14, 18 November 2007 (UDT)

[edit] Here we go again

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

[edit] Treatment section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposal to revise introduction and history sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposal to remove "In the news" and "videos"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Request for revision of lead to include "name given...."

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

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

It would then read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Fix reference

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edit requests

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

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

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

The first scientific article to discuss Morgellons was co-authored by Leitao and R. B. Stricker, a member of the MRF's Medical Advisory Board and was published in July, 2006.^[1]. The MRF has since received reports of Morgellons from all 50 US states and 15 nations, including Canada, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands, and states that they have been contacted by over 10,000 families.

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

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

[edit] Symptoms and Causes ready to go live?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposal to remove the disputed and current event tags

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

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

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

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

Here is one example of an error: The opinion article authored by members of the MRF and published in American Journal of Clinical Dermatology is indeed peer reviewed.[17]

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

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

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

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

Comment on Ward20's sugestion that the Leitao/Saverly/Stricker article [18] be given more weigh. Peer review has no bearing on the validity of the statements made in an opinion article. If Savely says that the patients tested positive for Lyme, then that's her claim, which seems quite reasonable, and there is no way that would not pass peer review. Those claims are based on an earlier article by Savely and Leitao [19] from 2004, and many more articles of equal or greater authority have been published since then, with opposing points of view. (and of course Leitao/Saverly & Stricker are founders and board members of the MRF) Herd of Swine 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not delete the text in the Morgellons article because it was a letter.[20][21] I deleted the text because it called the letter a study and the content of the text could not be verified by the content of the letter. The statements, "Morgellons has been successfully treated with the antipsychotic medication Pimozide" and "though one study published in the American Academy of Dermatology has demonstrated that patients can be cured using Pimozide, reinforcing the contention that the condition is synonymous with delusional parasitosis, which is treated with the same drug", were just not supported by the cited letter. When the article text was changed to accurately represent the content in the letter[22] "though one letter published in the American Academy of Dermatology has suggested that patients can be cured using Pimozide, as it is the same drug used to treat delusional parasitosis", it was fine.Ward20 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] treatment

I request the immediate removal of, "One of the authors of the two original papers on Morgellons has said the rife machine helps in 30% of cases. [7]"[23] This appears to be a subtle attempt to discredit a living person by poorly sourced contentious material. WP:LIVING

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

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

The person never said they used it, approved of it, and the answer indicated response was no better than the Placebo effect[24] so there is no reason to include what is in the article except to possibly try to discredit the person by a contentious association with an unapproved treatment machine.

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

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

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

The "person" said it helps in 30% of cases [25] was Ginger Savely, primary author of the seminal papers on Morgellons. I felt it's interesting that she said this. Perhaps the antibiotics also work as a placebo effect, as has been suggested by several doctors, example Medical community skeptical: Doctor attributes Morgellons' 'cures' to the placebo effect "When told of Dr. Bill Harvey’s successful treatment with antibiotics of Morgellons’ patients in Houston, Dr. Peter Lynch of the University of California, Davis said the “cures” are easily explained by the placebo effect.".

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

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

The question is: how should the self-treatment be addressed in the article? Dr Greg Smith, former Medical Director of the MRF says: [26] Many [Morgellons sufferers] have lost faith in our medical care system and have turned to alternative medical care or self treatment. Descriptions of their self treatments are frightening. The treatments have included not just topical application but oral ingestion of insect sprays! Some have been victimized by unscrupulous alternative health care providers. - It's a little frustrating that this is such a huge part of the story, yet little has been written about it. It's a fairly neutral aspect - you could say they are driven to self treatment by the failings of the medical system, of by their rejection of the medical system, either way it's happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herd of Swine (talk • contribs). 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I have been trying to write for a treatment section and the following are problems I am running into. I can find citations stating the cohort of Morgellons parents treated with antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy as if they had an infectious disease is around 280.[27][28]Morgellons: Real or a state of mind By Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2006. [29]. The two practitioners treating these patients have published specific findings and arguments[30] "Morgellons disease" and [31] "The Mystery of Morgellons Disease" why they believe Morgellons is not delusional parasitosis. The cited articles state efficacy qualitatively, "resolve most symptoms" and "symptoms subside", without case histories, or study results.

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

Sources for a proposed treatment section treating Morgellons as Delusional parasitosis have worse problems in my opinion. "Cognitive Behavior Therapy, a Cure for Morgellons disease?"[32] is WP:SPS, and no Morgellons patients are claimed to have been treated with Cognitive Behavior Therapy in the article references, nor by the author. "Pimozide at Least as Safe and Perhaps More Effective Than Olanzapine for Treatment of Morgellons Disease"[33], sounds like a good title until you read the text of the letter. The letter discusses that 3 delusional parasitosis patients have been successfully treated with the antipsychotic medication Olanzapine, and then claims an alternative drug Pimozide, to be at least as safe and perhaps more effective for treatment of Morgellons disease, which the author considered to be a form of delusional parasitosis. But, no Morgellons patients are claimed to have been treated in the article cited, nor any by the author. "OCD Patients May Seek Help From Dermatologists"[34], infers possible Morgellons treatment, "Self-diagnosed Morgellons disease is a relatively new phenomenon in the dermatologist's office, she said, fueled by media reports and the Internet. People who believe they have this disorder commonly report crawling, stinging, and biting sensations. Some claim that fibers emerge from intact skin (Psychiatric News, December 15, 2006). While all symptoms demand a careful workup, Kestenbaum said, "patients with such complaints whom I have seen appeared to have a delusional parasitosis." No numbers nor results of treatment of Morgellons patients by the author are discussed. "Psychiatric Arsenal Has Weapons Against Morgellons Disease"[35], is better. Four Dermatologists respond to the hypothetical question, "What would you do to help a patient who tells you he or she has Morgellons disease?" Three of the last four dermatologists respond in a hypothetical way and did not say that they had seen Morgellons patients, and that the symptoms could suggest to them delusional parasitosis and they would treat accordingly. The first dermatologist discussed in the article, Caroline Koblenzer is different, she states she treated, "several dozen Morgellons patients during the past six months" and "we do have medications [that can help]." The efficacy is qualitative, without case histories, or study results. "Morgellons disease?"[36]talks about, "three individuals who felt that they had “Morgellons disease.” After thorough evaluation and examination, all three individuals were diagnosed with delusions of parasitosis. They were appropriately counseled. There are some discussion of case histories and why the doctors diagnosed them with delusions of parasitosis, but little treatment detail, and no discussion or treatment effectiveness. "Morgellons disease: A rapport-enhancing term for delusions of parasitosis",[37] details one patient who was anxious to see a doctor that had heard of Morgellons disease. "After taking cultures and a biopsy, I reassured her that there were no bacterial, fungal, or parasitic infections. ...She is currently on the anti-psychotic risperidone, followed by both dermatology and psychiatry.", there is no mention of treatment effectiveness. A news article, "Nasty disease -- or is it delusion?",[38] describes a fairly good case history of one patient. "Almost every doctor he saw diagnosed him with delusional parasitosis....Miller agreed to take anti-psychotic medication for a few months, but it didn't help,...To prove that I wasn't crazy, I had to go into a psychological program. A psychiatrist and several therapists all agreed that I wasn't crazy, that I did have a physical disease,...he's been taking the antibiotics and anti-parasitic and anti-fungal drugs, and he said his health has improved."

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

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

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

Thatcher, but I did, "Psychiatric Arsenal Has Weapons Against Morgellons Disease"[39]and Caroline Koblenzer is cited several times in the Morgellons article.

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

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

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

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

And, "So I think what we should say is that the conventional treatment for Morgellons is to rule out organic causes (I have refs for this) and then to treat it as if it was DP." It seems to me ruling out organic causes should be in the DP section and that the present article blends diagnosis and treatment together. There is no doubt the literature indicates many to most dermatologists diagnosis Morgellons patients with DP."[40]Ash. L.R., Orihel, T.C. 2007. Atlas of Human Parasitology, 5th Edition. American Society for Clinical Pathology Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 386-387. But the literature is not at all clear how many Morgellons patients accept this diagnosis, how many are treated with antipsychotics, and to what extent antipsychotic medications help Morgellons patients. So I believe that part of the present Morgellons treatment section, as it now stands, has some verifiability issues. Ward20 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, DP should be a diagnosis of exclusion,[41] and it could very easily be added to the delusional parasitosis section without causing a NPOV problem. The present article is becoming very non-NPOV and in many places not verifiable. the "Treatment" and "symptoms and diagnosis" section is about Morgellons, not for advocating DP with text of DP references that does not mention Morgellons. Ward20 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CDC Updates

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

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

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

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

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

"Does CDC have evidence that this condition is increasing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] page protection for ever?:)

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

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

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

[edit] Treatment section

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

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

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

The article still does not address the fact that anti psychotics are not always an effective treatment for Morgellons, as Dr. Stone stated. It also does not include the article that Ward cites above, "Nasty disease -- or is it delusion?",[42] describes a fairly good case history of one patient. "Almost every doctor he saw diagnosed him with delusional parasitosis....Miller agreed to take anti-psychotic medication for a few months, but it didn't help,...To prove that I wasn't crazy, I had to go into a psychological program. A psychiatrist and several therapists all agreed that I wasn't crazy, that I did have a physical disease,...he's been taking the antibiotics and anti-parasitic and anti-fungal drugs, and he said his health has improved." Pez1103 00:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bacterial hypothesis

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

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

Ward20 was referring to this [43], which is actually the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology's web site, which is certainly the preferred link here. There are a few full-text articles on there [44], [45], and this note about the Harvey letter:[46]. Herd of Swine 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] treatment section

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

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

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

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

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

I say I am not mentally ill. Does that mean I am? The indicator here, according to Hinkle ([47] Table 1, K), is the "vehemence" of the rejection of any possibility of psychological or other explanation. Herd of Swine 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I object. It misstates what is going on. The dermatologists do not claim to be treating Morgellons, they just use the term Morgellons in discussing the patients set of symptoms, and then offer treatments that target those symptoms (formication, eczema, etc.) . There is no suggestion that they have a treatment specifically "for Morgellons", which is what your change implies. See the full explanation at the source: [48]:

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

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

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

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

If you mention that antipsychotics do not work for all patients, it needs to be put in the context of how effective antipsychotics actually are for psychosis. For example: "the effectiveness of antipsychotics in treating Morgellons is similar to the effectiveness of antipsychotics in treating other psychoses". We only have a generally sense of the efficacy for Morgellons (treated as DP), but it is not out of line with the general efficacy of antipsychotics in delusional disorder, see for example: [49]: "52.6% of the patients recovered, 28.2% achieved partial recovery, and 19.2% did not improve. Additionally, they reported that treatment response was positive regardless of the specific delusional content. They found that pimozide showed the strongest evidence of response compared with othertypical antipsychotics: 68.5% recovery rate and 22.4% partial recovery rate were found in pimozide-treated cases and 22.6% recovery and 45.3% partial recovery were found in cases treated by other typical antipsychotics." Herd of Swine 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

When you say they have responded to antibiotics and antifungals, is there more that the 30% that Ward30 suggested would attributable to the placebo effect? If not, then what is the significance? If so, then we should mention that doctors suggest it's the placebo effect, as in: [50]"When told of Dr. Bill Harvey’s successful treatment with antibiotics of Morgellons’ patients in Houston, Dr. Peter Lynch of the University of California, Davis said the “cures” are easily explained by the placebo effect. Patients treated with sugar pills, for example, often get well because they believe they are receiving medicine. Lynch said 80 percent of patients with delusions of parasites respond to psychotropic medication, an indication their illness is mental.Herd of Swine 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome

Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome (NCS) is a syndrome that is predates Morgellons by several years, yet is basically identical, with the same neurological, dermatological and systemic features, including fibers, lesions and crawling sensations[51]. The main researcher into NCS, Omar Amin, says on his web site[52] that NCS is "also known as Morgellons Disease". Amin has published sveral articles on NCS, two of which are listed in PubMed[53]. I'm reluctant to include it, since it's an odd theory (leakage from amalgam filling causes immune system and neurological problems resulting in opportunistic infections), but it's so closely related to Morgellons, and predates it, so perhaps it deserves some mention, like in a "similar conditions", or "other theories" or something. Herd of Swine 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting.

Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome (NCS): A New Disorder[54] Copyright 2000 by Omar M. Amin, Tempe, Arizona (Published in Explore! Volume 10, Number2, 2001) Seem to me most interesting in that it predates MRF entirely.Ward20 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the actual article in "Explore" magazine [55] (although the photos are in B&W for some reason). Note that Explore is a rather fringe publication, focusing on "Alternative" medicine. The NPA (National Pediculosis Association) is mentioned and they predate the MRF by 20 years or so, they mostly focus on headlice in kids, but have long acted (since 1994? [56]) as a support group for people who think they are infested by something, but are diagnosed as delusional. They have a slightly obscure Morgellons style registration page [57] which lists the following symptoms (Biting or Stinging, Black Specks, Crawling Sensation, Fibers or Fuzzy Artifacts, Itching, Lumps on Head, Salt-like Crystals, Scaling Skin, Scarring, Skin Discoloration,Sores or Lesions)

Even earlier, the national Unidentified Skin Parasite Association, that way back in 1998 was describing something very like "Morgellons" [58]:

Rashes, lesions, itching, burning sensations, track marks, scratches, and papules appear from nowhere on the surface of the skin, along with burrows under the skin, containing what the sufferer describes as "eggs". Some people complain of having symptoms in only one spot on the skin ( i.e., scalp, face, rectum, groin area) while others are infested from head to toe. Acute insomnia can also be a symptom of this disease

Black specks, iridescent crystals, microscopic hairs, wormlike creatures, hairlike creatures (the size of an eyelash to several inches long, and colors ranging from transparent to shinny black) "lintlike balls" bloody and/saltlike granules and threads, have all been described as emerging from the lesions.

Interesting stuff. Obviously the same thing, predating Leitao's Morgellons. How to mention these in the article? A "Similar conditions" section? Herd of Swine 21:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm uneasy. If Omar Amin tried to write an article here on "Neutrocutaneous syndrome" it would be challenged as fringe/alternative with no reliable sources. The Journal of the California Dental Association is not exactly high profile. (It's not fillings, but of dental sealants PMID 15553959). Omar M Amin has a long publication record involving parasites of freshwater fish (PMID 16025206, PMID 12652074). He only has two other papers dealing with human health, both involving identification of intestinal parasites taken from stool samples sent to him by other doctors (PMID 12224595). My guess is that some people with secondary or opportunistic parasite infections were referred to him, and he somehow made the deduction that the underlying cause was a "neural cutaneous syndrome" caused by dental sealants. Another issue is that "neurocutaneous syndrome" is a general term already in use (PMID 17660941 and see Phakomatoses.) (Which I think shows that Amin is not a physician and not working with physicians on this.) And Morgellons is not really a phakomatosis because those are birth defects and/or inherited. Thatcher131 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys aware that the term Neurocutaneous syndrome has been used for a long time to describe genetic disorders affecting both the skin and the nervous system? The best known is neurofibromatosis; there are many more. I don't know what this Amin guy is talking about, but he shows little respect for medical nomenclature. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morgellons wikipedia page is hate speech against disease sufferers.

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

Isn't that what Morgellons-Watch is for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgellons and DOP. They are OPINION PAPERS! They are

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

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

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

[edit] Morgellons wikipedia page is hate speech against disease sufferers.

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

Isn't that what Morgellons-Watch is for?

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

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

If you feel the need to waste people's time with idiocies like "delusional parasitosis", then start a new page on that subject, adding in all the big-pharma-funded psychotropic drug pushers papers -- such as the corrupt excercises in scientific fraud perpetuated by Drs. [BLP violations and libel removed by -- Fyslee / talk 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)], etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgellons and DOP. They are OPINION PAPERS! They are

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

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

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

So you're saying because people don't know anything, it's ok to characterize scientific opinion as fact, because that's all that is known. Since nothing is known, and no formal evidence-based-medicine scientific studies have been conducted, how about a nice empty page with just the relevant links to articles and news-stories and http://morgellons.org http://thenmo.org http://morgellonsusa.com http://morgellons.eu http://silentsuperbug.com , and all the zillions of other sites that have sprung up in response to this "delusion" such as http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy . You can even throw in morgellonswatch.com to be "fair and balanced." Nielsp 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So if this were a medieval wikipedia article on "the earth is flat" you'd start out saying "most people believe the earth is flat. More importantly the church thinks the earth is flat. Some heretics think the earth is round but this thinking is clearly either the work of the devil or a delusion. These people need to be persecuted and denied the essentials for living." Nielsp 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

People in the Middle Ages didn't think the earth was flat. People have known the earth was round since ancient times. Stop spreading nonsense and chronological hate speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Morgellons, aka Unexplained dermopathy is listed under "Diseases & Conditions" - http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy -- not under delusions:

• Diseases & Conditions AZ Index

o Molluscum Contagiosum; Monkeypox; Monkeypox Vaccination; Morgellons; Mosquito-borne Diseases; Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries; MRSA (Methicillin ... + http://www.cdc.gov/DiseasesConditions/az/M.html Nielsp 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morgellons Comes with Nanoprobes and Arrays

I am with Niels on this. The way you obviously slant your definitions in the explanation of this affliction should be a cause of great concern for everyone. It should open everyone's eyes to how media is being used to manipulate and steer perception. Tell the lie long enough, or is this 1984 revisited? I believe your site is "covert and owned" by the powers that be, that are trying to keep a tight lid on this horrid horrid affliction. You should all be ashamed - terribly ashamed for your stance taken. The many articles and images that have been accumulated on the www.rense.com site are being sequestered and if you can post morgwatch here, a powers that be sponsored debunking site to discredit us, I feel you should also list the Rense site as they are not publishing OPINIONS, as morgwatch is so blahtantly doing. Those images are real, not altered, doctored, or a delusion...... Morgellons sufferers demonstrate nanoprobes, nanoarrays, chimeric organisms, novel "fluorescent tatoos" that are in a variety of colors and patterns.....this was not "conjured" by some poor delusional person's imagination. This was manufactured and inflicted upon a very large number of the population worldwide. I am not shocked that your position is as such because you are cowards. If you weren't AFRAID of the powers that be (covert worldwide affiliations) you would allow Rense information to be viewed here....to DEBUNK the debunkers and allow a FAIR and BALANCED gathering of information pertaining to what we DO KNOW about this affliction. I will be happy to see you not so obvious in your obvious "slandering, insinuating, and misleading" remarks about this subject. How can you consider yourself and online encyclopedia that is legit and fair when you stomp on the FREEDOM of SPEECH of the actual individuals suffering from this bizarre affliction? I pray day and night without ceasing that all of you perpetrators involved or associated with this "in your face" cover-up are exposed, brought to justice, and humiliated in front of the world, as we have had to endure for years. Publish the Rense page link to Morgellons Data. Thank you,

Maggiemae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.212 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2007

No. But thanks for stopping by. Thatcher131 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I copied the following from Thatcher's sandbox because I don't think that Ward's comments were ever addressed. The information that Herd mentions above also makes it clear that the MRF is not the only ones who believe that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease. I think that the lead should be revised to reflect this Pez1103 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions about the following text in the lead.

"A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis[3][4] and believe any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing.[5]"

I can not find where the second word "majority" is coming from as I do not find that in cite [3] or (5), I do not have access to (4).

The text, "and believe any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing.[5]" needs to be reworded, tagged [citation needed], or deleted because as it is written it is not verifiable to the cite. The cite quotes one dermatologist Dr. Levine, "He says he has studied the fibers his patients bring in by the bag-load and they are textile in nature." Although there does seem to be a few dermatologists that say similar things in various cites, it seems a stretch to use this cite to say a majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe this.Ward20 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the "majority of health professionals" talk.[48] Unless reference (4)[49] says the same thing I think this source[50] should also be cited for the text above because it is the most recent.

I also found, "dermatologists say they are simply fibers from clothing, embedded in self-imposed sores."[51] which seems to be closest to the present article text.Ward20 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "majority" is a summary of several sources, and has been discussed before, and, I thought, agreed upon. See: [52], "Most doctors do not recognize Morgellons as a disease", [53] "Most doctors don't even believe it exists because the symptoms don’t fit anything listed in medical textbooks", [54] "most doctors don't acknowledge it as a real disease", [55],"most doctors believe the painful illness, called Morgellons Disease, is psychological", [56] "Most doctors interviewed dismiss alleged evidence that medical science has overlooked what patients are calling “Morgellons’ disease” and insist that the patients are delusional", [57] "most doctors believe Morgellons is not in the skin, but in the head." It could be changed to "most doctors", if you think that's better. The text of fibers being clothing is also a synthesis of MANY sources, with just one reference being given for clarity. I think perhaps you misunderstand the way articles are constructed. The intent is not to quote something, and then cite it. Where facts are not in dispute (i.e., there are many sources that say one thing, and no sources that say otherwise), then it's fine to simply describe what the situation is in your own words. Not the article is not saying that is IS delusions, or that it IS clothing fiber, it is simply saying what most medical professionals say about the subject. Herd of Swine 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) You're right, it was discussed before. I missed it. That was in the second post which I neglected to indent, sorry. The words "most doctors" are more accurate to the news articles you cited. The wording here is in dispute. This text is quite different than text produced by the Mayo Clinic,[58] "Some health professionals believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by another condition, often mental illness." The text used should be cited to show what source or sources are being relied upon. Readers and future editors will will then be able to easier judge the text quality. As to fibers, I can find sources that say dermatologists, or individual dermatologists say the fibers are textile or clothing. Others hypothesize the fibers are not textile or clothing.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [59][60][61] I can not find a source that says most doctors say the fibers are textile or clothing which is how I interpret the present text in the article. How about this, Most doctors, and dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.[3][4][62] Dermatologists say any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing,[63] but preliminary studies by MRF associates lead them to hypothesize fibers from Morgellons patients are not from textiles or clothing.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [64][65][66]" Or: Dermatologists say any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing,[67] but preliminary studies by MRF associates lead them to hypothesize the dermatologists are not correct.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [68][69][70]" Or: The fibers found from Morgellons patients are in dispute as to their origin.[71][Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [72][73][74] The more I work with the fibers issue, the more I think it may be too complex to put in the lead and should be left to the body to explain. Ward20 08:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While we are on the lead, could someone with access, please tell me how reference (4) relates to the statement, A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis[3][4][59] Thanks. Ward20 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From [4] [60]: Morgellons’s disease is largely regarded in the dermatology literature as a manifestation of delusions of parasitosis (and potentially a means of promoting patient rapport through destigmatization), despite the efforts of the Morgellons Research Foundation to promulgate an infectious rather than a neuropsychiatric etiology." (Note, most definition of DP actually include other known medical conditions, in the form of secondary DP, so saying it is DP is not the same as saying it is entirely psychological)Herd of Swine 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Swine, thank you for the info and the article.Ward20 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why are you people even discussing "the lead" as if you're going to accidentally expose a hideous truth

that you're attempting to hide through "morgellons-watch" style screed that has no place in wikipedia?

There's no discussion about what should be the lead... it's not some idiotic historical crap about a mom and her kid ... this sounds like a fairy tale, like back when the day when george bush (imitating his idol reagan) would tell us heartwarming tales about a mom and her dog... and feels just as disingenuous. Who cares about it's origins. It is a word that has entered into the english language. End of story. Now it's time to explore the word and create a framework for what that word means, which includes properly framing the controversy, and also framing the controversy in terms of it's costs to human life and suffering -- which is basically DENIAL OF TREATMENT by the majority of medicine, even though PATIENTS HAVE A RIGHT OF CARE THAT THEY'VE PAID FOR THROUGH THEIR HMO's AND MEDICAL PROVIDERS.

The lead, plain and simple, is this -- http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ -- and any information that can be attributed to this and only this. Delusional parasitosis and all the quack psychiatry represented in OPINION PAPERS by quacks like Drs. Koo/Murase/Koblenzer/etc are just that OPINIONS that DOP is Morgellons. They are wrong. Like I said, there's opinions by Dr. Shockley that blacks are inferior genetically. Why don't you add that to an article about people of color too?? The DOP-pushing papers are OPINIONS and there's COUNTER-OPINIONS to those OPINIONS that have been published as well, such as http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/11/24-b?etoc (the difference is that the DOP pushers have never actually helped the health of a true morgellons sufferer through their psychotropic nonsense... they've chemically-lobotomized their patients past the point of caring that they had nonhealing skin lesions. Meanwhile, Robert C. Bransfield, M.D., author of the article, being a Lyme practitioner, has probalby successfully diagnosed and treated the lyme-aspect of his morgellons patients, and has noticed a clinical improvement.)

And if the CDC/Kaiser study wasn't done by a lyme-denialist organization like kaiser, they might find clinical signs of improvements across all their morgellons patients by treating for Lyme. However, Kaiser does not recognize or treat chronic lyme (http://lyme.kaiserpapers.info ) and will only give long-term antibiotics to teenagers with acne.

What needs to be below the lead, is a full-run-down of the controversy. This includes a much more in depth discussion of the information found here: http://morgellonstreatmentsteps.com/Morgellons_Medical_informat.html

Talk about a "majority of health professionals" makes this sound like an advertisement for the latest big-pharma pushed drug... which is basically what the Morgellons=DOP viewpoint is about anyways. Have you conducted a poll of doctors, or are you going by the number of published reports by doctors that have a suprizing amount of "Zyprexa" schwag scattered all over their offices... along with a nice tan from the big-pharma funded conference they attended with their families in the carribean... There was once a majority opinion that the earth was flat too. What does a "majority" mean when there's so little medical understanding and even less clinical experience in treating Morgellons patients?

Otherwise, such "loose talk" of "majority opinion" from doctors that have never even seen or properly treated a Morgellons patient... sounds just like MorgellonsWatch, and not Wikipedia.

Nielsp 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please follow talk page guidelines. It is helpful to keep comments short, avoid writing in all-caps, and not make characterizations of content as idiotic and people as quacks. Also, you've mentioned so many issues at once that they couldn't possibly be covered in a single discussion thread. It would be more helpful if you presented only a single content issue at a time, allowing more focussed discussion and collaboration. I would suggest doing so in a new section... this one probably got off to a poor start. Sancho 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How can I possibly have a reasoned discussion when this page, as I've mentioned before, is seen by myself and many others as hate speech, pure and simple. Drop the hate speech. Drop the "it's not real" drop the "it's delusional" and we can begin to have the conversation you expect to have. Until then, don't expect me to sit quietly on the back of the bus and allow the status quo of civil rights violations against morgellons patients to continue -- aided by partial, politically-motivated, morgellonswatch-controlled page of lies such as this page. If you want civil discussion, then this Morgellons page needs to change to be "civil" towards Morgellons patients. Nielsp 09:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Nielsp brings up a lot of valid points. The article is still heavily weighted with opinions and assumptions. I've said from day one that I don't believe that the treatment section belongs in this article at all since there is no real treatment for Morgellons, just treatment for DOP and lyme, and the article already mentions these possible connections in the theory section. The justification for the treatment section is that other diseases have treatment sections -- but this disease is unique because it is not yet recognized. The treatment section still implies that DOP treatment is an effective way to treat morgellons, when there is no proof of it. I also believe that this article should rely more on the CDC than any other source. Doctors have always lagged behind whenever there is a newly emerging disease. The fact that many aren't recognizing Morgellons as a new disease is pretty typical and meaningless and having the article state it over and over just makes it appear more biased, unless we add the qualifier such as "as with almost all new diseases, many doctors dismiss Morgellons as psychological." I also agree with Niels that the Mary story really doesn't belong or should be modified. Herd brought up at least two groups that predated Mary in identifying and studying the disease. Mary only gave the disease the "temporary label" of Morgellons. I think that the article needs to (1) eliminate the treatment section, and (2) change the lead to more closely follow the CDC page and the Mayo site. I think that there have been changes to make the article more neutral, but I don't think that we are there yet. Pez1103 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You want to rely on the CDC but all they have done is said they are going to study it. They have not produced a case definition or a differential diagnosis (a set of criteria that would distinguish Morgellons from other conditions, including DP). They have announced a plan to study biopsies and fibers but have not even formally awarded the contract to do so, much less published any findings. I'm not sure if you think there should be no article at all; you should review Mucoid plaque and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (second nomination). This is a medical condition that no reputable doctor thinks exists, yet it has attracted much popular interest and bogus claims (20,000 google hits). So Wikipedia has an article to present verifiable information from reliable sources that mucoid plaque is bogus. Morgellons actually fares much better as an article because, although there is little scientific evidence that it is a distinct entity, it has attracted a reasonable amount of commentary from both sides and now a CDC investigation. The treatment section is the best available information at this time. I would be more than happy for Savely, who apparently has hundreds of patients, to report a case-controlled double-blind trial of antibiotics. But he hasn't. Until then, we do the best we can with the information available.

I would be willing, for example, to state that antipsychotics do not work for all patients. However, to avoid the inference that this means the disease is not a form of DP, it would also be necessary to point out that antipsychotics also do not work for all patients with schizophrenia or other delusions. I would be willing to do this as well but it begins to drift into editorializing and I suspect it would be controversial among some editors here. Thatcher131 11:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that antibiotic treatment is held to a higher standard. There is no double bind study that shows that DOP meds work for Morgellons. If they are not the same (and there is no proof that DOP is Morgellons) then the effectiveness of DOP medicine to treat DOP is not really relevant to the article. The CDC does not give a case definition, but it does list symptoms of Morgellons, several of which are incompatible with DOP. I do think that the historical information about doctors traditionally dismissing new diseases as psychological is important to give perspective to the OPINION of these professionals if it must be included. I don't think that there should be a treatment section at all since there is no accepted treatment for Morgellons, just accepted treatment for DOP and contraversal treatment for lyme. I think it would be more appropriate for the article to rely on "see also" to these other articles for information about treatment. The way it is written now implies that DOP treatment works for Morgellons patients and there is no case study to prove it is effective for Morgellons. Pez1103 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons is a list of symptoms, with uncertain cause. There is no diagnostic criteria. People diagnose themselves (by all accounts). By far the most common diagnosis by actual doctors is DP, so that is what is treated. Even the Morgellons believer Dr. Wymore says [61] as many as 90% of self reported cases of Morgellons could be DP. Most doctors think that it's more like 100%, so the rather unusual treatment with antibiotics SHOULD be held to a higher standard. However, it's not, the majority DP theory is treated on a almost equal footing with the minority Lyme theory. Herd of Swine 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about this quote from Dr. Wymore? "Of the many thousands who have self-reported at the OSU web-based registration site we do not know whether 1% actually suffer from DOP or 90%."Ward20 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The problem with a treatment section is: treatment for what? What it boils down to is treatment for people who THINK they have Morgellons. Herd of Swine 16:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment section discussion

Propose something like this, (rough draft) Currently, there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons^{[citation needed]}, and medical professionals treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Most dermatologists treat with established dermatological treatment regimens including, lotions, topical medications, antipsychotics, and counseling, which is claimed to help symptoms. ^{[citation needed]} Some medical professionals treat with infectious disease treatment regimens including, antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy, and it is claimed symptoms subside.^{[citation needed]} The efficacy of the various treatments for people who identify themselves as having Morgellons has not been documented in studies.Ward20 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should face that the literature indicates there are more medical professionals who believe the symptoms of Morgellons are caused by DP (and it is a range of estimates given by several sources). But, the literature also indicates there is more research (such as it is) that indicates Morgellons is not DP, and that the literature talks about much higher numbers of Morgellons patients treated for infectious disease than DP (but the total reported numbers are still tiny). We just have to deal with it honestly and factually.Ward20 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting, I think, that the current treatment section makes no claim of efficacy for antipsychotic treatment. It only notes, correctly, that because a majority of doctors believe Morg is a form of DP, that current medical practice is to treat it as DP. In fact, the only statement of efficacy is regarding antibiotics. I have no objection to adding emolients or other symptomatic relief, but using the word claimed for both antipsychotics and antibiotics puts them on the same footing, which is emphatically not the case. Thatcher131 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Since most Morgellons patients refuse to take antipsychotic drugs since they do not believe they are delusional, and since there is no evidence that these drugs are even effective for Morgellons, I don't think that they should have a "higher footing" than the antibiotics. It's difficult to argue that the current medical practice is to treat it with DP meds when the patients refuse to cooperate. Herd has mentioned supportboards before. If you read the hundreds of accounts on these boards, you will find people who are taking meds and responding to meds used to treat infectious disease. The very few references made to people trying antipsychotics have been to say that they have been of limited value. I know that these reports cannot be used in wiki, but the reality is that most people with the Morgellons are not treating it with DOP meds. 204.115.33.49 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Messageboards are self-selected and not representative. We have no idea how many people have gone to dermatologists thinking they had "Morgellons" who allowed themselves to be treated for DP and got better.

“

the reality is that most people with the Morgellons are not treating it with DOP meds.

”

This is actually a good point; it does not change the fact that the consensus conventional medical treatment is antipsychotics, and that alternative treatments are unproven. Thatcher131 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctors who prescribe antipsychotics are not treating Morgellons at all, they are treating DOP. These doctors do not believe that Morgellons exists so they don't even attempt to treat it. How does antipsychotic medication treat the systemic symptoms of Morgellons -- such as vision loss and neuropathy? 204.115.33.49 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with the medical establishment is not relevant to the question of how the medical establishment views Morgellons, including the establishment's view of treatment.

I think it's time to drag out Galileo again. Because Wikipedia requires reliance on reliable sources, and coverage of all significant views of a subject without undue weight given to minority views, Wikipedia will reflect the view of the establishment, and will lag, rather than lead, when the view of the establishment changes. If Wikipedia had existed in 1633, it would have reported the consensus view that the earth was the center of the universe, backed up by reliable sources of the Bible and Aristotle. If Wikipedia had covered heliocentrism at all, it would have been to mention that the Inquisition had recently placed a Florentine astronomer named Galileo under house arrest for promoting it. Fortunately no one will be arrested for challenging the establishment view of Morgellons. But Wikipedia must and will reflect the establishment view as such until the establishment view changes. Thatcher131 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The "consensus view" in this case is just a group of doctors (several of whom have a long standing policy of dismissing new illnesses as psychological) making assumptions and agreeing with one another regarding these assumptions. I think that Ward's suggestion was a nice NPOV compromise. 204.115.33.49 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not neutral to say that doctors "claim" success with antipsychotics and that others "claim" success with antibiotics. It would be better to leave out any claims with regard to suvess or failure and only note the various treatment methods. Thatcher131 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is from the CDC website on Morgellons. The CDC "does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition." I think that this should be part of the treatment section. How about we replace the treatment section with: The CDC does not endorse or recommend any specific treatments or medications for this condition^{[citation needed]}. Medical professionals sometimes treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Those who believe that Morgellons is a manifestation of DP, attempt to treat the condition with antipsychotics. ^{[citation needed]}. Others, who believe that the disease is caused by an infectious agent, treat the condition with infectious disease treatment regimens which may include antibiotics, anti-parasitic, and/or antifungal drugs. The efficacy of the various treatments for people who identify themselves as having Morgellons has not been documented in studies.204.115.33.49 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The way you write that suggests that many doctors think DP is the underlying condition behind all the symptoms listed under Morgellons. This is characterization that the MRF is continually pushing: that it's either purely psychological, or it's a real disease. That's a false dichotomy. There's a fundamental problem with language here that I've struggled with for a while. The root cause of the problem is how people use the word "Morgellons". Many people use "Morgellons" in the sense of "Morgellons (a new disease)", when the more accurate sense is "Morgellons (a long list of symptoms)". Taking the second (more accurate) sense, your suggestion becomes: "Medical professionals sometimes treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing these symptoms. Those who believe that these symptoms are a manifestation of DP, attempt to treat the condition with antipsychotics. Others, who believe that the symptoms are caused by an infectious agent, treat the condition with infectious disease treatment regimens which may include antibiotics, anti-parasitic, and/or antifungal drugs. The efficacy of the various treatments for people who identify themselves as having some symptoms on the list has not been documented in studies." Herd of Swine 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You failed to provide the context for your quote.

“

Is CDC aware that some web sites claim they have products that will treat/cure this condition? Yes. We are aware of some web sites that make these claims, including some that imply CDC support of their products. CDC can not validate the information or product claims of those web sites and does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition.

”

It looks like they are refuting misleading claims made by some websites. Also,

“

Persons who believe they may suffer from this condition should contact a healthcare provider for evaluation and medical care. CDC is not a clinical facility and does not provide clinical care or consultation to patients.

”

None of this overrules or invalidates the premise that Most dermatologists deny the disease exists, saying the people who claim to suffer from it have either common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis. Thatcher131 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• It may be possible to make the distinction Herd of Swine suggests but it will be hard to do based on the sources without relying on original research (looking at evidence to make a new argument). Certainly it will be hard to do as long as some editors remain as contentious as they have been. Thatcher131 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research here.

Currently, there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons[62], and medical professionals treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Most dermatologists use established dermatological treatment regimens including emollients, anti-psychotics, and counseling. ^{[citation needed]}(I believe there is one out there with this treatment that speaks directly to Morgellons, but I can not find it right now). Some medical professionals use infectious disease treatment regimens including, antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy.[63] The CDC, "does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition." [64]Ward20 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For Morgellons emollients, and anti-psychotics[65]Ward20 23:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to be wise not to go into depth in the treatment section. Delusional Parasitosis[66],"Psychopharmacology: The treatment is carried out by use of antipsychotic agents. According to the research literature - which lacks major studies - the highly potent, by no means ‘mild’, antipsychotic Pimozide is used most frequently. Considering the psychopharmacological mechanisms of effect, preferred use of this agent prescribed at a dosage of 1–12 mg/d is incomprehensible; specific side effects (early dyskinesia, parkinsonoid) must be considered [Driscoll et al., 1993]. Besides, case studies on treatment with other antipsychotics exist (Triflupromazin, Chlorpromazin, Haloperidol – Srinivasan et al. [1994]; Sulpirid – Takahashi et al. [2003]; Risperidone – Elmer [2000]; Olanzapine – Freudenmann [2003]). Even if treated with antipsychotics, prognosis of delusional disorders is often difficult; the assertion that a complete remission of symptoms – while receiving antipsychotics – can be obtained in about 54%, seems to be rather optimistic [Bhatia et al., 2000]. After discontinuation of the medication, relapses are frequent. Therefore, it is especially important to keep in touch with the patient and to plan the treatment as a longterm measure from the start."Ward20 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So Hillert perfers risperidone and olanzapine, and treatment is often difficult. Does this mean this is not the standard treatment at this time for DP? Of course not. You do realize that Hillert also says As with other psychotic disorders it can be assumed that delusional parasitosis is affected by current models of possible threats of the skin held in society." Hence the apparent rise in incidence after the publicity campaign, attribution to toxic chemicals, and the attribution by some to shadowy government groups distributing nanobots from chemtrails. Thatcher131 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ward's suggested language is NPOV and works. What I took from the comment that Ward made is that maybe dermatologists diagnosing DP (rather than a psychiatrist) and treating Morgellons with drugs with very serious side effects is somewhat risky, even if it is what many of them attempt to do right now. Pez1103 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that involving a psychiatrist in the care of the patient is recommended in the DP literature; I can't help it if some Morgellons patients have had other experiences. And if you want to say that dermatologists should involve a psychiatrist when diagnosing DP that's ok with me. The significant problem comes from treating the conventional and alternative treatments with language suggesting that they are equally credible, when they are not (see below), and the CDC quote is completely misleading, also as discussed below. There may be a way to provide additional information without being misleading. Thatcher131 01:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

I will go a long way toward trying to make opposing editors happy through compromise, but I am starting to get frustrated.

First, Ward argues that we can not say that antipsychotics are the standard treatment for Morgellons because the doctors who use them are treating DP and there are no studies on antipyschotics specifically for Morgellons. Of course this is silly because doctors don't treat diseases, they treat patients, and if doctors believe that a person who presents with self-diagnosed Morgellons actually has DP, then treatment for DP will be medically appropriate.

Then Ward argues that the CDC does not endorse any treatment. This is true, but it ignores the context offered on the very same page of the CDC website. First, the CDC is not a consulting service and does not provide patient counseling on any course of treatment, and second the CDC is specifically disclaiming certain web sites that claim CDC endorsement. The CDC is not saying there is no treatment, they are saying talk to your doctor.

Now Ward has decided that it is ok to talk about treating Morgellons as DP because he has found a negative reference to treatment of DP with antipsychotic drugs. Yes, Dr. Hillert and colleagues think a 54% success rate is optomistic, and prefer risperidone and olanzapine to pimozide. But Hillert never says DP should not be treated with antipsychotics, and obviously if he thinks 54% is optomistic then someone else must have published that 54% is attainable. (here it is; PMID 10900563) Checking through reports of case series I see a range for remission or significant improvement from 25% to 75%. PMID 8559947 is an analysis of 1223 cases with 50% success rate in the post-psychopharmacologic era.

I believe that Ward20's editing is driven by a desire to downplay and dismiss the use of antipsychotics. That agenda does not fit with Wikipedia's core principles of Neutral point of view, avoiding undue weight for minority opinion, and verifiability. Dr. Hillert's comments on psychopharmacology for DP would be appropriate maybe for the article delusional parasitosis, as long as it is balanced by other more optimistic views. But a long discussion of how psychopharmacology does not always work for DP is inappropriate for the Morgellons article because it is impossible to have a similarly detailed discussion of other therapies, because the people practicing those therapies have not disclosed any details. In PMID 10900563 the author reports on 52 consecutive cases he saw in his practice, gives details of treatment method and success rate. No similar details are forthcoming from Savely's practice. How many patients has she treated with antibiotics? How many with antifungals and herbal supplments? How many showed improvement? Does she treat all patients or only a subset meeting other diagnostic criteria? We know nothing. We do not even know which antibiotics, antifungals and herbals she uses!! How many patients has Dr. Harvey treated, and what was the outcome? How many patients have been treated at OSU? What drugs, what doses, what regimens? We know nothing. We are told nothing except "It works."

You are lucky to get any coverage of antibiotic treatment at all under these conditions. Entering into a discussion about how some patients treated with antipsychotics improve and some do not; and some patients treated with the Savely cocktail (whatever it is) improve and some do not; implies that the evidence for the two treatments is equal in quality and that the outcomes are roughly equal. We know the evidence is by no means equal and we are ignorant of the outcomes of alternative methods. Thatcher131 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I probably need to think about this some more. I could consider an expanded section on conventional treatment that would cite a figure of 50% success with medication and mention the problem of side effects. The problem is that Ward20 would take us right back to argument #1, that since these were not specifically "Morgellons" patients, the studies are not relevant. Plus it would be hard to balance "50% success rate out of 1220 cases studied" against "the authors claim success but have not reported their dose regimen, treatment method, a case series, or other report that would allow independent review of their claim." Thatcher131 02:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• And also bearing in mind that we are a general encyclopedia, not a specialty medical reference, journal or textbook. Thatcher131 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Thatcher131 writes above. The current article reflects the literature very well, and in that sense is neutral. I though at first that the discussion of the choice of drugs for psychopharmalogical treatment of Morgellons as DP might better belong in the DP article, but on re-reading it and the sources, the relative merits are worth mentioning, especially in light of [67] "Pimozide at Least as Safe and Perhaps More Effective Than Olanzapine for Treatment of Morgellons Disease", which is quite specifically discussing patients who claim to have Morgellons. Herd of Swine 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I am frustrated too, so we are NPOV on that point.

Please let me argue my own case. I can do that. The article says," As the prevailing medical view of Morgellons is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis, conventional medical treatment for Morgellons is the same as that for delusional parasitosis." "The prevailing medical view", is not accurate. Using two (Mayo, Atlas) of the three (Mayo, Atlas, CDC) third sources available, the Nature magazine article, the MRF, and some news articles for the 1st most, Information from these sources estimate, Some to most health professionals, including many to most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.^[2][3][4]. The Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), a non-profit advocacy organization, and some health professionals believe Morgellons is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research.^[5][3] "Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition."^[3]. Therefore the words prevailing (syn. sweeping, universal) is wrong. The next part of the text that is not correct is conventional medical treatment. There is no "conventional medical treatment" for Morgellons patients. there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons [68] and the cause of the condition is unknown.^[6] The treatment of Morgellons patients is experimental by definition. The present construct of the first sentence (which the first paragraph hinges on) is not verifiable and is original research, that an unknown majority of medical professionals believe Morgellons is a form of DP makes Morgellons treatment the same as (i.e. equal to) DP, and all or most DP literature can be used for Morgellons treatment. If this construct is verifiable and accurate, then forget the whole article and use the construct globally to say, "Refer to DP literature for any questions about Morgellons."

Concerning the CDC text: I stated, The CDC, "does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition.", not "the CDC does not endorse any treatment.". So I did not imply, CDC is saying there is no treatment. My statement was taken from this text, "Yes. We are aware of some web sites that make these claims, including some that imply CDC support of their products. CDC can not validate the information or product claims of those web sites and does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition. Consumers should seek input from their healthcare providers before purchasing or using products (e.g., skin creams, pills, and other medications) or equipment that are marketed as treatments for this condition." I believe the statement is a global statement pertinent to the text I used it with.

I said, "I think it would be wise to be wise not to go into depth in the treatment section." (because it opens a bag of worms about DP drug side effects and efficacy which would be inappropriate for a Morgellons article,) which was exactly my point in quoting Dr. Hillert's article. I thought I made that clear, apparently not. That is why the text I posted in the article about treatment was brief.

Thatcher, you can believe what you want. I want the Morgellons article to deal with verifiable text about Morgellons, that's all.

Thatcher, addressing the last comment: the text that is being referred to, which I posted to the talk page was also discussed before, by me at length, on the talk page.[69]"[70]"several dozen Morgellons patients during the past six months" and "we do have medications [that can help] and, [71]"Texas nurse Ginger Savely treats some 125 patients, telling them, as she prepares experimental treatments, "You're signing up as a lab rat. Dr. William Harvey, a former medical director of the lab contracted to work for NASA, observes 70 patients complaining of Morgellons and finds that all carry a bacteria called Borrelia, which, possibly, tampers with the entire immune system. He treats patients with antibiotics -- Rocephin or Zithromax -- and almost always, symptoms subside. Yes I thought 200 patients on antibiotics verses several dozen on antipsychotics was very generous, and the wording I used seemed approximately equal and NPOV. But you objected to that version on the talk page, so I took out the wording you objected to then (and are objecting to now), before I put it in the article. So I am not sure why it is an issue.

As a point of courtesy, I ask that others not jump in here to answer for Thatcher, this has happened before and usually sidetracks the discussion and makes the issues harder to address.Ward20 07:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct error, change sources to article in 3rd paragraph aboveWard20 08:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not answering for Thatcher here, this page is for general discussion, if you want to have an exclusive conversation with someone, then conduct it via their talk pages, or via email. You raise issues about the Morgellons article, and any editor may comment on those issues.

We have a fundamental problem here, in that Morgellons is only a list of symptoms. So treatment of "Morgellons" as such will classify a case as Morgellons, and treatment of Delusional Parasitosis (DP) will classify it as DP, and hence they are not treating Morgellons. But since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing. You argue that antibiotics are for treating Morgellons, and antipsychotics are for treating DP, but they are both treating the same symptoms.

While it's quite true that Stricker and Savely (MRF Board members, authors of the original Morgellons paper) have treated hundreds of people who think they have Morgellons with various drug cocktails, it is also true that thousands of dermatologists see patients with similar symptoms all the time, but, key to this point, they do not call it Morgellons. See: [72] for a representative collection of dermatologists opinions. Levine has seen 100 patients, and says they respond well to Pimozide [73], Lynch has seen 75 and says "80 percent of patients with delusions of parasites respond to psychotropic medication". That's just two examples, but paper after paper on treating these symptoms discusses using Psychotropic medication, and virtually none discuss antibiotics. Herd of Swine 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Swine said, :"But since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing.", and "but they are both treating the same symptoms." That is your opinion, not verifiable, is original research, and still does not mean Morgellons Patients and DP patients have the same illness, because "the cause of Morgellons is unknown",^[6] and "further research will be needed to help resolve the validity of Morgellons disease. Until then, whether Morgellons disease is another name for delusional parasitosis or a real disease entity with a biologic or physiologic basis will remain up in the air."^[4],. Herd of Swine also said, "thousands of dermatologists see patients with similar symptoms all the time," is verifiable, and still does not mean Morgellons Patients and DP patients have the same illness.^[6][4] Your other arguments are based on your hypothesis that, "since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing," which research (such as it is) refutes, and CDC, and Atlas of Human Parasitology says is not proven.Ward20 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about a disease that isn't recognized, that had no established case definition, that cannot be definitively diagnosed, the cause of which is unknown.... having a treatment section at all doesn't really make sense. This article has been around for a very long time and there was never a treatment section before. The CDC does not recommend any treatment -- presumably because they have not yet investigated the disease and are currently without sufficient information to determine treatment. BTW - Most of the comments attributed to Ward above were made by me. 204.115.33.49 16:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Me who? 204.115.33.49, are you Pez or some other user? If not could you sign in, as you are using a shared IP. Anyway, the literature discusses treatment, so that's reflected in the article. Herd of Swine 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Above, the underlying assumption, and underlying misdiagnosis is that Morgellons==DOP. And you're backing up this OPINION by stating that the majority of medicine is publishing opinions attempting to backup their status-quo attempts that have already misdiagnosed and mismedicated a large number of patients... none of the patients were actually enrolled in any kind of study by the authors. It's more of an ass-covering than any kind of answer as to why such a disease has suddenly caught everybody else's attention including the drug-pushing author's ... Bottom line is that there is no medical basis by which to correctly establish whether a patient as "Morgellons" or "DOP" today, as such complaints and symptoms are outside the vocabulary of modern dermatology, "DOP" is the default midiagnosis for the usual 15-minute-doc-in-a-box visit. In comparison, an initial visit at an LLMD often takes one-two hours, and results in diagnoses such as my own "Lyme dz/Morgellons type" ... WHAT OF the dissenting voices, that keep saying the same thing? What of the Wymore's and Citofsky's and Schwartz's and many-LLMS's?? FYI, ILADS is only major medical group recognizing Morgellons having published two articles on the subject, latest being http://www.ilads.org/publications_bransfield_06_2007.html . Why is information like this ignored, when it too is published and supported by a "majority" of lyme doctors?? But of course, really what you're all getting at is Lyme-denialism here, because of course, that allows the medical abuse of sick people, fed by HATEFUL QUACK-PSYCHIATRY-BASED LIES as found in the current morgellons page or sites like morgellons-watch. In the Lyme world, the damage caused by such wrongheadedness is clear: http://www.ilads.org/sherr6.html (Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy and Lyme disease: medical misogyny or diagnostic mystery? ((Virginia T. Sherr, M.D. Medical Hypotheses. 2005;65(5):440–447, May 27, 2005.))... and bottom line here is that Morgellons is the ugly-head of Lyme-disease, now raised in the form of distinctive nonhealing&scarring lesions that no ordinary doctor could possibly claim is "all in the head" . Yet, as with Lyme disease itself ( http://www.openeyepictures.com/underourskin/ ), the public information is skewed to not recognize Lyme disease and/or the associated microfiliaria of Morgellons, and to instead jump to an entirely different and wrong conclusion. Howcome you're not willing to even answer or mention Dr. Bransfield's viewpoint, or the fact that the Lyme association with Morgellons is common knowledge among LLMDS, since they're on the front lines treating the emerging epidemic and they talk to each other and share information on appropriate medications. Further skeptics should read http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207001958/fulltext, in response to Dr. Koblenzer's delusions-of-psychiatry http://www.physics.smu.edu/%7Epseudo/MorgellonsCommentary.pdf ). Also http://www.cherokeechas.com/gregs.htm http://www.thenmo.org/RWud0607.pdf .... psychiatric diagnoses are misdiagnoses if they miss an underlying disease-cause of the disorder. Lyme is widely known to produce psychiatric issues, and Dr. Bransfield knows this area well. In the "Psychology today" article it says ( http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070227-000003&page=3 ): "New Jersey psychiatrist Robert Bransfield, who has a number of Morgellons patients, agrees. "They don't start out difficult to deal with," he says. "But when it progresses, it can result in quite extreme paranoia, even delusions." Others have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, ADHD, autism, and even atypical Parkinson's as a result of their personality change." In other articles, he talks of the mental deterioration caused by Lyme disease ( http://www.canlyme.com/cog.html )... again... this is happening also in Morgellons patients and the underlying disease -- Lyme -- is being missed. DOP is a misdiagnosis here... to claim otherwise is like claiming the earth is flat even after viewing pictures of it from space... Nielsp 07:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between belief and information that can be verified using reliable sources according to Wikipedia policy. Thatcher131 11:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The three opinion pieces from the derms in the treatment section are not verified, nor are they anymore reliable than the articles that Nielsp sites above. I think that the treatment section should go and the lead needs to be modified because it is inaccurate to imply that the MRF is the only ones who believe that morgellons is new disease. The statement that most doctors believe that Morgellons is DOP is not verified either -- it's just an opinion. No one has actually surveyed the doctors and determined exactly how many believe it. Pez1103 11:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Harvey letter is cited. Stuff on advocacy web sites is almost never considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies, the MRF is only allowed to be cited here to be able to accurately report their position on the condition they named. Only MRF-associated doctors have published pro-morgellons articles in the medical literature. Remember that "neutral point of view" does not mean reporting all sides equally, it means reporting all significant views that are verifiable using reliable sources and without giving undue weight to minority views. The idea that there should be no treatment section because "no one knows what Morgellons is, so no one knows how to treat it" is very definitely a minority view. I don't know how Drs. Stricker and Harvey are spending their time, but if they want real mainstream support for their ideas, they should publish some actual research conducted according to rigorous scientific standards, not just opinion articles and unsupported assertions. Thatcher131 11:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement that most doctors believe that Morgellons is DOP is not verified either -- it's just an opinion. No one has actually surveyed the doctors and determined exactly how many believe it. (1) Check the coverage in medical textbooks and the medical literature. Not just the main letters that come up on a keyword search for Morgellons but other recent articles on DP (PMID 17671278). If more doctors beleived in it they would be writing, researching and publishing it. (2) The Psych today and Nature Med articles say "a majority believe..." and we can quote those as reliable sources; the alternative is your personal opinion. (3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thatcher131 11:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority view (that the psychological symptoms of Morgellons are similar to DP) is very well documented in highly authoritative sources, and there is no suggestion that this is not the majority view. Even members of the MRF accept this is the majority view, as their most common complaint is that people who self-identify as having Morgellons are usually diagnosed with DP.

Just because the Wikipedia article is describing the majority view, it does not somehow meant the article is endorsing that view, or claiming it is correct. For example: an article on God might report that most doctors believe in God. That does not mean the article is saying God exists. It is simply reporting the various viewpoints, and their distribution. Herd of Swine 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This notion of "majority opinion" is ridiculous. If this were cancer, what you're doing is akin to asking a GP to diagose and cure a rare form of cancer -- it's ridiculous -- that's what oncology is for. Among Lyme doctors, and overall within the membership of http://ilads.org , (which is not an advocacy group, it's a professional medical specialty society.) the majority of doctors will recognize morgellons as a symptom or coinfection of Lyme disease, and if Lyme is diagnosed, would treat appropriately. The issue is that mainstream medicine is ignoring http://ilads.org and putting forward a view that Lyme is "hard to catch/easy to cure" ... So issues w/ morgellons won't even begin to get solved until issues like Connecticut attorney-general Blumenthal's anti-trust/corruption suit against the IDSA for their Lyme recommendations adopted by the medical mainstream and the CDC. Most Lyme doctors recognize morgellons (some say "10% of Lyme patients have morgellons") whereas most GP's wouldn't know Lyme if a tick bit them in the ass. So how are they, or even worse, the glorified cosmeticians in dermatology, going to be able to diagnose or treat morgellons if they can't even recognize the other 90% if lyme patients? And by ignoring Lyme, they're ignoring precisely the etiology that is leading to their DOP misdiagnosis. As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Bransfield knows this area well. In the "Psychology today" article it says ( http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070227-000003&page=3 ): "New Jersey psychiatrist Robert Bransfield, who has a number of Morgellons patients, agrees. "They don't start out difficult to deal with," he says. "But when it progresses, it can result in quite extreme paranoia, even delusions." Others have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, ADHD, autism, and even atypical Parkinson's as a result of their personality change." In other articles, he talks of the mental deterioration caused by Lyme disease ( http://www.canlyme.com/cog.html ) Nielsp 23:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV treatment section

NPOV "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." [74]

The present wording of the treatment section does not comply with this guideline. The statement, "conventional medical treatment for Morgellons is the same as that for delusional parasitosis." is an opinion, and the wording "Conventional medical treatment" infers a bias of correctness to DP treatment of Morgellons. "Alternative medical treatments" (this particular wording has a negative bias in itself) associated with infectious process treatment infers a bias of inferiority.

It should be enough to say, "Most dermatologists treat Morgellons as if it is a form of delusional parasitosis"..... Etc. Literature supports that most dermatologists treat Morgellons but not most medical professionals. Dermatologists are the doctors most Morgellons patients consult due to the skin condition.[75]"Because skin symptoms are often the most visible aspect of this disease, dermatologists are usually the first to be consulted. Most have no doubt that what they're seeing is delusional parasitosis."

Then, "Some medical professionals treat Morgellons as if there is an underlying infectious process..... Etc.

Most dermatologists treat verses Some medical professionals treat is the NPOV comparison that should be presented. The bias injected by "Conventional medical treatment" and "Alternative medical treatments is not an acceptable NPOV". Ward20 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Add "of Morgellons" for clarity.Ward20 17:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ward's changes above. I also had some concerns about "Other skin conditions" "In these cases, while there is still a delusional component (the fixation on bugs crawling under the skin, the production and collection of fibers, and self-mutilation), there is also an organic component that can be treated by conventional means." This is describing DP, not morgellons. The symptoms of Morgellons do NOT include fixation on bugs crawling on the skin. The CDC and the MRF definition only include the sensation of crawling, which can be caused by many things. Self mutilation is NOT a symptom of Morgellons. It is a symptom of DP. This whole section is biased and describes DP and assumes that DP and Morgellons are the same thing. 204.115.33.49 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the only publications in support of antibiotic treatment have been an opinion article by Savely Laieto and Stricker and a letter to the editor by Harvey, neither of which cited any data, I think the conventional vs. alternative is appropriate. There are approximately 10,000 dermatologists in the U.S. [76]. Even if 100 are willing to treat Morgellons with strong antibiotics, I don't think 1% would constitute as "some". Thatcher131 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does a book count as a publication? If so, then add this one to the list of books suggesting long-term antibiotics and antiparasitics: http://www.healingresearch.org/new.html "Lisa's Disease, Fiber Disease, Also known as Morgellon's disease: Origins, staging, clinical course, treatment, case histories, decontamination of house--much more !!!" "Finally!! The most complete and authoratative book about Morgellons, Lyme and other parasitic diseases. Global warming and increased pollution are creating a Northern movement of what were formally "tropical" diseases. New information, including effective medications, procedures that work and useful products!" Other books authored by Dr. Schwartz http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Practice-Emergency-Medicine-Schwartz/dp/081211373X http://www.amazon.com/Geriatric-Emergency-Medicine-Gideon-Bosker/dp/0801618088 Nielsp 23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and vanity press books sold only on the author's web site do not count as reliable sources. Thatcher131 02:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to 204.115.33.49, self-mutilation actually IS a symptom of Morgellons, it's listed on the MRF case definition [77] in the very first primary symptom as "self generated [skin lesions]". It's also quite clear from looking at photos of these Morgellons "lesions" (See 5th pic here: http://www.cherokeechas.com/CDC-px01.htm) that they are exactly the same as self generated neurotic excoriations [78]. The same comparison was made in the Nature Medicine article with side by side photos captioned "Skeptics say lesions in Morgellons disease (left) are similar to those caused by patients' neurotic scratching and picking" [79]. But it's not just skeptics who say it, the MRF says it. Herd of Swine 14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:Thatcher131 deleted this, claiming "advocacy"... how much harder can you keep your heads in the sand??

Please read this again more carefully, it is more than advocacy, it goes to the heart of the matter as to why morgellons was so rapidy declared "DOP" on the basis of doctors who don't even do a proper medical exam on their patients before misdiagnosing... Mainstream medicine is doing everything it can to not find any answers on this, and perpetuate a barbaric status quo that misdiagnoses and mistreats ALL morgellons patients. The bottom line here is that the Morgellons=DOP is the same camp that also says Chronic-Lyme=psychosomatic/post-lyme-syndrome ... and this is a longstanding schism in the medical community -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease_controversy , morgellons being a new arrival to the long list of disease first ridiculed, then grudgingly accepted by mainstream medicine.

ISN'T WIKIPEDIA ABOUT PRESENTING THE TRUTH?? -- this isn't an opinion poll. These are supposed to be enclyclopedic facts, true for all time. If there's a controversy, then all sides need to be presented, this even includes the nano-chemtrails-tinfoil hat crew... The diversity of opinion has you all cowering instead of searching. Why aren't you people even willing to talk specifics, as I am... waving your arms around and going "DOP" isn't convincing when you can run the tests I and others outline, and see anomalous results in a majority of morgellons patients given these specific and not oft-given tests. Oh, and a majority of Lyme doctors believe Morgellons is not DOP... listening to "regular doctors" for opinions on the cutting edge of a specialty -- lyme disease -- is as foolhardy as getting treatment diagnosis and treatment advice on cancer from a general practitioner. Nielsp 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving rant to subpage at Talk:Morgellons/Nielsp. It's a quote from somewhere, probably from "Nielsp", but it's not a reliable source in any sense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And... Wikipedia is NOT about presenting the truth. It's about presenting what is verifiable, true or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got a real epistemological connundrum on your hands there, pal. Might want to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "epistemological conundrum" if it's worded correctly: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] treatment of DP

Th psychology today article states: "Craft says that he, unlike many doctors, always examines these patients." I think that the current language which implies that derms always perform a thorough examination is inaccurate so I am changing this. According to Craft, this is not the norm Pez1103 12:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The literature on DP specifically talks about a thorough examination as do the two references specifically cited for that sentence. One doctor's opinion, especially in the context of a newspaper article where he is saying "I'm better than other doctors because..." does not outweigh that (and is not cited in that section). We should report what the medically agreed standard of care is, not individual opinions. (It is also true that some very vocal Morgellons patients say they have not been examined, but we don't know how many that really is, or how many were examined thoroughly but claim they weren't because they didn;t like the diagnosis. We should stick with the mainstream medical literature here rather than anecdotal personal experience. Thatcher131 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] treatment

I read the article that was cited. "Meanwhile, she says she is plagued by tiny dark specks and fibers that infest her house. She's paid for exterminators, taken antidepressants, bathed in Borax and spent hundreds on vitamins, garlic pills and other potential remedies." This doesn't support the existing language that sufferers "often" resort to dangerous remedies. There are many, many websites offering advice on morgellons treatment -- many are very safe and non toxic. I think that the existing language is not NPOV.

The other medical treatment section should be written to follow the DP section above it. Other medical practitioners treat Morgellons as an infectious disease.... The part about Morgellons sufferers not believing they are DP was already stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The same article also says: "Some people will biopsy themselves, or seek large quantities of antibiotics, herbal remedies, industrial bug killers and other expensive and potentially harmful treatments". Again though this is just a representative article. You know there are many more that discuss similar things, such as Koblenzer: "the patient will have resorted to the most extreme measures both to eradicate it and to prevent contagion.", or [80] "follows doctors' advice to bathe in bleach and vinegar baths" (no doctor is going to tell you to bathe in bleach). Or Dr Greg Smith, former medical director of the MRF, [81] "Many have lost faith in our medical care system and have turned to alternative medical care or self treatment. Descriptions of their self treatments are frightening. The treatments have included not just topical application but oral ingestion of insect sprays!". There are lots more similar references, but one will suffice, because it's not really something people dispute. Herd of Swine 19:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There are both safe and unsafe treatments. Use of words like "often" is biased because no one really knows how often a safe vs unsafe method is used. And the article only mentions those treatments which are harmful and not the others. It doesn't mention vitamins, herbs, salt baths, vinegar, dandruff shampoo, natural oils, etc. Pez1103 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section biased

The history section wastes significant space and diverts attention from reality by providing undue coverage to the ongoing government coverup and denial to Morgellons/Lyme:

"That same day the Los Angeles County Department of Health services issued a statement saying, "No credible medical or public health association has verified the existence or diagnosis of "Morgellons Disease", and "at this time there is no reason for individuals to panic over unsubstantiated reports of this disease".[13]"

In contrast, recent articles on Morgellons state the CDC's position as follows: http://www.ktvu.com/health/13810037/detail.html

UPDATED: 10:22 am PDT August 4, 2007 OAKLAND -- KTVU Channel 2 has learned the federal Centers for Disease Control has asked Kaiser Permanente to begin the nation’s first epidemiologic study of "Morgellons Disease," a mysterious ailment that the government terms an "unexplained and debilitating condition that has emerged as a public health concern." ... The CDC for the first time publicly says Morgellons is "an emerging public health problem."

But of course, it would violate the egregious bias already presented in this wikipedia article to actually report fairly on the current understanding of the disease... why do that when there's at least a hundred years of psychological quackery that satisfy wikipedia's ridiculous (as practiced here) notions of verifiability, citability and credibility. Let's just ignore the fact that medicine and psychology/psychiatry have completely different standards, to the point where people call psychology and psychiatry "pseudo science". Let's just completely muddle the two and hope nobody notices, right?

Why not have a medical discussion based on proper evidence based medicine? Because of the incredible confusion you can bring to any subject, through handwaving such as "DOP" "delusional" and insisting on descriptions like "bug like crawling/biting" when very few morgellons patients even talk about bugs, and if they do, it's because of language limitations in discussing hard-to-describe symptoms, and not a delusion or hallucination...

This wikipedia article is biased. It embraces a cop-out of the medical mainstream that has proven its contribution to the morbidity and suffering for many patients, by increasing profits and denying coverage to patients who have a guaranteed right to medical treatment that they've paid for. By "psychologizing" and ignoring every new emerging condition, medical coverage can be avoided, through ongoing scientific and medical fraud. Even trivial medical issues today -- ulcers caused by helicobacter pylori -- were long thought to be caused by "stress" and not treated appropriately.

The existing "History" section is like explaining the Iraq war by showing the "bush mission accomplished" photo. Years later, the reality on the ground is clearly much different, and the current state of this wikipedia article will be as risible as that photo-op. But instead of actually paying attention to the voices crying that Morgellons is a real disease, you people are too busy counting how many DOP angels can dance on the head of a pin. You can find lots of reputably published articles that fit into the angel-pin-dancing that you're doing here with respect to citations and verifiability. Similarly you can find reputable, verifiable citable documents stating that thalidomide is good for unborn babies, that DES is good for unborn babies, that silicone breast implants are safe, that artificial transfats are "good" while natural fats are "bad", that AIDS is caused by drug abuse and the "gay lifestyle" and not by a virus, etc. It's just a matter of how foolish you intend to look in the future, as to your positions on morgellons today...

Nielsp 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NOT. Specifically, WP is not a soapbox (WP:SOAP), and WP is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL). Your comments are entirely out of place here on both counts. As it says in the guidelines: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Dyanega 04:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dramatic changes to MRF case definition

There have been some odd changes today to the case definition [82] and the FAQ [83] at the Morgellons Research Foundation's web site [84]. Basically they now strongly suggests that Morgellons is caused by an infestation of horse worms (Onchocerca cervicalis) and various other similar "zoonotic filaria" and also other worm type parasites such as Onchocerciasis. They also say the fibers are manifestations of Actinomycosis. They claim to have unequivocable clinical evidence of this, based on "11,400 patient parameters" and "400 data points per patient" (which I'm thinking translates to 29 patients). They claim they will publish soon in a peer reviewed journal. They also see to suggest that CFS may have similar causes (see section 6 of the case definition). I'm thinking this should at least justify a new section under Proposed causes? My worry is: is it notable now? The sudden and unusual nature of the edits at the MRF site seem very out of keeping with the previous drift of the MRF members, who all seem to have proposed a Lyme based cause. It's frankly quite bizarre that they suddenly switched to parasitic horse worms. Maybe we should just wait a few days until things settle down? Pez and Ward - you both are associated with the MRF, can you throw any light on the subject? Herd of Swine 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate to note this, as the MRF web site would be considered a reliable source for what the MRF believes. Rather than create a separate section for the new theory it might be better to rearrange or reword things to say "doctors associated with the MRF have previously asserted...bacterial/Lyme; recently the MRF website was changed to claim that the MRF has clinical evidence of zoonotic infestations and states that a peer-reviewed clinical report is forthcoming." I wonder if the actinomycosis is a secondary opportunistic infection in a weakened or stressed person; it seems unlikely that both zoonotic parasitosis and actinomycosis are primary. Agree that we do not need to rush on this and that Pez and Ward's thoughts should be heard. Thatcher131 12:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

They actually removed a lot of it today. See [85] Herd of Swine 16:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then best leave it unsaid and rely on what has been published outside of the MRF's web site. Thatcher131 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But we should check the current article to see if there are any references to the MRF site that now need changing. Herd of Swine 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following from my supposed "rant" moved here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgellons/Nielsp
(4) According to Dr. George Schwartz, author of "Lisa's Disease, Fiber Disease, 
Also known as Morgellon's disease: Origins, staging, clinical course, treatment,
case histories, decontamination of house--much more" -- testing for microfiliaria
should be done via microscopic examination of a peripheral blood smear.
.
My own research indicates that "ONCHOCERCA VOLVULUS" and it's Blackfly vector may
be present in areas considered Morgellons endemic and may be a significant aspect
of morgellons etiology. In Florida, this is backed up by Trish Springstead, RN,
who appeared on a recent Florida News segment on "Body Bugs" (
http://www1.wsvn.com/features/articles/investigations/MI46364 ). In California,
Morgellons endemic areas such as Los Angeles county have had longstanding problems
with blackfly: http://www.lawestvector.org/black_flies.htm
.
Although it is repeatedly claimed that onchocerca volvulus is not found in the
USA, there are scattered reports in the medical literature indicating otherwise.
Furthermore, the presence of Morgellons in Blackfly endemic areas of the United
States, indicates that these claims need to be updated for the 21st century.
.
Thus in addition to standard peripheral blood smears for microfiliaria, blood
collection should occur through a "bloodless skin snip" as suggested by
http://www.mssushi.com/stuff/medschool/notes/micro/other/GKHelminths.doc .
That document also suggests "microfiliaria migrate through dermal lesions"
therefore the skin snip and blood collection should probably occur from a
morgellons lesion and not uninfected skin.
.
There is also a Lyme connection to Microfiliaria. After all Dr. Burgdorfer 
discovered borrelia by accident while investigating microfiliaria in ticks:
.
> A microfilaria of exceptional size from the ixodid tick, Ixodes dammini, from
> Shelter Island, New York Beaver, P. C.; Burgdorfer, W. 1984
>
> Journal of Parasitology 70(6): 963-966
>
> Thirty or more microfilariae 0.70-1.32 mm in length were recovered from the
> haemocoel of an unengorged adult tick, Ixodes dammini, that was collected from
> vegetation on Shelter Island, New York, USA. Among approximately 500 I. dammini
> collected from the same area only one other was similarly infected. Outstanding
> features, in addition to size, were absence of a cephalic space and the presence
> of nuclei in 2 or 3 irregular rows extending to the end of a bluntly rounded
> tail. The microfilariae apparently were ingested in a blood meal that was taken
> when the ticks were larvae or nymphs, and had persisted alive without
> development.
.
For more info, see http://lymebusters.proboards39.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=rash&thread=1186564783  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsp (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 

I want to be clear. I have no inside information concerning the MRF or what they do concerning their website and organization. I had never known or communicated with anyone from the MRF until a few weeks after I started editing this article. I contacted one person associated with the MRF at that time to verify a few points from sources by phone a few times. I also discussed with this person my personal experience concerning the medical community and emerging diseases. I have e-mailed (twice) one other person who is no longer associated with the MRF in order to clarify content of material that is available on the internet.

From previous knowledge, here are some sources that may or may not give some context to some of the new information from the MRF website. Herd of Swine may already be aware of this information, some may not. If you do, I hope I don't bore you too much. There is a huge overlap of symptoms between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Lyme disease, and many CFS patients test positive for Lyme. Some doctors believe there could be a direct connection.[86] Dr. Lawrence Klapow has been researching a roundworm (Cryptostrongylus pulmoni) for a number of years with a possible link to CFS.[87][88][89] To my knowledge, Dr. Klapow has never associated Cryptostrongylus pulmoni with Morgellons, but others have.[90][91]. The mention of colors is interesting, but the scale of size is off by several factors to Morgellons fibers compared with the organisms Dr. Klapow has found. There is a lot of conjecture here, and I only bring this up for informational purposes.

I think the removal from the MRF website of speculation on etiologies and information that will be submitted for future publication was wise on their part. As far as the article, there is still a lot of published material that needs to be discussed and refined. Ward20 07:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the changes to the MRF web site were removed yesterday, so I guess nothing needs to be reflected here. Still rather odd though. Herd of Swine 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not also remove speculation on etiologies from this wikipedia article? After all, it's a bunch of speculation from doctors that have never properly examined patients, but rather diagnosed DOP as a form of discrimination against the patient. They therefore have the motive to continue the ruse of DOP long after plenty of evidence indicates otherwise. That the delusions they speak of are also being seen by doctors, photographed by patients and doctors, and all look remarkably similar, should be a huge alarm-call that this is not DOP. Doctors who are treating patients w/ some success are saying "infective", and their opinions are being published, but you're still busy counting dop-angels-on-heads-of-pins. I'm sure there was plenty of published speculation among the flat earthers on how to get to the new world, but it was all nonsense. And so is most of the DOP talk in the literature. It is legal-ass-covering for doctors that have tortured many patients over the years and a medical system that doesn't want to recognize, acknowledge or pay for any new disease until at least a generation of patients lives' are destroyed in the process. ........ In this WP discussion, I notice a quick willingness to drop any talk of infectious etiology, and yet you all continue to waste time talking about DOP... Morgellons is not DOP... the CDC's Morgellons study is with "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED)"... they no longer list a DOP page on that site

Removed: Delusional Parasitosis | CDC Division of Parasitic Diseases
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/delusionalparasitosis/default.htm - 10k

how much more of a kick in the head do you need before you wake up??? Why would the CDC spend a bunch of taxpayer's money launching an investigation over a delusion? Such blatant bias in the face of reality is present among the majority of authors active here... Nielsp 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morgellons ~ Agrobacterium ~ Monsanto Patents

I have not read all the letters on the topic of Morgellons on this page.

I have been researching the symptoms of Morgellons and certain "Auto immune" diseases because of the devastation to mine and others health here in Hawaii, of the sores, pain, fatique.

Three years ago I made up my mind that I was going to find out, before I died, what was the cause.

I had no agenda, religious or political, I just wanted to know what was killing me and my friends here and elsewhere.

What at one point seemed like a "No Brainer", lead me into an environmental disaster beyond my comprehension and a very deliberate action to misled the American public, allowing 100,000's to suffer and die a slow and excrutiating death.

There HAS been a major break-through with Morgellon patients, they have been found to have a GMO-Pharmicutical (Monsanto) patented material in their bodies, when their sores have been biopsied, Agrobacterium, has been used by the BioPharmicutical companies for 25-50 yrs. Look it up!

Monsanto has been raising corn and other crops here on Maui for 10+yrs. in secret, open field experiments, non-contained, supposedly creating Pharmicuticals. I think we have found the "Smoking Gun" OTC Now 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source. Thatcher131 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, perhaps; how does Agrobacterium, which is present in essentially all the soil on the planet and has been there since before humans evolved suddenly, in your opinion, qualify as a "patented material"? That's like saying that if Monsanto filed for a patent for navel lint, that its presence in your navel means that Monsanto PUT it there? Dyanega 07:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back through this talk page you will see assertions that Morgellons is late-stage Lyme disease, that it is caused by secret spraying of nanoprobes (chemtrails) and now Monsanto-engineered Agrobacterium. I'm sure you can see why articles must rely on reliable sources. Thatcher131 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for your info, agrobacterium aren't part of field tests. They are used to transform plant but once you have the transformed plants, you don't need the agrobacterium anymore Nil Einne 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But don't the transformed plants in the field (and their gametes) contain stably inserted agrobacterial DNA with a selectable antibiotic resistance marker? I read that only some antibiotics are successful at treating these symptoms - I'd be curious to compare that list to the common Agro-vector list before I completely wrote off the idea. As for the patent comment, the method of using agrobacterium as a transformation vector, and the various genetically modified vectors are patentable (it really is more complicated than navel lint). Dr d12 01:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the analogy holds; the point is that you couldn't distinguish patented navel lint from naturally-occurring navel lint. Just because Monsanto holds a patent for some specially-developed strain of Agrobacterium does not mean that all of the Agrobacterium in the world now belongs to Monsanto. There are patented strains of tomatoes, too - do you automatically assume that when you eat a tomato, it MUST be a patented one? Dyanega 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources of the Morgellon

I was thinking the same thing about nanotechnology. In a matter of fact I am considering four possibilities for the source of this disease. 1) Nanovirus - man-made nanoparticle created in the lab for the purpose of material creation from a specific substance. And ofcourse, nothing can be confined. Everything leaks, and for some reason that technology leaked from the lab to the environment. In a matter of fact some products we buy are made with nanotechnology. 2) Spider goats - I am sure that some people saw programme on tv about genetically modified goats to produce milk that contains protein found in spider webs. Somehow that goat and milk got into food chain and so on. 3) DNA experiments - we live in the world full of DNA experiments. Naturally, it took millions or even billions of years for a DNA mutations to follow pattern that is stable and much without any oddities in epidemic proportions. Since DNA's are modified at alarming pace today, its impossible to forecast the conscequences. 4) DNA mutations - the way we treat environment, no wonder why mother nature is doing her own version of ethnic cleansing (or natural selection in process). History is full examples of empires taking pounding of death because of fascination and mass producing technologies. There are always an unpredictable consequences that are even beyond grasp of human intellect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaVinciUnicorn (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but please don't pt it on the page, it's original research.

-Luna —Preceding comment was added at 14:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nanobot infection

I've been getting a lot of sources within the fringe matters/conspiracy theory circle claiming that this is caused by nanobots, and that analysis of the fibres and so on have given evidence toward this argument. Despite the unpopularity of this viewpoint I think it should at least be noted on the main page, because at the moment I can't find anything about it. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the article Mucoid plaque, which no reputable doctor believes is real, and which is characterized as a health care fraud. If there was absolutely no legitimate claim that Morgellons is a real phenomenon, it might get covered the same way mucoid plaque is, listing all the crackpot theories in order to discredit it. However, there are at least a few physicians who take Morgellons seriously as something other than a new and misleading name for delusional parasitosis, and the CDC has opened an investigation. So I think we have some responsibility to treat the subject with respect, and I just don't know how I would include the nanobot conspiracy in such an article. Thatcher131 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia doesn't really exist to discredit anything, and in my opinion the Mucoid plaque article IS definately biased toward that purpose and is not a good yardstick for other "unlikely theories". Nor does wikipedia exist to present information in a manner which is "respectful" to any party. That's the whole point of neutrality. I understand that if we added every crackpot theory that ever existed on a subject, then some pages would be so huge that they would overwhelm the servers, so that brings us down to the matter of notability. Is this theory notable enough to warrant inclusion. I would say that, naturopathic quacks and paranoid conspiracy theorists aside, there has been some very legitmate research projects taken on this particular subject, all of which have legitimate findings, even if their theories about those findings may not be conventional. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

None of them have "legitimate findings" as WP defines them (i.e., none of them are reliable sources). No one's personal opinion as an editor is relevant, and in this case it sounds like you are claiming that what makes these theories notable is that YOU think they are legitimate - but that is a matter of your personal opinion. What makes scientific theories notable is if the scientific community takes the time to discuss them, and give them "air time" - and they don't. That there are "sources within the fringe matters/conspiracy theory circle" discussing something does NOT make it notable. Dyanega 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I said that I think they are notable because of the research that has been done into it looks to me, in my opinion, to be notable, but that I think it should be discussed, because obviously other people might have different views. I don't know how you took that to mean that I think that my personal opinion on the matter should be considered final, but you can rest assured that was not my intention. I feel I should also point out that WP:RS is NOT policy, but a guideline, and in my experience generally descends into an argument about which sources are reliable and which are not. Also, neither is WP:Notability, which is also just a guideline, and which says nothing about "sources within the fringe matters/conspiracy theory circle" not making something notable - so your statement that those sources are not reliable/notable is actually a statement of your opinion more than anything else. Please refer to the section "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" for why I often disregard the guidelines in favor of gaining a consensus of opinion among editors on the talk page. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 06:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Playing around with the rules is fine on most topics, but NOT when the topic is as contentious and controversial as this one. When both sides of a debate are being accused of lying by the other side, the only viable approach is to force everyone to adhere to the rules as strictly as possible. As for your point about research, there has not BEEN any research done on nanobots - at least not by any normal definition of the word "research". That's why I said it was a matter of your opinion; what you are considering "research" is not what WP considers to be "research". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyanega (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revision [92]

Question, are you talking about herbal supplements, and light therapy treatment, or am not seeing something else? Thanks.Ward20 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just reverted myself. It's all treatment for infection, whether or not plausibly efficatious. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] treatment for infectious disease

I don't agree with any of the changes Dyanega made (without any discussion on this page). There was no basis to take out "medical" before practitioner -- only medical practitioners can prescribe the meds outlined in the paragraph. This is disparaging of people with the disease and there is no basis for some of the comments. "Patients say that they have an infection" - I have spoken to hundreds of morgellons patients, I've never heard one say "I have an infection." Some say that they have lyme disease and seek treatment for their lyme disease -- is that what this is trying to say? Almost every single new disease was dismissed as psychological. If you had lupus 30 years ago, and you saw a doctor and he said that you were imagining your symptoms, what would you do? Would you say that you had an infection and seek out a practitioner who would treat your symptoms as product of an infectious process and specify what drugs that you wanted? Or would you just know that your symptoms weren't delusional and seek help. Some doctors are treating Morgellons with antifungals, antiparasitics and antibiotics. It is the doctors prescribing the meds -- yes, the patient may ignore the advice which says that the disease is delusional if they do not believe that they are delusional, but to go further and say that the patient says that it is an infectious process and to imply that the patient is determining the treatment is inaccurate and unsupported. Patients are seeking help for their symptoms, not specific drugs. The existing language is not NPOV.

I suggest this: People who believe they have Morgellons will frequently reject the diagnosis of delusional parasitosis[36] and, "report that their symptoms are not taken seriously."[2] Some medical practitioners will treat morgellons symptoms as a product of an infectious process, including the use of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications, herbal supplements, and light therapy. Physicians associated with the Morgellons Research Foundation have reported that some Morgellons patients who test positive for Lyme disease obtain symptom relief using aggressive, long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease. However, if the treatment is discontinued the symptoms return.[18][2][19] There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments. 72.231.188.136 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Say" is better than "believe". It is sourced (see citation 36) and NPOV, the word belief (synonym claim) casts doubt on the validity of their mindset (see WP:WTA), say is the correct word in this context)Ward20 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Treatment for Delusional Parasitosis section has text about examination in order to rule out other causes. The infectious disease citations also explain how patients are examined so I am going to include that in the Treatment for infectious disease section.Ward20 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people that I have spoken to go to naturopath physicians who recommend herbs and dietary changes. Many people are reporting success with this. Is there some way to incorporate this? Can self treatment be changed to "other treatment options" ? 204.115.33.45 13:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source for this information (as Wikipedia defines sources), you can merge it into "treatment for infectious disease" and retitle that section. I don't think it belongs in "self-treatment", which probably does deserve a separate subsection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, a new heading could possibly be made for Complementary and alternative medicine but any treatments mentioned should have reliable sources and be notable to Morgellons. It could be a slippery slope to include more controversial treatments without the right context. For example, the dental treatments make me cautious about (NCS).Ward20 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The text "There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments", has a few problems. It is not sourced, it is technically wrong, because peer reviewed studies of long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease have been done. There may be a study in a book or a foreign language for Morgellons symptoms by another name that has not been discovered for all anyone knows. This appears to to a statement from an editor that would be considered original research.[93]"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." Ward20 00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Ward20 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Following the principles outlined in WP:FRINGE, the absence of peer-reviewed rebuttals of a fringe theory should not be held forth as implicit support. If some celebrity were to make a statement that "Eating Roquefort cheese cured my warts", I find it hard to believe that a WP reference to this quote would be prohibited from indicating "There are no studies showing that Roquefort cheese cures warts" simply because there were no peer-reviewed studies of the effects of cheese on warts that could be cited. It's as simple as finding a single peer-reviewed study of the efficacy of one of these treatments for Morgellons; include the cite, and delete the statement. What's so hard to follow there? Dyanega 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that this actually falls under WP:FRINGE because the first sentence states, "This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia, and to an extent how those articles should approach their subjects." Then it states, "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible." These guidelines define Morgellons as mainstream as well as the treatments discussed for treating Morgellons.[94][95][96][97] I need some help with, "the absence of peer-reviewed rebuttals of a fringe theory should not be held forth as implicit support." I can not find where this is stated or paraphrased from in WP:FRINGE, maybe I am just not seeing it. In any case, I don't think removing a non verifiable statement is holding forth implicit support of any treatments we are discussing.

Using the Roquefort example: A WP:RS would have to publish that celebrity X stated, "Eating Roquefort cheese cured my warts" before it can be used in WP. A WP:RS also needs to publish, "There are no studies showing that Roquefort cheese cures warts" before it can be used in WP. Even if a WP editor conducted a "perfect" literature search to demonstrate that no studies showed Roquefort cheese cures warts, without a WP:RS the editor's statement, "There are no studies showing that Roquefort cheese cures warts" is still original research done by an editor, and not acceptable in WP. See, WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.", and also, WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The guideline states the burden of verifiability lies with the editor who added the material.

Besides these basic problems above with the text, "There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments.", I think the statement has other problems. As Dyanega has shown, it lacks the words "for Morgellons". There are peer-reviewed studies of treatments for antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications and chronic Lyme disease. It can be argued that "for Morgellons" is implied in the usage of the sentence, but if that is so then there is the problem of pejorative usage of the phrase. Most dermatologists hypothesize Morgellons is a manifestation of delusional parasitosis and treat accordingly. Some medical professionals hypothesize Morgellons is a manifestation of infectious disease and treat accordingly. The CDC, the Mayo text, and The 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology agree that the cause of Morgellons is unknown. If there are no peer reviewed studies of treatments of Morgellons, that applies equally to all treatments of patients labeled Morgellons. WP:NOPOV To apply the phrase only to treatment of infectious disease is biased. The other problem I have with the statement as written is that it is obsolete. Once a literature search is complete there could be a new study published the second after. So there needs to be text saying, as of this date, X published that no peer reviewed studies...

I am going into this detail in order to talk about a source I did find recently. As of June of 2006, an article in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE reported there have been no clinical studies (of patients labeled Morgellons).[98]^[7] To apply this in a NPOV text, I believe it should be added in History[99] right after the sentence, "The first scientific article to discuss Morgellons was co-authored by V. R. Savely, M. M. Leitao, and R. B. Stricker, members of the MRF, and was published July, 2006 by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.[2]", because it it used similarly in the source. And this text and source has some problems because some wording was changed to accommodate these studies, COLLEMBOLA (SPRINGTAILS) (ARTHROPODA: HEXAPODA: ENTOGNATHA) FOUND IN SCRAPINGS FROM INDIVIDUALS DIAGNOSED WITH DELUSORY PARASITOSIS[100], and (maybe), "Amin, O. M. 2004. On the diagnosis and management of neurocutaneous syndrome, a toxicity disorder from dental sealants. California Dental Association Journal 32 (9): 657-663." I am not arguing the quality of these studies and the exact relationship to Morgellons, but only point out that they exist and make the issue more complex.

Based on the above, I think the text, "There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments.", should be removed and, As of June of 2006, an article in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE reported there have been no clinical studies (of patients labeled Morgellons).[101]^[8] be added after the sentence, "The first scientific article to discuss Morgellons was co-authored by V. R. Savely, M. M. Leitao, and R. B. Stricker, members of the MRF, and was published July, 2006 by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.[2]".Ward20 22:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Ward20 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this new external link to Randy Wymore's project acceptable?

A brand-new anonymous editor recently added an external link to a project of Randy Wymore. Since I don't follow this page very closely, does this duplicate something already in the reference list? I didn't want to remove it without consulting first. EdJohnston 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Scientist Article

This recentish (12 September 2007) article by a respected science magazine has probably greatly increased the number of people who have heard about Morgellons. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19526210.700-morgellons-disease-the-itch-that-wont-be-scratched.html)

The article has a lot of up to date information and interviews with scientists. However, you have to have a subscription to read it, therefore I'm not sure if it should be a link. The article raises a few points (not sure if these have been mentioned above), e.g. that the possible infection may eventually cause mental problems, therefore these may be real but secondary rather than primary. That some antibiotics but not others have had good results, suggesting that some specific pathogen, rather than the placebo effect, is at work. 141.5.194.4 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The New Scientist article has been mentioned on the talk page, but I am pretty sure there are no citations to it yet in WP Morgellons. There are already seveal citations to sources in WP Morgellons that have to be payed for or subscribed to, so that is not a problem. I would like to see some NPOV new editors inject some fresh ideas. We have been civil to each other for over a month now, hopefully it will continue, LOL.Ward20 02:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Onchocerciasis: Diagnosis and Treatment

Please consider this recent article for further diagnostic and treatment guidelines, either for morgellons itself, or as a differential diagnosis: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/509325

Title      Recent Updates on Onchocerciasis: Diagnosis and Treatment
Author(s)       Don N. Udall
Identifiers     Clinical Infectious Diseases, volume 44 (2007), pages 53–60
DOI: 10.1086/509325
PubMed ID: 17143815

Copyright       © 2007, the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Recent progress in onchocerciasis research has led to improved 
understanding of the immunopathology of Onchocerca volvulus, as well as 
improvements in diagnosis and treatment of this morbid disease. This 
article reviews the recent literature, highlighting breakthroughs in 
sensitive means of antigen testing and an unusual new approach to therapy 
that targets an endosymbiotic bacterium required for filarial worm  
fecundity.

In other words, co-administered antibiotics act as "birth control" for microfiliaria, reducing the overall parasite load. As such "tetracycline" class antibiotics, usually doxycycline, is suggested for co-administration with a microfiliaricide, usually ivermectin, fenbendazole, oxybendazole, moxidectin, levamisole, DEC, etc. I believe new WHO guidelines for treatment specifically recommend co-administering antibiotics. This corresponds to my own remission of symptoms when I'm on oxytetracycline (especially potent but not available for humans in USA -- but w/o a prescription as veterinary medicine), and tetracycline (which amazingly, i was able to sneak out of kaiser despite the tuskeegee experiment they've been attempting on me). Nielsp 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nielsp is NielsMayer, who was blocked. See here: [102] Herd of Swine 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

The last two sections were about the subject of the article, rather than leading to anything which might improve the article itself. I'd suggest moving them to another subpage, but I've already done that for this editors contributions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The last two sections are **THE** subject of the article. THey're also a strong indication that this entire wikipedia article on "Morgellons" is complete garbage and needs to be thrown out. Either that, or it should be recast as a historical page accurately capturing the peculiar beliefs of a bunch of scientific flat-earthers who go to amazing extremes to defend the indefensible position that morgellons is not a real infectious disease, but rather a form of delusion, or even worse, a form of internet delusion (ala "Koro" aka "Penis Panic"). In this wikipedia article, most everything needs to go -- medical malpractice is being preached in all sections confabulating this disease with delusional parasitosis, DOP, treatment with psychotropics, and the sections mocking patients desperate for treatment while having their basic human rights violated by doctors. I'd suggest moving the entire wikipedia article to /dev/null and start with a new page based on the appropriate name for this disease, which is "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")" as per http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ .

Should a more psychologically oriented wikipedia page be needed, please consider the statement from Dr. Harvey:

...we are now certain it is NOT Delusions of Parasitosis. The latter in 
fact, will be the thrust of the paper: the DOP label has resulted in 
inappropriate and incomplete treatment of countless people who never 
recovered. Once the final DNA sequencing is done and the paper completed, 
it will be published with treatment protocol(s) for all clinicians world 
wide to use. Meanwhile, as both primary organisms create brain limbic 
system abnormalities, we now understand that the delusional component of 
the illness is real in many affected (but far from all), so correct 
psychotropic medication can help that component even if treated purely 
independently. Nearly half the Morgellons are bipolar, but became so AFTER 
the parasite infection began. Others have formal diagnoses of extreme OCD 
or ADD/ADHD. The prevalence in children is no different from adults, and 
there appear to be no gender or race differences.

In contrast, the current psychiatric-slant in this article is coming from people, all of whom are not trained psychologists or psychiatrists, who appear to be happily parroting terms used by psychiatrists, without any actual knowledge of what those terms or the treatment entails. Ridiculous clinging to very technical terms from people that aren't even willing to use their real names, or backup who they are with real credentials, and who are unwilling to disclose who they represent. How about finding another group to anonymously persecute through amateur couch-psychiatry?? There is a real suffering patient population here; your ongoing denialism, and the fact that you've all glommed onto wikipedia, forcibly slanted it towards the psychological and away from the medical, and are use this site as an organ to broadcast defamation&lies... is reprehensible. The current wikipedia Morgellons page is causing these patients suffering, and is ultimately libellous, discrimination-inducing hate-speech. Nielsp 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nielsp (t)

Since he was banned for being the sockpuppet of a banned user, should his contributions to this talk page be excised? (At least those which have had no comments by other editors....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally a thread that he started let to something informative, so I suggest you just box up the long rant-like passages using the show/hide templates {{hat}} and {{hab}}. You could also change the section headings he used to something more descriptive and less inflammatory. EdJohnston 15:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. His rants were extremely inflammatory, condescending, and violated a number of policies designed to keep the editing climate here civil. He even directly libelled named persons, which I removed. -- Fyslee / talk 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussion of edit ^{[citation needed]} [103]

Citation 20 at the end of the paragraph [104] discusses all these treatments for Morgellons by Savely. If that is not sufficient, another key source is [105]"Stricker and other physicians are treating Morgellons patients with a combination of antibiotics and anti-parasitic and antifungal drugs." Then there are [106][107][108]. These are not the only citations for these therapies, just enough to illustrate they are being used by some medical professionals. The only therapy I could not find multiple sources for was the Savely light treatment, if that is not accurate to "some" I will remove light therapy until I find another source.Ward20 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: Citation 20 states: "Savely has developed several cocktails of antibiotics, antifungal, antiparasitic medications, and herbal supplements. She has even tried light therapy (Savely & Leitao, 2005)"; the next one, as you note, refers only to Stricker and Savely. The remaining three citations are as follows: [109] states only that a Morgellons patient "has been taking an antibiotic and an antifungal medicine that has helped heal his sores" - it does not specify who, if anyone, prescribed these treatments, or why. The next one, [110] states: "Dr. (Neelam) Uppal gave the Kochs and fifteen other patients a powerful anti-parasite medicine and antibiotics that helped temporarily." (hardly a ringing endorsement for the treatment, one might note). The final one refers to Savely, Stricker, and George Schwartz. Accordingly, the evidence is that there are only four individuals in the country that are treating Morgellons in this fashion; Savely, Stricker, Uppal, and Schwartz. That is a short enough list that they can be identified by name, and the appropriate citations linked to each one, rather than the implication that there are many physicians who are engaged in such treatments. I have no problem citing the treatments as long as they are linked directly to the individuals recommending them, and I suggest making the appropriate edits to remove the implication that physicians outside of these four are involved. The claim that OTHER physicians follow this practice constitutes an extrapolation from rather little evidence, and as such is "original research" and unverifiable. Dyanega 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The most common usage of "some", unspecified number or quantity.[111] On that basis the present text is correct. There are errors in the statement, "Accordingly, the evidence is that there are only four individuals in the country that are treating Morgellons in this fashion; Savely, Stricker, Uppal, and Schwartz." [112]"Stricker and other physicians" does not support, "refers only to Stricker and Savely" as was suggested. [113] states that a Morgellons patient "has been taking an antibiotic and an antifungal medicine that has helped heal his sores". These are normally prescription medications prescribed by medical professionals, and the article does not indicate otherwise. [114]"Dr. William Harvey,...treats patients with antibiotics -- Rocephin or Zithromax -- and almost always, symptoms subside." [115]Robert Bransfield,...has tried treating Morgellons patients with antibiotics...." [116] Margo is prescribed antibiotics by un-named doctor.

"Some" is normally used to define an unspecified number. There is no "implication that there are many physicians who are engaged in such treatments." The text states, "Some medical practitioners will...treat Morgellons symptoms as a product of an infectious process, including the use of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications, herbal supplements, and light therapy" From the citation(s) it is not 4 medical professionals, but an unspecified number. The citation(s) make it clear some medical professionals use the treatments mentioned and it is not original research.

If you want me to list all the other sources at the end of the paragraph, that is OK, but I was under the impression that was not the correct style. See: [117], "There are lots more similar references, but one will suffice, because it's not really something people dispute.", which talks about cited reference [118] text, "Some people...seek large quantities of antibiotics, herbal remedies, industrial bug killers and other expensive and potentially harmful treatments, she said" supports the article text, "Some treatments are dangerous, however, and have included the use of bleach, veterinary medicines intended for de-worming horses, and industrial insecticides."

To list which sources specify specific treatments by certain doctors for treatment for infectious disease of Morgellons is beyond the scope of this article, and is the same as listing which sources specify specific treatments by certain doctors for treatment for Delusional Parasitosis of Morgellons, which has not been done. Ward20 00:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Ward20 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the quote should be changed; "Those few medical practitioners that believe Morgellons is an infectious process, including several from the MRF, treat Morgellons symptoms accordingly, including the use of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications, herbal supplements, and light therapy" - then list the citations. You've listed four doctors from the MRF, one that believes it's worms, and one who has been condemned by others here as a quack; what they have in common is that each and every one believes and promotes Morgellons treatments; it is disingenuous to phrase your edits as if they are anonymous, unbiased medical professionals. To claim anything more than "a few" is unverifiable; that's what the documented evidence supports, and extrapolation beyond that is inappropriate. Unless you can come up with a concrete argument otherwise, I'll go ahead with this edit tomorrow. If necessary, I can quote the passages you wrote earlier on the talk page about removing unverifiable statements, even trivial ones that most people wouldn't ever bother to dispute. Dyanega 07:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope the doctors do believe in their Morgellons treatments, both for infectious disease and Delusional Parasitosis. It is not acceptable to regard doctors that believe in one theory differently than the ones that believe in the other theory. WP:NOPOV "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." There are few or some (however you determine the few to some demarcation) dermatologists that are actually quoted in the literature as treating Morgellons patients, DP patients yes, Morgellons patients no. [119] Every doctor (both sides) believes and promotes according to their beliefs. It seems as if the argument is being made one group of medical professionals is unprofessionally biased and not the other. To my knowledge, no sources have stated that. And I would thank you not to call my edits disingenuous. I have not characterized your edits with terms such as that.

Again, some is an indeterminate number as in "Some treatments are dangerous, however, and have included the use of bleach, veterinary medicines intended for de-worming horses, and industrial insecticides." Few is less accurate than some.[120]"Stricker and other physicians are treating Morgellons patients with a combination of antibiotics and anti-parasitic and antifungal drugs." How many other physicians? few, many, or some? It is indeterminate, some really is the best fitting word.

I want to move on, in order to compromise I am going to uncouple the treatments with "some doctors" that your are objecting to and put the citations after the sentence. Any interested party can look it up and form their own opinions.Ward20 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Those few medical practitioners that believe Morgellons is an infectious process, including several from the MRF, treat Morgellons symptoms accordingly" is NOT pejorative, and does not assert whether they are correct or not - it points out that they represent the minority opinion, which IS demonstrable, has been quoted verifiably elsewhere, and follows NPOV guidelines, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE, as well; it is also WP policy not to represent a significant minority viewpoint as if it were mainstream, and statements and opinions OF minority groups should always be noted as such. If the reader is not aware that the opinion presented is that of a minority group, then they are NOT being given the necessary information to "form their own opinion". As for bias, most medical professionals are NOT board members of advocacy groups, nor do they solicit charitable donations from the public for the same organization which funds their work, or sell self-published books of their theories, or run commercial websites. These are rare and exceptional practices in the medical community (no one claims they do not occur, but it is certainly a small minority), and each and every individual known to be treating Morgellons as an infectious disease falls into at least one of these categories. Couple that with their viewpoint being at odds with the majority of the medical community, and there is ample reason to treat their opinions with GREAT circumspection. Dyanega 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying and understand your points. Pejorative can be choice of wording too. I have pointed out Morgellons is not WP:FRINGE according to WP guidelines, and is also considered mainstream under WP guidelines, "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications."

MRF is a non-profit organization trying to raise awareness and money for research. Many many non-profit groups do that and have medical professionals on their boards and medical staff. For example: on the American Cancer Society front page: Donate, Participate in events, Volunteer your time, Advocate for change.

Board of Directors:
Briggs W. Andrews, Esq
Donald Anthony, MD
George W.P. Atkins
Ermilo "Milo" Barrera Jr., MD
Kathleen Bond
Nancy Brakensiek, CPA
Sally West Brooks, RN,
Tim E. Buyers, MD, MPH
Gena R. Carter, MD
Carmel J. Cohen, MD
Vincent T. DeVita Jr., MD
Audry B. Douglas-Cookie, RN,
R. Daniel Duquette, PhD
W. Phil Evans, MD
J. Michael Fitzpatrick, PhD
Elizabeth "Terry" T.H. Fontham, MPH, DrPH
Harold P. Freeman, MD
Laura J. Hilderley, RN,
Elmer Huerta, MD, MPH
Juan D. Johnson
Lila R. Johnson, RN,
Anna Johnson-Winegar, PhD
Douglas K. Kelsey, MD, PhD
Robert T. Kendall III, Esq.
Robert Kugler, Esq.
Cynthia Marie LeBlanc,
Rosemary Mackey,
Mario A. Mendez, MD
Pamela K. Meyerhoffer
Karen A. Moffitt, PhD
Marion E. Morra, MA, ScD
Edward E. Partridge, MD
Gary M. Reedy
The Honorable Paul G. Rogers
Carolyn D. Runowicz, MD
Christy A. Russell, MD
David G. Seaman
Jonathan W. Simons, MD
Patricia E.Swanson, RN
Stephen L. Swanson
Eric Taylor, MD,
William Todd
Alan G. Thorson, MD,
Richard C. Wender, MD
Van Velsor Wolf Jr.

The MRF's viewpoint may be treated with GREAT circumspection by the media, but not by WP editors. WP:NOPOV "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better." Ward20 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as do mainstream journalists, about the MRF's purpose. They are trying to raise awareness of Morgollon's as an infectious disease and to money for research to establish that. As no one denies that cancer exists, references to the ACS are inapposite. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You quote WP policy: "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." EXACTLY MY POINT. Accordingly, that there are only a few people who believe Morgellons is an infectious diseases can and SHOULD be mentioned, and we can and SHOULD discuss them by name and affiliation, and we can and SHOULD expressly indicate that their view is not the popular one. Accordingly, the edit I suggested is perfectly justifiable, as written. Also, you may "point out" your belief that Morgellons is not fringe all you like, but that nonetheless puts you in a minority, as well. All but one of the other editors that has participated here recently do not agree with you, and the one who DOES is an admitted advocate for the MRF! You can turn a blind eye to it, but BY DEFINITION, those who consider Morgellons to be a distinct and novel condition are following a "significant minority" viewpoint, that fits all of the criteria for "non-mainstream" as set forth in WP. The very statement you quote: "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications" is violated in the present case: the idea that Morgellons is an infectious disease is clearly NOT accepted, nor even discussed as plausible, in these publications - you may wish to argue about it, obviously, but discussion would imply that someone outside the MRF has explicitly acknowledged that the MRF's theories about Morgellons are plausible, and no one has yet gone out on that particular limb. All of the discussion to date has been pointing out that the majority opinion in the medical community is that Morgellons is NOT anything new, which runs counter to the MRF's theory. In other words, it is discussed, in the literal sense, but as being IMplausible rather than plausible. WP policy indicates: "if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play" - and all of the citations and references which claim that Morgellons is a "newly-emerging, infectious disease" come from the MRF and its board members, which is precisely what this caveat warns editors to AVOID promoting. Much of what the WP:FRINGE guidelines refer to is determining notability, and Morgellons has more than adequately demonstrated that it is notable - but there are PLENTY of fringe theories which are highly notable; this does not mean they are not "fringe". As the guidelines state: "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia" and "Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. Many ideas widely believed to be incorrect are nonetheless notable, and the claimed correctness of an idea does not confer notability."

As one other point, to follow up Arthur's comment, you'll note that I had already acknowledged that there are medical professionals who are on the board of advocacy groups, so there was no point in your giving evidence that this occurs; their mere existence does not mean that they are NOT among a minority of medical professionals, however. Further, you say the "MRF is a non-profit organization trying to raise awareness and money for research." The MRF is different from other non-profit organizations in that the only researchers supported are individuals who are board members and ex-board members. Furthermore, raising public awareness of cancer is VERY, VERY unlikely to result in a significant increase in the number of patients the actual board members of the ACS are going to examine; they do not personally stand to profit from any such advocacy (in fact, unless you look up the ACS page, it's nearly impossible to know who such people are, let alone how to seek them out so they can be your personal physician). The ACS board members are NOT the only doctors in the world who believe that cancer exists, or who claim to know how to treat it. The MRF's situation is the exact opposite; any increase in public awareness of Morgellons (as defined by the MRF) will directly, personally profit the MRF board members, since they are effectively the only doctors in the world that explicitly treat Morgellons - a prospective patient has NO ONE ELSE they can look to for the sort of treatment they desire. Trying to compare the MRF to the ACS is an absurd extreme of "apples versus oranges". Dyanega 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post Oct. 30. 2007

Institutional Review Board approval for a CDC investigation into Morgellons is scheduled for October, 30 2007.

So what happened? Anyone know? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of link to www.morgellonswatch.com?

Per this edit, User:Levine2112 removed the link to www.morgellonswatch.com from the article.

The link was originally added to the article here on 9 June 2006, and has survived in the article through thousands of edits, leading me to believe that it has consensus support among editors. The language in WP:EL is only that blogs are 'normally to be avoided.' Since Morgellons Watch provides close scrutiny of the statements at www.morgellons.org and helps give balance to the pronouncements of that site, I can see its value and recommend that it be kept. EdJohnston 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there WAS consensus to leave that link, and it should be restored. Dyanega 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the site appears to be accurate, it is a blog, and the creator (perhaps justifiably) refuses to identify himself or his credentials. I really don't think it's an exception to the "normally to be avoided" language in WP:EL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that this site is not being used as a reference for any statements, but is just included under External Links. The topic of Morgellons is hotly contested, and there should be some way of alluding to the opposing points of view. How about adding some indirect language to the text of the article, like 'a web search for Morgellons will find sites critical of the statements of the Morgellons Research Foundation?' I agreee that the case for including the site explicitly would be stronger if the site operator were identified. EdJohnston 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the site operator. Identifying myself would not help, as I have no credentials or experience in this subject beyond the content of my "blog" (I'm a retired computer programmer). Hence there is no real authority behind the articles I write, in the sense that Wikipedia normally looks for. I would note (as others have) that it's just a link, and not a reference. Morgellons Watch is really the only source of detailed skeptical analysis of Morgellons, and I do think it's quite a useful resource, with over a hundred articles. It ranks quite highly in Google results, and has been reference in numerous media articles, including New Scientist [121] (quote: "Most of the ideas and research have yet to be formally published, leaving believers and sceptics to slug it out on websites such as Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia"), Psychiatric News [122] (Quote: "More information is posted at <www.morgellons.org> and at <http://morgellonswatch.com>".), the Dallas Observer [123] (Quote: "One of the most popular Web sites on the disease is Morgellons Watch, a blog dedicated to poking holes in every known theory on the disease."), and in several other places. Herd of Swine 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The web references you mention I don't find convincing, and I was actually going to suggest that the banner at the top of this page, with the 'press mention of Wikipedia,' should be deleted as too minor to include. Literally all that Elkan says about Wikipedia in the article in the New Scientist that you mention is one sentence about 'slugging it out at Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia.' I hope we don't treasure that as a testimonial to our work here, since it notes the arguments that took place here but says nothing about the scientific value of the results. EdJohnston 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no illusions of MorgellonsWatch being declared a Reliable Source, but rather that it is useful reference (or, at least, counterpoint) to anyone looking at the subject. I think the problem is partly that everyone can SEE that it's a useful external link, but it's disqualified because of the guidelines excluding blogs. I don't think it meets any of the other 13 exclusionary guidelines. I also that it DOES meet #4 of the |What should be linked guidelines: "4: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.". And also "links to be considered" #4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Herd of Swine 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for studying WP:EL in such detail. I'd give my support to including the link here if the owner were identified. Otherwise, I'd rather include it indirectly with a phrase like what I proposed above, 'a web search for Morgellons will find sites critical of the statements of the Morgellons Research Foundation.' I hope we will get comments from other long-time editors of this page before reaching a conclusion. The case might be different if morgellonswatch could serve as an actual reference for the article, or if it were judged notable enough to receive a couple of sentences of discussion in the article itself. If third parties had commented on actual reportage by morgellonswatch, that might be enough to justify a comment. If it does nothing but helpfully gather links to other sites, the case is not so strong. EdJohnston 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to identify myself, because I've had death threats (of dubious seriousness, but still...). I think MorgellonsWatch does more than "helpfully gather links to other sites", and most of what I do there is critically examine scientific claims of the MRF, for example they often talk about fibers fluorescing under UV, and so I write a short article about how this is not unusual [124]. I also do various experiments like replicating Morgellons photos [125]. But I totally understand that the guidelines are the there for a reason, and if it's felt the link should be removed, I'm not going to campaign any more for it's reinstatement. Herd of Swine 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to open up such a can of worms here with my random spam link search. In general, blogs are listed as the kinds of external links normally to be avoided. The caveat is: except those written by a recognized authority. Since MorgellonsWatch's author is not a recognized authority, the link should be kept off the article either as a source or as an external link. I understand Herd of Swine's desire to have privacy, but he/she must accept that given this wish, authority cannot be recognized for this source; further, given that Herd of Swine recognizes that "there is no real authority" behind the article on his/her website, clearly then it cannot be used here. Again, I apologize for opening the apparent can of worms. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree with this. Reluctantly because having read the blog it is well-argued, clearly well-informed, and offsets the fact that most of the credible sources treat the existence of a self-diagnosed disease with such diffuse and inconsistent symptoms with quite understandable scepticism, leaving the field pretty much to the quacks. But blogs is blogs. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Template:press mention of the New Scientist article

In a fit of boldness I removed the following item that was at the head of this talk page: {{press}}

I won't feel bad if someone wants to revert my change. The reasons are personal; I went to the trouble of getting hold of that issue of the New Scientist, and then found that the ENTIRE mention of Wikipedia was this one sentence:

Most of the ideas and research have yet to be formally published, leaving believers and sceptics to slug it out on websites such as Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia.

To see other places where Wikipedia is cited in the regular press in a more substantive manner, open this what-links-here search to find other uses of the {{press}} template. As I said, I won't feel bad if anyone wants to revert. EdJohnston 02:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked/banned editors

Some editor who have posted on this page have been blocked and/or banned. Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/c 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected edit request

{{edit protected}}

The last line of the lead referring to and IRB approval, should be removed. An IRB is merely a panel that reviews proposed human subjects studies to make sure they are safe and ethical. All this factoid means is that the CDC investigation, discussed in its own section, is moving forward. IRB approval will have absolutely no bearing on the question of what Morgellons is, and to cite it in the lead is therefore misleading. Note that protection was largely due to edit warring by IPs and new SPAs, not the "regular editors." Thanks. Thatcher131 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tend to mildly disagree with the removal because IRB approval is necessary for the study to actually start enrollment of human subjects. As I understand it, IRB approval is the last administrative process before the study can be started. It is just a milestone in the study so no big deal.

I request the CDC study be mentioned at the end of the lead as it is a very significant event in the Morgellons story. Propose: To learn more about Morgellons, the CDC has contracted Kaiser Permanente in Northern California to assist the CDC in conducting an epidemiologic investigation of this condition.^[6] Thanks.Ward20 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. I made the edit Thatcher requested. Ward, you are a single purpose account with no history outside this subject, your comments are being given less weight than comments of long-standing editors with a wide-ranging edit history. We do not engage in special pleading. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I also WP:BOLDly tweaked the lead as it was disjointed; there were proposals and rebuttals mixed, and it used some unacceptable language - you can't talk about "persons who suffer from this unexplained condition" and then go on to clarify that actually the condition might not exist at all and that the symptoms are generally accepted as being something else entirely. That's not only a failure of WP:NPOV it is also self-contradiction. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes my interest is in Morgellons, and I guess I am a single purpose account. I never saw that term until you posted it. WP:SPA says, "But for this reason many 'single purpose accounts' and 'brand new users' may be treated as having less 'say' at the start of their editing careers, until they have somewhat established themselves with credibility." I have been editing since june of 07 and have 264 Morgellons edits, 103 Morgellons talk edits, 7 Morgellons Research Foundation edits, 7 Morgellons Research Foundation talk edits[126] and some other misc. stuff, when does "the start of their editing careers" cease to become relevant? Also please explain what you mean by "We do not engage in special pleading." Thanks Ward20 (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and your input has been consistently entirely one-sided, insufficiently critical of the pro-Morgellons camp and has served solely to advance a point of view. See also special pleading. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] morgellonswatch.com

I have spent some time looking over morgellonswatch.com and the MRF website. It strikes me that to allow one and not the other is arbitrary. Although morgellonswatch is a blog, and the authors are not identified, it is well-argued and discusses the sources in reasonably balanced tones. MRF is, let's not forget, a group campaigning to get their self-identified illness recognised. I would say that under the circumstances, and with due regard to the balance of sources available, we should probably, on reflection, include that link in external links. I know it's not a source, and we should not cite it as such, but it is no more personal opinion than MRF is personal opinion, and it reflects the mainstream POV, so it balances the uncritical view put forward by MRF, which is linked. By including only MRF I believe we are falling short on NPOV. Or can anyone find a more authoritative sceptical resource? Guy (Help!) 20:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if the views on morgellonswatch are truly of the mainstream then finding a better, non-blog source with topic expertise should be easier to find. What would be inconsistent would be to allow this blog by an admitted non-expert be included as an external link. This goes against Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the MRF site is also largely by unqualified people, isn't it? And the majority opinion is that Morgellons does not exist, so it's not covered in the mainstream sources, which is the problem. Do feel free to propose a better sceptical site. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. I don't know much about this topic at all. Just what I have read here. I can do some research though. Again, I don't think we should make an exception for a WP:SPS non-expert blog for the sake of NPOV. The article makes it abundantly clear that the mainstream opinion is that this disease is fictitious. I don't think that a lack of a non-supportive external link makes much of a difference. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that policy states "Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the mainstream sources that do the criticizing." then morgellonswatch essentially meets two of those three criteria, and differs little from the MRF in this regard; it is at least as visible as the MRF (a google search on "Morgellons" will show this), and given that most of the public awareness of the MRF is also similarly web-based, it is nearly as notable as the MRF itself. The remaining problem is that it is indeed "by an admitted non-expert" - but, realistically, as Guy mentioned, there are no dermatologists among the MRF's ranks, and that raises the question as to whether they can simply declare themselves experts on something that is (by their own definition) a skin condition, first and foremost. In a practical sense, the MRF is also composed of non-experts. The MRF's website is, in all objective respects, no more or less worthy of inclusion as an external link than the morgellonswatch website, and it seems to me that either they are both linked or they are both excluded. My own inclination would be to link them both, since that seems more in keeping with the principles stated in WP:NPOV: "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." Both the MRF and Morgellonswatch are primary parties in the debate, and it does not seem to me inappropriate to include links to them as background. The point can also certainly be made (if it wasn't already obvious enough) that since Morgellons is demonstrably considered "fringe" by the medical community, it is not surprising that there are relatively few non-blog sources that discuss it at length; but the policy principles expressed in WP:FRINGE certainly indicate to me that the absence of lengthy and detailed critiques from the mainstream should not be portrayed as tacit acceptance of a fringe theory, and (more to the point) the absence of lengthy and detailed critiques does not mean that the WP article should by default be skewed towards the fringe side of the debate (see also WP:UNDUE), which it certainly has been in the past (moreso than the article's present incarnation). Morgellons is not the only fringe medical theory listed in Wikipedia, and this sort of problem appears over and over - rarely is it NOT a contentious matter - the question is whether articles such as these can be composed and maintained in a manner consistent with NPOV, and the answer appears to be "only with great difficulty". Dyanega (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the MRF's board members (many many many MDs, etc), I'd say that they are much more of a good source (in terms of Wikipedia) than a self-published blog by a non-expert. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an authority fallacy; if someone is a world authority with a Ph.D. in Zoology, and an expert on birds, and you ask them for authoritative statements on mammals or fish, would they still be considered an expert? Obviously, a Ph.D. doesn't automatically make a person an expert on ALL topics related to their field of specialization - and if you ask this same ornithologist about 18th-Century literature, the fact that they have a Ph.D. should not lead anyone to assume this person's opinion is more authoritative than anyone else's (especially someone whose Ph.D. is in, say, literature). Similarly, having an M.D. does not automatically make someone an expert on skin conditions or parasitology. Even more damning to this fallacy is that expertise in a field of enquiry can be possessed by individuals who have no professional degree or credentials at all. A degree does not grant exclusive access to expertise. Yes, there are M.D.s working for the MRF, but they ARE non-experts with regards to the topic of dermatology and parasitology. From WP:RS: "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". They fail that criterion. Or are you claiming that the subject at hand does NOT specifically involve dermatology or parasitology? Dyanega (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - I just read the MRF article on Wikipedia. Their press notoriaty also lends to their status as a good external link. This is not some single-person, self published site. Regardless of its POV vs. MorgellonWatch's, the two sites are not in the same category in terms of WP:EL. MRF is clearly acceptable; whereas, MorgellonWatch is not for reasons already mentioned. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The MRF's website is not single-person, but it IS quite demonstrably self-published, and thanks for reminding us. Let's not lose sight of that, please. Wikipedia's policies regarding self-published sources make it clear that things produced by the MRF need to have appropriate caveats, if they are to be included at all. Right now, the Morgellons article includes SEVERAL such references. If you believe self-published sources don't belong here, then would you approve of all such being removed from the article? If not, you're evidently saying that the MRF's self-published statements merit inclusion, but no one else's do, and that would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Remember, the MRF represents a "tiny minority" viewpoint, not the mainstream. Again, from WP:NPOV: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics". Aside from being the only source providing support for these exceptional claims (when multiple sources are considered desirable), I fail to see how the MRF's website could be considered high quality or reliable, nor how anyone could consider it superior in either respect to Morgellonswatch. They are ultimately both sites where people express opinions, and, having examined the content of both sites, the latter site is the only one of the two with links to peer-reviewed medical publications cited in support of the opinions expressed (the MRF website has not one link to a peer-reviewed clinical study) - which clearly gives Morgellonswatch the superior degree of reliability, in the sense that Wikipedia defines it. About all that this discussion is making clear to me is that the MRF's website really is NOT suitable for inclusion; it has visibility and notoriety, and that's about all that can be said for it. Dyanega (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Above you state that I said that MRF is an SPS. It is not. It has an editorial board of professionals. Therefore I think it does qualify as a good link per WP:EL. However, I don't think MorgollonsWatch as a self-published blog with no known expertise passes the rigors of WP:EL. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RSs do say the MRF have experts on Morgellons: [127]"Savely, who is considered one of the few Morgellons experts. She has about 125 patients at her San Francisco practice." [128] "Morgellons & Lyme disease expert Ginger Savely."

Posted at MRF website page:

Morgellons disease: the mystery unfolds

Virginia R Savely and Raphael B Stricker

Expert Review of Dermatology

October 2007, Vol. 2, No. 5, Pages 585-591

(doi:10.1586/17469872.2.5.585)

The Mystery of Morgellons Disease:Infection or Delusion?

authored by: Ginger Savely, NP, Mary Leitao and Raphael B. Stricker, MD

American Journal of Clinical Dermatology

2006, Volume 7,

National Nursing Publication's article on Morgellons Disease

authored by: Ginger Savely, FNP-C, and Mary M. Leitao

Advance For Nurse Practitioners - May 2005

The Mystery of Morgellons Disease:Infection or Delusion? is a peer reviewed journal article. I don't know for sure if the article in Expert Review of Dermatology is peer reviewed, but articles of that length usually are. These Dermatology Journals must believe these MRF members are expert enough about dermatology and Morgellons in order to publish the articles they wrote. These articles appear to be the only articles published in medical journals that talk exclusively and extensively about Morgellons disease. Since they are written by MRF members, the articles directly support many of the MRF website positions.

WP:SPS Self-published sources (online and paper) states:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Since the MRF website is not a personal website, nor a blog, and has established experts on the topic of the article (even invented the disease according to some) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, the MRF website would seem to be an acceptable source for the Morgellons article. Ward20 (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the MRF web site should be mentioned in the article, since it's essentially the primary source of both the existence of both the "Morgellons" phenomenon, and much of the republished information on Morgellons (such as the "case definition").

Morgellons Watch, on the other hand, is a response to the MRF site. While there are many interesting and informative articles there about Morgellons (most of which I wrote), they are probably not suitable as references under a strict interpretation of Wikipedia rules. One would not, for example, say "The MRF notes that some fibers fluoresce under UV light, but skeptics point out that most clothing fibers fluoresce under UV light [129]". This is perhaps unfortunate, since the UV thing has been breathlessly repeated in the press many times.

But I think the question is more if Morgellons Watch should be included in the "External Links", as an additional source of information that is not suitable for inclusion in the main article. Herd of Swine (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that MRF has all the world's experts on Morgellons on board, since they seem to be the only people who actually recognise it. That is not the same as saying they have recognised experts on dermatology. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, you have failed to refute what I wrote: "the MRF website has not one link to a peer-reviewed clinical study". The three papers cited contain no clinical data whatsoever; all three are OPINION papers, not clinical studies (the most recent one, for example, is in the "Perspectives" section of that journal, which is categorized separately from "featured journal articles": "in addition to the Review program, the journal will regularly feature Drug Profiles, Perspectives and Meeting Highlights" - the editorial policy also states that articles are subjected to peer review, but it does not say that "Perspectives" papers are). Anyone can write and publish an opinion paper in those journals. The MRF still has no peer-reviewed clinical studies linked on their website. Dyanega (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove MRF from the external links... I see that it is used in the article as a source and I am firm believer that Wikipedia is not a link farm. So if you are hellbent on finding grounds to remove the link from EL (and thus eliminate the whole EL section for now), try "it is because the site is cited in the article already" on for size and see how that flies. WP:EL doesn't expressly disallow a link to be both a source and an external link; however, one can infer from the policy that keeping the ELs and sources distinct is preferred. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a few observations:

1. Dyanega has shown some very clear thinking in this debate and makes some excellent points that are being ignored;
2. Dyanega has been misunderstood and an inaccurate statement resulted: "Above you state that I said that MRF is an SPS." That is not true. Dyanega was only reminded of the issue because Levine had mentioned it.
3. MRF is essentially driven by one woman, a non expert, who has coined a name for a condition. She has then surrounded herself with other non-experts who have a financial interest (they are treating these people!) in perpetuating this particular definition of the condition. They are thus unreliable as experts.
4. This article is just as much about the controversy, as it is about Morgellons, Leitao, Savely, and the MRF. Therefore the parties to the controversy deserve mention and morgellonswatch is a major player and should be linked in the external links. It is the only one of the two source that cites peer reviewed sources (the MRF does not), and they are the expertise which the site provides. To make it even better it has no financial interest in the matter.
5. If we consider Leitao and her cohorts legitimate experts in a condition of their own invention (the definition), then any third grader or quack who invents and promotes definitions for some bizarre and imaginary condition (that is provably nonsense and impossible - and I'm not saying this applies to Morgellons) is also an "expert" by default, since no one else believes it. Hulda Clark comes to mind. She's an "expert" in her particular, well-proven, scam, and she has a financial interest in her scam, just as the MRF has a financial interest in promoting their ideas, which makes them very suspect. Such expertise is not what we need here.
6. The MRF website, even though unreliable in the normal sense, should be linked according to the rules here, which allows such linking when the website is owned by the subject of the article. It's opinions should also be quoted, since that's all it has. It is not an accurate and unbiased source for scientific research on the matter, if it had such research, which it doesn't. The significant opinions on Morgellonswatch could also be quoted as the opinions of a major player in the controversy, but it, just like the MRF, cannot be quoted as an independent scientific source.

Now it appears that we have a consensus for inclusion of morgellonswatch in the external links, there being only one objector, whose arguments are unconvincing. -- Fyslee / talk 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are more than one objector. Kindly look at previous discussions. Thanks. We will not violate WP:EL and include a non-expert blog. Your description of MRF above could easily be a description for Quackwatch (opinion piece website driven by one man with various experts who have a financial interest...). It seems to me to be a tad hypocritical that you want to remove MRF here when you have fought so hard to make others believe that Quackwatch is a WP:RS throughout Wikipedia. Please step back and consider that personal POV may be distracting objective adherence to a basic Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am not advocating removing MRF, just trying to note its unreliable role, and that morgellonswatch is even more reliable. There is no comparison with Quackwatch as there is no financial COI, and its numerous writers, editors and experts are real experts in their subject areas. Quackwatch is a RS for the opinions of skeptics and mainstream opinion, not for scientific research, except where it hosts such research. It's not a black or white issue, and I have never advocated such a position. As far as POV, we are both in glass houses....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch's financial COI is just as you say MRF's is. Where you say MRF's interest is in promoting a disease which they claim to treat for profit, Quackwatch denigrates medicines and doctors which are their direct financial competition. Just like Quackwatch, MRF seems to have numerous board member who claim expertise in their subject area. Fictitious disease or not, the point is that they - the board members of MRF believe it (or that they are out-and-out liars - something you seem to hint at but have no proof of so we must AGF); and we well know that true believers (or true disbelievers inthe case of Quackwatch) can be a reliable source of their opinions. I really have no POV here for or against Morgellons, MRF or MorgellonsWatch; I know virtually nothing about Morgellons apart for this Wiki article and have not formulated my opinion on what I believe here. Being a true skeptic, the jury is still out for me until more research becomes available. From what I've read, I really don't think anyone can truly be 100% certain either way when it comes to Morgellons just yet. So you see, I am really quite neutral here. And from an NPOV outlook of this topic and Wikipedia policy, MRF seems to be an acceptable resource in terms of WP:RS and/or WP:EL; whereas MorgollonsWatch is clearly unacceptable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a website and a non-profit corporation. They make no money from fighting quackery. On the contrary. As far as the MRF board goes, I don't think they are liars. They seem to really believe their theory, and that's all it is. That's also where they go wrong, in treating a theory as proven fact and fighting any accomodation for other explanations. We have seen this happen right here by someone who volunteers for the MRF who has tried to keep out all other possible explanations. I, like many others here, am also awaiting more information as to the true nature of Morgellons. I don't care one way or the other, just hope that more light will be shed on the subject. If this really is a new and emerging disease, then it needs to be proven before making a profit on it. Right now we have to use the existing sources for this article, and they are essentially sources that document a controversy and all sides need to be heard. -- Fyslee / talk 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. But those sources must pass the rigors of WP:RS if we are to use them as such. Oh, and just like Quackwatch, MRF is a non-profit organization. The organization makes no money from promoting Morgellons awareness. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

They are both RS for documentation of conflicting opinions on the subject. Unlike Quackwatch, some of the board members of the MRF are deeply financially involved in this matter in a very direct way (not in some very distant manner as you propose with mainstream scientific opposition to unproven medical claims). They are treating precisely these patients. Their promotion of their definition is essential to their very income in private practice. It's as direct as one can get. Even if they are sincere, it is still very dubious. They are not in a position to even consider that they might be wrong, as that would be financial suicide for them. Thus they are not RS. -- Fyslee / talk 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And Quackwatch has direct financial interest in keeping their competition down. Even if Quackwatch were sincere, it would be financial suicide for them to even consider that they are wrong. Seems just as dubious as me. But let's digress and stay on topic. Clearly, MorgollonsWatch can't be used in this article. MRF can be used, but references should note that we are dealing with expert opinion here, not necessarily scientific fact. Is there anything else to discuss or shall we move on? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As Fyslee observes, and has been mentioned before (numerous times) they DO make money from Morgellons awareness, directly, since the board members of the MRF are virtually the only people in the world that diagnose and prescribe treatments for it (I say "virtually" because there is also the "New Morgellons Order", a splinter group apparently composed mostly of former MRF affiliates who have diagnosed themselves with Morgellons). The NMO is not nearly as prominent as the MRF, but they engage in many of the same activities, including treating (and profiting from) the condition, and trying to "Force" the CDC to investigate Morgellons. Besides which, as you well know, the technical definition of a "non-profit organization" is such that the folks involved are still getting their salaries (and many expenses) paid out of the donations - sometimes very LARGE salaries and expenses. There is a world of difference between an NPO and a volunteer organization. Let's not conceal the reality of the situation. Simply put, these folks make a living off of Morgellons - this is undeniable - and are not unbiased sources. They are also NOT "expert" opinion. That means we need to be especially careful about allowing the WP article to serve as a vehicle for their propaganda. Dyanega (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of this is speculation fostered by deep-rooted and strong opinion for the subject matter. The MRF's POV is clearly noted in the article as their opinion. If they are as you say - the only ones in the world treating this condition - then I would have to say that their opinions are in fact expert - not right or wrong, but expert (lord knows that an expert opinion is still an opinion and can certainly be wrong or else we would cease to call it an opinion). With no judgment of whether they are right or wrong, the MRF's opinion on this subject is notable and verifiable, and reliably sourced as their opinion. I don't think that this article reads MRF propaganda at all at this point (perhaps it may have in the past and you all fixed that - I haven't been here that long). But as the article stands now, I think the use of MRF as a source is well within the acceptable source usage policies of Wikipedia (i.e WP:RS, WP:V, et cetera). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there is any speculation going on, it is you as a self-admitted newbie on this subject and article. This has been discussed many times here and is well documented. These people are the ones who make a direct living by convincing people they are indeed worthy of treatment by themselves (members of the board). This undermines their status as independent experts. They have a direct, proven, and significant direct financial interest in this, a very, very, very direct interest. It's on a one-to-one basis = "MRF-board-member-convinces-and-then-treats-patient" directness. That invalidates them as reliable sources. -- Fyslee / talk 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The MRF is perfectly suitable source for how they are being currently used int his article. It is clear that when they are cited in this article that the material attached to the citation is their opinion, and does not represent scientific fact. No one is claiming that they are independent experts. Putting money in your pocket by hurting your competition is just as direct as a COI as making money by promoting awareness of problem which you can fix; thus your arguments here can easily be applied to your arguments for using Quackwatch as a reliable source for anything more that their POV opinion. I hope you can see the one-to-one comparison here and step back and take a neutral POV in terms of MRF and this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, let's try a simple analogy. I have a Ph.D. (this is true, but irrelevant). Suppose I publish a "new language", complete with all the necessary elements to define it. In principle, then, I am the only expert on that language, and everything I say about it - including my claim that it is NEW - is my "expert opinion", and I can wave my Ph.D. around to impress people. The plain and simple fact remains that I am not a linguist, and that is not what my Ph.D. is for. If, after I publish my new language, a dozen linguists come forward and point out that my "new" language appears to be Old Norse (a very old language, though not in use) with a few spelling changes and word substitutions, is it my "expert" word versus theirs, or is it a NON-expert (me) versus a pile of actual experts (them)? That is EXACTLY what is going on with Morgellons - MRF doctors who are neither dermatologists nor parasitologists are describing and treating what they claim is a new and unknown parasitic infestation of the skin, and the dermatologists and parasitologists who have examined these patients are all saying that none of them have any new or unknown conditions. The MRF's doctors are NOT experts in this field, any more than I am an expert in linguistics. Dyanega (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your analogy is entirely apropos. Here's a more direct comparison using your theater: You have a PhD in general linguistics and then you discovered a new version of the French language which you call Morgellon French but only you recognize it to be a language. French linguistic experts regard the "new" language merely to be DOP French, an existing colloquial version of French. However, you disagree and think that Morgellon French is entirely new and distinct from DOP French. Regardless of your opinion being right or wrong, you would be considered an expert in the language which you dubbed Morgellon French simply based on the work and research you put into it. Remember, Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about knowledge. The MRF has notable knowledge on the topic which they have dubbed Morgellons. They have perspective on it which others may disagree with, but it is a notable perspective nonetheless. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your modified analogy violates the central premise, because a person with "a PhD in general linguistics" is a great deal more likely to be considered an expert in a discussion of French linguistics than a pediatrician who is discussing parasitology! As for the comment "you would be considered an expert in the language which you dubbed Morgellon French simply based on the work and research you put into it" I beg to differ: you would be classified by Wikipedia as a fringe viewpoint, since all the other experts disagree publicly with your claims, and that is entirely different from being considered an expert. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So all of the MDs on the MRF board are pediatricians? MDs have general expertise of the body and disease (thus in our analogy they are equivalent to a general linguistics PhD). Your analogy had a deception that the PhD had nothing to do with linguistics; whereas in reality a general MD is more qualified to diagnose skin conditions that say a doctor of children's education (analogy equivalent to a PhD with nothing to do with linguistics). I think it is too early to determine what is and what isn't a fringe viewpoint in terms of Morgellons; and I also think that Wikipedia's policy on fringe viewpoints isn't fully defined yet. Still, someone can in fact be an expert (for the purpose of WP:RS) in even a fringe topic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Many NPO's including the MRF pay no salaries. This link states: "The Morgellons Research Foundation is operated by an all-volunteer, unpaid Board of Directors and officers." The financial statements are on the same page, no one is getting rich off MRF donations.

Please read. By analogy to the arguments above, do you believe the doctors mentioned who were treating, researching, and publishing papers on diagnosis and treatment (some of it conflicting) of a devastating illness with exotic unexplained symptoms, (new they believed, but had actually been around for a number of years), should not have made a living treating patients? Or the publications, practitioners, organizations, and calls for CDC investigations and research (pre HIV understanding) concerning the illness were automatically suspect because the concerned parties worked or had personal interest (some were sick) in the field of the illness? There is no proof the MRF organization is different than others that organize to try and find answers to unexplained controversial medical problems. You try one hypothesis after another until one fits. You take a position and hope it is correct. If it is proved wrong you go one to the next. Some people disagree with you. The MRF's position may be wrong or may be right. Speculation and innuendo on motives of the people compromising the MRF in order to disparage their opinions is WP:OR and counterproductive. Ward20 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that, the point remains that they still get rich off treating Morgellons patients. Charging 500 dollars an hour for phone counseling is not exactly an act of charity. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Move above arguement below mine, so it does not split my arguement in half and make it hard to follow. Ward20 (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"There is no proof the MRF organization is different than others that organize to try and find answers to unexplained controversial medical problems." Yes, there are two very important differences, and these cannot and should not be overlooked: (1) they have specifically proposed a tangible physical symptom - specific and remarkable types of fibers - which should, according to their description, be easy to detect, sample, and analyze, yet in over 5 years, no one outside of the MRF community has ever managed to detect, sample, or analyze any novel or remarkable fibers in any of the patients they've examined. These other ailments that the medical community did not accept initially had NO SUCH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that was claimed to exist in association with the disease. If the MRF was claiming that Morgellons was a neurological disorder, or even a bacterial infection alone, that would be different (though bacteria are not that hard to find and identify), but they are claiming that there is a physical manifestation of this ailment, and have yet to demonstrate any physical evidence to back up the claim. That certainly puts Morgellons in a very different category from these other illnesses. (2) The advocacy of specific unproven treatments is NOT universally true of "others that organize to try and find answers to unexplained controversial medical problems." They are not simply trying to find answers - they have made specific and unsubstantiated proposals as to the what those answers are, made specific recommendations for treatments, and are going ahead and treating people using demonstrably untested and unapproved techniques. That is NOT how other organizations work, with the possible exception of ILADS, which is also (coincidentally?) run by Raphael Stricker, and is also mired deep in controversy specifically because they treat people using methods that the medical community has not approved. Trying to compare that to the history of AIDS is inappropriate, and you appear to be arguing that we should treat the MRF as experts because they might prove to be right. To quote: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". It isn't about who is wrong or right, as you note, but it IS important not to give undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All very good points. Thanks, Ward20 for the perspective. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the record, my opinion is simply remove Morgellons Research Foundation from external links and leave it bare.Ward20 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I suggest above. I am of the mindset that if a source is used in the article as a ref, then it is unnecessary to link to it as an external link. While this isn't necessarily a rule, it can be pretty much inferred from WP:EL. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not required to WP:AGF of the Morgollons Foundation board, especially when it's improbable. In this case, the physicians "treating" "Morgollons" had (note the tense) exotic (and previously untested) treatments for the disease before they had Morgollons patients to treat, for which they now claim effectiveness. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this true? Where do you get your information. If what you are saying here can be documented with a reliable source, I would think that it should be in the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Im curious.Ward20 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect what Arthur is referring to, and you are asking about, is linked extensively at Lyme disease controversy. The treatment that Stricker and Savely are using for Morgellons patients is the treatment they developed for "chronic lyme disease". This is referred to in the "The Mystery of Morgellons Disease:Infection or Delusion?" paper you yourself cited above. Dyanega (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the big deal is then. Doctors tried an existing treatment for another disease to treat a theoretical new disease? Please explain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An untested, unproven, and unapproved treatment for a different theoretical new disease the medical community has yet to acknowledge. Calling it a remarkable coincidence that two diseases, neither of which has been proven to exist, happen to respond to the same treatment, also "coincidentally" designed by the same two doctors who originally described both diseases, and coincidentally promote via two non-profit organizations run by the same two doctors, is an understatement. This is about as extraordinary a claim, and as unfathomable a coincidence, as has ever appeared in the annals of medicine. It would be nice to see some extraordinary evidence to go with it. Dyanega (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See Lyme disease controversy, also specifically Forbes [130] and the NEJM [131]. Briefly, the majority of doctors feel that there is no evidence that Chronic Lyme exists, and that the Doctors who treat it with unproven concoction of antibiotics are at best misguided, and at worst exploitive. Stricker is a major player in both Chronic Lyme and Morgellons, and has a somewhat dubious background. Herd of Swine (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is little doubt that Lyme disease does exist. With all due respect, Dyanega, I think you have a strong POV on this topic. This is fine. It's is okay to have a POV on topics you are editing. However, in my opinion, you are allowing this POV to affect your clarity on some basic Wikiepdia policies. I came here just to discuss the inclusion/exclusion of certain sites and I have done just that. Anything further or deeper on this topic, and I don't think I can help. However, please note that Wikipedia is not a place to speculate about conspiracy theories based on coincidences - even remarkable ones. I am going to move on now from this discussion, as I believe my points - as far as WP:EL and WP:RS goes - have been made. To summarize my position: 1) The use of MRF as a source or an external link is justified. 2) The external link for MRF however is a bit redundant and can be removed. 3) MorgellonsWatch, as a WP:SPS blog written by a non-expert should not be used as either a source or an external link per WP:RS and WP:EL. I wish you editors luck on this article and would suggest that you limit your discussion to Wikipedia policy rather than arguments about the topic itself. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you need any further guidance/opinions from an outsider. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is about Wikipedia policy - there is a disagreement among the editors here as to which policies are to be applied; I maintain that WP:FRINGE, WP:SPS, and WP:UNDUE apply, others are disagreeing. It has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories". Please also note that the medical community does not dispute the existence of Lyme disease; Stricker and Savely described, promote, and treat "Chronic Lyme", which is not recognized by the medical community. The point about Morgellons and Chronic Lyme both being traceable to the same pair of doctors is to highlight that it is essentially the word of these two individuals against the remainder of the medical community in BOTH cases, which is about as textbook a definition of "fringe" as one imagine. Dyanega (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The EL to MorgellonsWatch had been re-added despite still no consensus to add a link which clearly violates WP:EL for it is a WP:SPS, a blog, and written by an admitted non-expert. If we are to change the rules of WP:EL for this article, then we must change it for all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the amount of discussion indicates it is NOT clear that it violates WP:EL, particularly as it seems to fulfil: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." WP:SPS is not really relevent, since it's not being suggested as a source, but rather as an External Link (WP:EL), which says to link: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Based on the Content of the site, does it not meet that criteria? Perhaps you should take a vote. Herd of Swine (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:EL Links to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

From User:Heard of Swine (owner/author of MorgellonsWatch- a blog/personal web page): I'm the site operator. Identifying myself would not help, as I have no credentials or experience in this subject beyond the content of my "blog" (I'm a retired computer programmer). Hence there is no real authority behind the articles I write, in the sense that Wikipedia normally looks for.

Enough said? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not enough said. It's "Links normally to be avoided", not "Links that shall be forbidden". If a site offers a lot of interesting and useful information on a subject, then how exactly is it important that I'm a retired computer programmer? I've been writing about Morgellons for 18 months now, and Morgellons Watch is the second highest ranking Google result for "Morgellons". Herd of Swine (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not relevant that you are a computer programmer; nor is your site's performance on Google. Yes, it is "Links normally to be avoided" and I don't believe that any extenuating circumstance have been demonstrated here which would qualify this as anything but a normal situation.

Further, I am going to suggest that you (Herd of Swine) are contributing with a Conflict of Interest here; maybe not with Morgellons in general (though quite possibly), but definitely with regards to the advancement of the inclusion of your blog as an external link. I think it wise that you step back from this particular discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't want to be lobbying for the link, I just think that your stated rationale for removal was specious and I could not resist pointing that out. My piece said, I'll bow out. Herd of Swine (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope now you recognize that my rationale is anything but specious, but rather genuinely aligned with Wikipedia policy. For other editors, please recognize that in order to include this non-authority self-published blog in the list of external links, we will have to demonstrate why this is an extenuating circumstance, as on the surface it truly appears to be a "link normally to be avoided". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I know the linking and sourcing policies pretty well. We're not using it as a source, only as a link. Blogs are links to normally avoid, but this blog provides information not available elsewhere and does so in a careful and reasonably thorough way; I spent at least two hours reading round that blog and it is very plain that the writer is well-informed and qualified to comment. We are not required to slavishly interpret "normally avoid" as "always exclude". Guy (Help!) 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with this. It would be one thing if the blog was written by a known authority; otherwise there is no precedent or policy in Wikipedia which I have been shown to support inclusion. We are dealing with a cut-and-dry case of links normally to be avoided. Are you saying that this isn't normal because even though this blog is non-authoritative, it does contain information which can't be found anywhere else? I think I could point to a lot of partisan blogs which fit that description which certainly would not be allowed as an external link on any article. We have a pretty clear policy and I see no reason to break it here, especially without consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

← I know you disagree. The blog is not being represented as authoritative, it is there to provide background which is absent from the other sources; it is a uniquely informative resource. Absent some other website which addresses the issue in so much detail and with so much evidential discussion, I think it adds measurably to the article. And I do not say this lightly, since I am normally dead against blogs. As I say, I spent some hours studying it, and while I'd not promote it as a cited source it provides much-needed background. it explains many things within the article which are otherwiuse puxzzling or counter-intuitive, and also contains a very good description of why DP is not an "imaginary" disease. We have the highly partisan MRF, we need this one for balance because the mianstream is essentially not discussing Morgellons. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If your definition of "consensus" is "unanamity", then, due to your own objections, consensus is impossible. If, on the other hand, consensus is "the majority of participating editors", then there IS consensus to allow the link. Dyanega 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be many more who object to this link being included. Please kindly see past discussions. I don't think we have the sources to determine what is mainstream and what is not. Sure MRF may be partisan, but that does not give us a reason to break a longstanding Wiki policy. That being said, I highly respect JzG's opinions and his analysis of MorgellonsWatch is does have me reconsidering. However, I am not fully convinced yet that there is reason enough to include a a non-authoritative blog in the external links. Let me ask this: if a site was found which does represent the views of MorgellonsWatch which wasn't a blog or did not otherwise violate WP:EL, would you agree to include that link while leaving MorgellonsWatch out? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• There might seem to be, to you, but not to me and not to Dyanega. You are applying an absolutist judgement - "blog = out" - when (a) WP:EL does not make any such absolutist judgment and (b) several of us have reviewed the site in detail and taken a view based on the specific link itself, not on the general rule that we don't normally link blogs; it doesn't "violate" EL since EL is a guideline not a hard and fast rule. I said above if we had a better source which reviewed the evidence as thoroughly as morgellonswatch then I'd almost certainly prefer that, but we don't. It seems to eb the noly place that has systematically studied and discussed the non-MRF POV. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three editors above who don't think this link should be included. There are three who believe it should. Hence, no consensus. Your analysis of the blog is persuasive to me, but your edit warring is not. Please discuss. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The balance of evidence seems to me to favour inclusion. And you're at three reverts, by the way. It takes two to edit war; you actually started it by reverting the link . Guy (Help!) 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please show me the policy which supports your "balance of evidence" proposition. P.S. I am not at three reverts for this 24 hour (or even this 72 hour) period. I am at two. You, OTOH, are at three reverts. Please recount. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of morgellonswatch.com is reasonable. Not a traditional reliable source, perhaps, but then neither is the MRF. Neutrality is well served by including both. Friday (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask the question: If a more traditional source is found which serves neutrality, could it be there in place of the blog?

Another suggest to achieve balance. Remove BOTH external links; MRF and MorgellonsWatch. If they are both questionable, then why keep one just to balance the other. How about that? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so it's explicit, I wasn't referring simply to those who had chimed in on this latest iteration of the discussion; I was referring to the opinions and positions taken by people who have been regularly editing the article over the last several months - until you removed the morgellonswatch link, even the pro-Morgellons editors here had virtually all accepted its presence in the article, even through some of the most contentious periods in the article's history. It's a pretty recent and small-scale dissent when viewed against the history of the article, and the VAST interval of time over which that link remained uncontested and uncomplained about offers little in the way of evidence to suggest that any editors have argued that it needed to be removed. If it will resolve things by eliminating all links, I would not object to that, as stated earlier. Dyanega 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As previous, yes, if a better source can be found which covers it in the same depth then obviously we'd use that instead. This is about balance, and about lue rather than vote counting or slavish following of guidelines. The site is if anything less polemical and more analytical than MRF, thoguh the comments drag it down a bit at times. we can't exactly take both out since MRF is the sole source of "truth" for the disorder, and is also Wikilinked anyway, so that would not serve balance. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let's take them both out of the External Links section, since we are in agreement. I would be happy to oblige this request but fear breaking 3RR. I think JzG is in the same boat. Dyanega, the ball is in your court to fulfill this results of this agreement. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons Watch is not written by a doctor. I wrote the vast majority of the articles there (as "Margellons", for historical reasons), and there were a few other guest posts, a couple by an actual scientist [132] (and 13,000 comments, mostly noise, but a few useful perspectives in there as well). I've edited the link accordingly, without prejudice. Herd of Swine 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Herd of Swine. I also put the ball in your court , if you agree with us about both External Link being removed, feel free to do so. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the MRF link should be removed, as the MRF is 75% of the actual story, and hence you would expect a link to it. It's also linked several times in the references, so removing it from EL is not an effective compromise in the need for balance. It should stay regardless of whether the MW link is there or not. Herd of Swine 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If MRF is reffed several times in the article, then there is no need to link to it in the External Links. I don't know if this is a policy, but it is common practice not to include External Links which are used as refs in the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the statements on "evidential discussion" and "it explains many things within the article", the evidential discussion and explanations by the website publisher/computer programmer is original research not published anywhere else and should be avoided according to, [133] "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"."

MorgellonsWatch's opinions may be accurate or inaccurate in its evidential discussions (no one has studied the evidence thoroughly), but MorgellonsWatch's opinions are unverifiable research. Below is a quote from this discussion page indicating unverifiable research is presented on this website.

• "I think MorgellonsWatch does more than "helpfully gather links to other sites", and most of what I do there is critically examine scientific claims of the MRF, for example they often talk about fibers fluorescing under UV, and so I write a short article about how this is not unusual [124]. I also do various experiments like replicating Morgellons photos [125]. But I totally understand that the guidelines are the there for a reason, and if it's felt the link should be removed, I'm not going to campaign any more for it's reinstatement. Herd of Swine 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)"

If a person reviews the MorgellonsWatch blog they will also find in the comments section other people giving abusive opinions of Mogellons.

• [134] "Do you mean that if I really had Morgellons, I would be talking crazy like you and the rest of the Morgies?", and [135]"I don’t care what kind of tests the Morgies have, as long as they aren’t being paid for by insurance. Insurance rates are high enough already, and if the insurance companies have to pay for these foolish tests, rates will certainly go up. I do have reasons not to stand with the Morgies. They are endangering everyone with the misuse of antibiotics. Many of them also abuse their children, spouses, and pets. The belief in Morgellons is ruining a lot of lives and putting everyone at risk. And the things that Morgies are taking a stand for are lies."

There are many more assertions such as those above in the MorgellonsWatch blog comments sections.

By reason of unverifiable research and the abusive languge in the blogs alone, I don't believe MorgellonsWatch is a suitable link. Myself and others have tried to remove it and it has been reinserted several times before this episode.

Additionally, these mainstream citations of Morgellons articles are already in use in the WP article, Mayo Clinic, Nature Medicine, Am J Psychiatry, Centers For Disease Control, Psychology Today, ABC News Primetime, New Scientist Magazine, San Francisco Chronicle, J Am Acad Dermatol, Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, Atlas of Human Parasitology, The Times, J Invest Med., Arch Dermatol, Popular Mechanics, Los Angeles Times, and Discover. I do not believe a link to MorgellonsWatch is necessary to offset a lack of discussion in mainstream WP:RS.Ward20 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Ward20 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion, so we do not beat this to death any more, why not add Morgellons at Wikipedia:WikiProject External links Articles that need external links cleanup. For description say, Please see [136] for extensive debate about article external links. Ward20 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ward20 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if some random user with a very short (yet professional) edit history coming along and just deleting the links without discussion was exactly the "consensus" people were hoping for. I'm assuming good faith, but I though there might be a little discussion. Or was the process supposed to be: "whatever the first person who comes along thinks"? Herd of Swine 06:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I put the two links up again with the template being more specific about reading the discussions and commenting on the talk page. Ward20 07:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a new editor and apparently I'm also "some random user" according to a person writing a couple paragraphs above here. That description implies my input won't have much weight here, so I'll make this quick and not waste your time or mine. I've read the five pillars of wikipedia and the page telling me to be bold in making edits. That's why I deleted the links instead of writing on this page first. I put my reasons in the edit summary box: "delete two external links per template & WP:EL - one is a blog or forum, and the other is redundant because it's a cited source." Both of those reasons I got from the page that clicking on the template lead me to: WP:EL and from reviewing the arguments on this page and the other pages that are referred to here, WP:RS and WP:SPS. It looks to me that the user discussing above, Levine2112, is correct and that both of the links should be removed. --Jack-A-Roe 09:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if unverifiable researech is the criterion then we need to delete the article, as MRF is also punting unverifiable research. But no, I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is keeping morgellonswatch as the most comprehensive critique we currently have, unless and until some better source comes along. Morgellonswatch is not overtly polemical, it makes a good fist of referencing the mainstream view, and it states its case is reasonably balanced tones. I'd rather we had review articles in JAMA debunking the whole thing, but those do not yet exist, so we must play the hand we are dealt. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe, I appreciate your input above. "some random user" was simply meant as an observation that you were the first person to come across this after it was flagged, and presumably did so at random. You are clearly a highly adept editor, and your input has as much weight as any editor contributing here. Herd of Swine 17:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. Ward20 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Herd of Swine: thank you for clarifying your note and that you do not intend to discount my contributions. As it happens, I did not come across this article randomly, I found it by following a link in an article about a bacteria used to transfer DNA for genetic engineering of plants.

Reply in general in regards to including the links: It appears that the question has already been discussed in detail, and that each side of the debate are pretty much decided in their positions. I doubt that anything I could write would change anyone's mind, and probably most of the information has already been dug up already. It appears to be just a question of waiting for more people to come along and offer their opinions about it to break the tie. The posts by Levine2112 seem to me to adequately cover the way I understand the situation, in particular his or her summary at time stamp 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (not regarding the first part of that paragraph that replies to the other editor, but specifically the second half of the paragraph, following "To summarize my position"). So in determining consensus at whatever point in this process that happens, my recommendation is that both external links be removed. --Jack-A-Roe 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't "break the tie", we don't do these things by vote counting. The case for linking is that there are no better sources for this, the only other source discussing Morgellons in detail is MRF, which invented the whole thing, and the site is reasonably sane. The case against is that blogs are usually to be avoided. The case for seems to be stronger, at least until more evidence or a more authoritative rebuttal becomes available. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand this is not a vote. I've read the consensus policy. Maybe a better phrase than breaking the tie would be to "break the logjam". What I meant is that because there is only a small number of people expressing their opinions on this decision, and it is obvious that the positions are entrenched, therefore more people are needed to get to the point where a consensus can be formed.

This appears to be a conversation, but each side has been repeating their viewpoints, and even when someone adds supporting information or new logical arguments, it can't make any difference because there is no receptivity by the other side. Each side has made up their minds and are not going to change. That's why I'm not listing arguments here. I referred to a paragraph written above by Levine2112 because he already stated the reasons clearly. There's no reason for me to repeat them.

What is the procedure for finding out if there is consensus? I see several people on this page who do not agree with you that the blog external link should be kept. Since there's no voting, who gets to decide? --Jack-A-Roe 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noticed error in last reference in CDC investigation section: ^[19]

{{editprotected}} When some cited text was removed from the lead it exposed an existing error in the last reference in the CDC section. The lead text and the CDC section text had the same reference and name but different attributes. After the lead text reference was removed it defaulted to the CDC section ref ^[19]. The link in ref ^[19] is no longer valid. Please replace with this reference ^[9] which documents the purchase request and omits the outdated link. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Haemo (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CDC in lead

I have added mention of the CDC investigation to the lead. I believe it is a significant enough event that it belongs there. -- Fyslee / talk 03:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Herd of Swine (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morgellons article needs to be greatly revised--it's hijacked by extremists

The scientific consensus is that Morgellons disease is not a new condition, but an existing one. The lead of the article should reflect this fact more prominently, preferably in the first line. Why should we give equal footing to extremists, when in other matters (e.g., evolution) we firmly side with the mainstream scientists? The article consistently tries to undermine the consensus diagnosis of delusional parasitosis by frequently referring to the Morgellons Research Foundation and mostly fringe doctors, while giving only passing mention of the majority that refutes Morgellons as a real disease.

Exeunt (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is that very few mainstream medical authorities have yet to come forward and explicitly publish statements declaring their opinions regarding Morgellons - as you'll note from the refs, there are only a handful of definitive primary sources, such as the Atlas of Parasitology quote, and lots of secondary sources. For the time being, at least, there are some editors who take this lack of mainstream rebuttal as evidence that Morgellons is not a fringe theory, and that's the source of most - if not all - of the dispute regarding this article. At this stage, it seems that the future of this article will hinge upon the outcome of the CDC investigation: if it concludes that there is something legitimate to the MRF's claims, then the article will, obviously, change accordingly, but if it concludes that Morgellons is nothing new or unknown, then the article will, obviously, change to reflect THAT. Dyanega (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply to JzG about the content of the Mayo clinic quote

JzG, when you reverted the following edit:

• 20:13, 2 December 2007 Jack-A-Roe ... (Reading the Mayo Clinic article, this paraphrase was not accurate. It included only 2 of the 3 categories of health professionals' attitudes listed in Mayo article, so I added the 3rd per the source.)

...you included a request for citation detail in your edit summary for the revert:

• 00:12, 3 December 2007 JzG ... (please point out where the cited source says that. I don't see it.)

In response to your request, here is the exact quote from the Mayo clinic reference, found by clicking the link in the footnote and scrolling approximately halfway down the page:

Current attitudes toward Morgellons disease fall into various categories:

• Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research.
• Some health professionals believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by another condition, often mental illness.
• Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.

The first item in the Mayo Clinic list above was omitted in the article, as was the reference to mental illness; those are the points I corrected with my edit.

Since you reverted my edit that was based closely on the reference, I would appreciate it if you would please restore my paraphrase. If you don't feel that I paraphrased it correctly, please feel free to improve it. But the reverted version should not remain because it's incorrect.

Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again... Since there has been no reply or objection after a couple of days, I've restored the corrected paraphrase of the sourced material. If anyone does not agree that the new text is more accurate, further comments are welcome. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the "some" in the first instance appears top refer to the MRF. We seem to be double-counting. I see no evidence that the number believing it to be a new disease is more than a handful. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your concern, but I figure it's not our job to decipher what the Mayo Clinic might have meant by their statement, we should accept it as they wrote it. They're a reliable source, totally mainstream, to be reported accurately. That's all I'm trying to do. I'm not taking sides in the Morgellons debate - this article is the first time I heard of it, so I don't have an opinion of if it exists or not. I'm trying to following the NPOV and Verifiability policies, and after reading those several times, Mayo seems like a clear example of a reliable source that should be used. Leaving out the first point of their three item list, as was done in the prior version of that sentence, would not be an accurate reporting of what they published. That's where I'm coming from on this, just reporting what the reliable source stated. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, yes, but equally there's no evidence of any support outside of the MRF, and we should not actively participate in confusing people on that. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, the statement about that webpage being "a reliable source, totally mainstream" is itself self-evidently not true. Consider the following quotes from that webpage: "The Morgellons Research Foundation lists six primary signs and symptoms of the condition:" "Today, the Morgellons Research Foundation doesn't claim that the disorder described by Browne is the same as Morgellons disease. Rather, the foundation adopted the term as a convenient label for a set of signs and symptoms." "The Morgellons Research Foundation reports no known causes of Morgellons disease and no successful treatment for the condition. Whether Morgellons disease is contagious remains a mystery." From these statements and others on that page, it is quite clear that much of the content is based on information supplied by the MRF. That webpage is a secondary source, primarily reporting what the MRF says, and as such, it is no more "reliable" or "mainstream" a source than any of the numerous magazine articles, newspaper articles, or TV reports on Morgellons which are cited elsewhere and also quote the MRF. You may also note that the statement "The Morgellons Research Foundation reports no known causes of Morgellons disease and no successful treatment for the condition." is distinctly at odds with the present content of the article, which gives citations to claims by the MRF regarding both causes and treatments. If the Mayo Clinic page is wrong about something so fundamental, why is it being treated as a reliable source? Dyanega (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mayo Clinic article as a WP:RS has previously been discussed here at the end of this section. They used a number of sources along with their experts to produce the article, and the Mayo Clinic assertions used in the article were not attributed to the MRF. They stated, "In general, it is our editorial policy to cite organizations within articles when information is attributable to a specific organization. Non-attributable statements of fact generally have been synthesized from a variety of sources. All statements are reviewed by our experts for medical accuracy. Before producing this health topic, the product development team collected and reacted to ideas over a period of multiple months using a number of sources." (Italics mine.) The Mayo Clinic contact and correspondence reference number are there so that anyone can verify the correspondence.

This sentence from the Mayo Clinic, "The Morgellons Research Foundation reports no known causes of Morgellons disease and no successful treatment for the condition." is not at odds with the MRF, the present article, or reliable sources. The MRF has not reported any known causes of Morgellons disease. The article states, "Morgellons disease may be linked to an undefined infectious process," and reports certain pathogens have been detected in Morgellons patients. The wording, "successful treatment for the condition", is subject to interpretation and ambiguous (anywhere from helpful to curative). The article says some treatments used by MRF associated heath professionals cause symptom relief or remission of Morgellons symptoms in most patients and in specific cases, "if the treatment is discontinued the symptoms return". I don't see the statement as being wrong, possibly ambiguous as to treatment, but the article is not using this attribution.

The Mayo Clinic statement, "Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research." is actually pretty general, it is inclusive of the MRF hypothesis of an infectious process, and the hypothesis discussed under Environmental toxins. It also is would also be compatible with this specific hypothesis by Koblenzer that, "...morgellons and delusional parasitosis are identical, but that they are more than mere delusion....Others, of which I am one, believe that there is indeed an altered sensation in the skin, probably triggered by neuropeptide release, usually associated with stress of some kind or depression, which the patient interprets in terms of parasitic infestation..."Ward20 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) The letter you quote gives no internal evidence that it is anything other than a boilerplate/form letter response. (2) Even if we assume it applies specifically to the Morgellons webpage, it states only that they used a number of sources (nowhere does it say anything about experts WRITING the article, just reviewing it - the authors were "the product development team") - it is thus by definition a secondary source, exactly as I stated above. (3) Citovsky and Kilani have both issued reports on the MRF website claiming they believe that Morgellons is caused by a bacterium (Citovsky) or "fungus, algae or a novel parasite" (Kilani). If these are not claims of causation, then why are they being cited as such in the article? (4) If the quote "some Morgellons patients who test positive for Lyme disease obtain symptom relief using aggressive, long-term antibiotic treatment" does not EXPLICITLY indicate that the MRF considers antibiotics a treatment for some Morgellons patients, then why exactly is that quote included? In other words, if you believe the quote "The Morgellons Research Foundation reports no known causes of Morgellons disease and no successful treatment for the condition" is an accurate and succinct portrayal of the facts, then why don't we eliminate all the other MRF-supplied citations and just use that one quote? (5) Ever since DP was first described, it was known that many cases involved "an altered sensation in the skin" that had a non-psychological cause - just look up the WP entry, under "secondary organic". NO ONE has ever said that the only manifestation of DP is the type that is purely psychological, and there is nothing in Koblenzer's statement that lends any credence to the claim that Morgellons is a NOVEL or an UNKNOWN medical condition. You appear to be interpreting the Mayo Clinic quote as implying the latter (novel and/or unknown), and then trying to draw a parallel to a statement that includes neither of these implications. All Koblenzer's quote is pointing out is the exact same thing that I have pointed out to you and Pez over and over through this whole debate - that DP often DOES have legitimate organic causes, that everyone has known this for decades, and that this is not a difference between DP and Morgellons, but rather a very dramatic similarity. Trying to portray DP as "It's all in your mind" and then pretending that Morgellons is an "alternative" which is NOT "all in the mind" is a straw man fallacy which serves only to prey on the insecurities of the people suffering from the condition. Dyanega (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1.) The Mayo Clinic letter said, "Before producing this health topic, the product development team collected and reacted to ideas over a period of multiple months using a number of sources."

2.) OK, as you point out, the Mayo Clinic experts reviewed for medical accuracy statements produced from ideas the product development team collected and reacted to over a period of multiple months using a number of sources. Sounds more, "reliable or mainstream a source than any of the numerous magazine articles, newspaper articles, or TV reports on Morgellons." According to WP:NOR it could be a secondary source or a tertiary source.

3.) They did not report any known causes of Morgellons disease and the WP article more clearly reflects that now.

RB Stricker, V Citovsky, The Contribution of Agrobacterium To Morgellons Disease: "Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that Agrobacterium may be involved in the etiology and/or progression of Morgellons disease. If these results are confirmed, it would be the first example of a plant-infecting bacterium playing a role in human disease." Wikipedia article says: "Five skin samples of Morgellons patients contained evidence of DNA from Agrobacterium, a plant-infecting organism which is known to produce cellulose fibers at infection sites within plant host tissues."

Kilani, A., Investigation of Novel Organism Implicated in Morgellons Disease. The cite states, "The information available today is limited and does not provide an answer to what the causative agent of Morgellons could be." Now the Wikipedia article agrees. Thank you.

4.) Do my statements, "successful treatment for the condition, is subject to interpretation and ambiguous (anywhere from helpful to curative)." and, "I don't see the statement as being wrong, possibly ambiguous as to treatment" sound like I believe the phrase, "is an accurate and succinct portrayal of the facts"? It is a moot point. Successful treatment for the condition is ambiguous wording subject to interpretation, and the proposal is a hypothetical case not used in the article.

Will address other concerns later. Ward20 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

5.) Many issues are discussed. I will try to address specifically the statement,"Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research.", and Koblenzer has discussed Morgellons in a way that is also compatible with that statement. Note, I am agreeing "altered sensation in the skin" has non-psychological causes, but also tring to show sources indicate all causes of those altered sensations are not known in Morgellons or DP. I do think Koblenzer's statements are compatible with "Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research", but I understand the counterview. I think this is another moot point, and it would have nice if Koblenzer had been more specific. She stated:

• "Unfortunately, since we do not know the cause of the symptoms.. .there are differences of opinion as to how to approach these unfortunate patients," she said. "Many dermatologists feel that it is `all in your head' or `imaginary' and tend to dismiss the patient. Others, of which I am one, believe that there is indeed an altered sensation in the skin, probably triggered by neuropeptide release, usually associated with stress of some kind or depression, which the patient interprets in terms of parasitic infestation; that is, the basic change is in the skin, and this must be addressed appropriately, in addition to treating the thought disorder."

In another article in the same journal Koblenzer responds to a question:

• "What would you do to help a patient who tells you he or she has morgellons disease?", she states, "You know, it is a difficult topic because we have no absolute proof of what is going on..." "We do biopsies, we do blood tests, all those things that would rule out the extrusion of any foreign material, whether it be living or nonliving. So what I try to say to patients is, `We have no evidence... however, we do have medications [that can help].'" She added, "I think it is heartless to tell the patients that it is all in their head because I have no question that something is going on...."

In the article Morgellons, Real or a state of mind, by Melissa Healy:

• "Craft of Harbor-UCLA believes that the CDC must investigate Morgellons, if only to help quell the groundswell of believers. That may be a hard sell among sufferers, who have come to distrust the government and medical community for writing them off as mentally ill, Craft says. But only the CDC has the resources to begin to unravel this mystery.

"And for all we know, it [the illness] could be real," Craft says. The CDC, for example, could discover that this is an outbreak of delusional parasitosis brought on my some common exposure, such as a neurotoxin. Delusional parasitosis is often seen in recreational drug users (especial those using methamphetamine), victims of stroke and other neurological diseases, as well as in patients with certain vitamin deficiencies. Perhaps, Craft says, some exposure common among Morgellons sufferers may be causing neurological changes that have brought on a common delusion." Ward20 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, that would be delusional parasitosis, then, a well-documented extant condition, not a new one. Albeit with a new common trigger. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that would be a "specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research." Ward20 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying dermatitis caused by exposure to diesel fuel is a separate condition from dermatitis. It's never been disputed that DP might have organic causes, only that the parasitosis is delusional - that is, there are no parasites. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is somewhat hypothetical, so probably we now are arguing about who is more stubborn, if you let me have the last word I am. If it helps, I think I'm older :) Ward20 (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] propose Morgellons external links be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

It has been over a month since the external link tag has been in place and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject External links. It has achieved only one new opinion. I rechecked the backlog at WikiProject ELs and it appears there is little hope of them addressing Morgellons in the near future. IMO the crux of the argument for removing morgellonswatch from external links is that it is a not an adequate RS according to WP:EL standards. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems to address things fairly quickly, maybe input from them would help resolve the issue. I am posting the proposal for comment here so there is no forum shopping issues. Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is called forum shopping. As you note in the Wikipedia:WikiProject External links posting, there has been extensive debate. This is a fringe topic and is not addressed by mainstream sources; no better source for the (default and dominant) skeptical view has been proposed, so per WP:UNDUE we have the two links as a temporary compromise until better ones exist. The fact that you don't like the content of one of them is a matter of record, and does not need to be brought to wider notice. It is not a source (so inappropriate at the RS noticeboard), it is an external link. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My PVO does not discredit me, I don't care if it is brought to a wider notice. We all have POVs. I believe the link is inappropriate because WP:EL states in Links normally to be avoided, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". It is entirely appropriate at the RS noticeboard. If weight is a problem then both links can be removed. Ward20 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems quite fair. The Foundation probably doesn't meet WP:EL standards, so it certainly doesn't meet WP:RS standards, and we'll need to remove all the Morgellons-as-actual-disease sections from the article. However, it is forum-shopping, and should be discouraged. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you are discussing removing? If there are other passages what are they? Thanks:

According to the Morgellons Research Foundation website, MRF board member, Dr. Ahmed Kilani CEO of Clongen Laboratories, and a microbiologist with a Ph.D. from Stanford University Medical School, observed structures from a number of Morgellons patients microscopically, along with their clinical profiles. He believes this organism is not a bacteria, and hypothesized this organism "is a more complex fungus, algae or a novel parasite." The fibers resemble "aerial hyphae observed in many fungal species". The webpage also states, "The information available today is limited and does not provide an answer to what the causative agent of Morgellons could be."[36]

Such treatments may include vitamins, herbs, epsom salt baths, vinegar, antifungal soaps and shampoos, and natural oils

External links
Morgellons Research Foundation
Morgellons Watch, a skeptical blog following the Morgellons debate.

I was not sure how my prosposal would be viewed, that is why it was a proposal. Ward20 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be be pretty much it. The website can be used as a reference about the organization itself, even if not reliable. It might make it difficult to discuss the (apparent) fact that all the productive (whether or not accurate) research results are coming from the MRF, which probably also needs to be noted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that it is a polemical site which presents only one side of the story. As per the discussions above, morgellonswatch presents the other half, and makes a pretty good fist of balancing. To cite one and not the other, biases the article. Neither is a reliable source regarding the disease, the MRF is a reliable source about the history of their claims and organisation and nothing more. The sources we should be using are secondary ones, not MRF, not morgellonswatch. The only primary source which we should consider reliable in this context is probably CDC. If you read back you'll see that pro-MRF editors have wanted morgellonswatch out from the second it was linked, presumably because it apppears to blow their house of cards over. I'd call myself unconvinced by MRF, and I found morgellonswatch of considerable use when assessing the biases which obviously exist in the MRF site. One without the toher looks, to my eyes, anyway like a failure of NPOV, but neither is or should be regarded as a source, and so the RS board is not the place to go. What we need more than anything else is publications, even letters, in the medical journals. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed both links (and thus deleted the External Links section). If we all agree that neither link meets WP:EL then there is no reason to keep either. If there are suitable External Links to add, please feel free to do so and thus reinstate the section, but I move to keep these two links out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] delusional parasitosis - ref material

While I have no vested interest in this condition - apart from a professional one - and neither have, as yet, come to any conclusions as to whether this is a "real" illness with some physiological/bacterial/immune/etc cause or a purely psychosomatic one - the references given as evidence to it being a delusional parasitosis are weak at best and need either replacing or removing.

For example:

The statement: "A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis." is support by two references. this are from, Nature - an non peer reviewed journalistic article which does not actually name its source for these "majority of health professionals" No survey of said professionals is quoted.

the second reference is from Am J Psychiatry.2007; 164: - not a "bio-medical journal" (apologies to those in this field)and the article is actual titled "Diffuse Pruritic Lesions in a 37-Year-Old Man After Sleeping in an Abandoned Building. Any reference to A majority of health professionals, that might exist - is again not cited.

The sentence: "A majority of dermatologists view Morgellons as a new name for an old condition, Delusional parasitosis." is taken from an article called: "A Medical Mystery: Delusional parasitosis Frank X. Mullen Jr," From the Reno Gazette-Journal, May 8, 2004. Which is not only not a pear reviewed medical journal but appears to be a newspaper!

The sentence: "Dr. Noah Craft, a dermatologist at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, has seen a handful of Morgellons patients and biopsied their skin lesions, but found only normal skin and inflammation, as one would find in a bump that has been picked at" Again is not taken form a medical journal but, what i believe are known as "pop" psychology magazines. This one being Psychology today described by wiki as "is a bi-monthly magazine published in the United States. It is a psychology flavoured magazine about relationships"

There are more examples but I won't bore you. If this is to be a serious reference point to this "disease2 - what ever it's cause either physiological or psychological - then surely statements regarding its pathogenesis should come from more reliable sources? That there is an argument that it may very well be an expression of delusional parasitosis then surely more reliable evidence can be found to support such a statement? It is certain at the moment that a large amount of "headline" space is given over to this theory. I personally feel that such emphasis may stop people attending their Doctors for fear that they will be thought of as "time wasters" or that they are purely suffering some psychosomatic illness - when their maybe other causes. Some of us studied when medical textbooks such as Kumar and Clarke stated that nearly all digestive tracts ulcers in those under the age of 40 were no doubt psychosocial in origin and did not warrant further investigation such as barium swallow, meal, etc. Opinions? Really2008 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Really2008 (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, you seem to be ignoring the following passage entirely:

The 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology states:

Many dermatologists refute the suggestion that this is an actual disease but instead indicate that many of these patients have psychological problems or other common skin disorders. Given the large numbers of individuals who feel that they have this affliction, it will be most helpful over the coming years to have a valid scientific assessment of Morgellons disease and its possible etiology (or etiologies). One of the chief criticisms by many patients has been that they feel the medical community and other scientists consulted have not been open to the idea that there is possibly an as yet undescribed infectious or physiologic causation for the disease. However it is certainly true that in fact many expert parasitologists, medical entomologists and other microbiologists have in fact carefully examined fibers and other materials expressed or extracted from such patients and found that biological organisms are not present. Although an apparent association of the condition with the presence of Lyme disease has been reported (Savely et al, 2006, Am J Clin Dermatol, 7:1–6), further research will be needed to help resolve the validity of Morgellons disease. Until then, whether Morgellons disease is another name for delusional parasitosis or a real disease entity with a biologic or physiologic basis will remain up in the air.^[4]

That's a pretty definitive summary of mainstream medical opinion, which is why it is figured so prominently in the article. You should also acquaint yourself with WP:FRINGE and the principles regarding evidence and rebuttal of fringe theories. To give a simple example: let's suppose a doctor publishes a book in which he claims that the consumption of 12 ounces of fresh panda pancreas every day enables a person to live forever without aging. How many doctors are going to publish a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed medical journal? The burden of proof is on the claimant, not on those who would rebut their claims. More to the point, would the absence of peer-reviewed rebuttals in medical journals mean that Wikipedia editors could ONLY include the "pro-immortality" comments, even if there were numerous quotes in the mass media from medical professionals, all saying it's ridiculous? No. The guiding principle is that Wikipedia editors must work to accurately represent both sides of a debate, using the best sources available. If one has to look in newspapers to find representative examples of the mainstream opinion, then that's what gets quoted here. Besides, if peer-reviewed clinical studies were a requirement for something to be given as a source in a medical Wikipedia article, then we would have to eliminate every one of the citations to the MRF in the Morgellons article, since none of them are peer-reviewed clinical research. For you to suggest that citations from the MRF's website are fine but articles in Nature Medicine are NOT is a blatant double-standard. Dyanega (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The first example brings up a good point. The sentence that starts with, "A majority of health professionals" is written as a global generic statement, see Attribution and citation and Attributing and substantiating biased statements. The sources of this opinion are one Nature magazine author, and three authors of the Am J Psychiatry article. If the Atlas of Human Parasitology is to be used (right now it is not sourced for that passage), who are the author(s) that give this opinion and what is that based on? As the article is now referenced, there is a lot of weight given to the opinion of 4 authors. If a source had a survey to cite, "A majority of health professionals believe X" that might give the weight to make a sweeping statement. Right now what is missing in front of "A majority of health professionals" is "according to who". Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ward20: You highlight perhaps my main concern far better then I have. You are completely correct. To correct this statement it would need to state the names of the theorists - and as there are so few their professional capacity. This constant use of "MANY" is deeply concerning. In my country MANY dermatologists I have spoken to today have Hadley heard of it (another oddy mainly American "disease" it would seem) never mind have come to any conclusions on it's pathogenesis. Really2012 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dyanega: I'm afraid your logic is flawed and you have obviously never had the misfortune to mark undergraduate essays. The point of references is that they support your argument with VALID and RELIABLE sources. Whether a source used is in a peer reviewed source is of little consequence if that quotation comes from an editorial or indeed the letters page, Throughout this article it sates MANY dermatologist, etc, maintain that this disease is a delusional parasitosis - despite this the article is unable to quote even a small survey among est dermatologists. I am not against this argument being made or the notion that this is a psychosomatic illness - however, i am deeply disturbed when this argument is supported with such weak references. As you quote "Atlas of Human Parasitology" (I am assuming form an Amwerican Society? I assume you are student in this area - this does look after all like a book used mainly by undergraduates or the newly qualified depending on your field. - perhaps you can produce some better references from your own studies. As to using Atlas of Human Parasitology as a references source then again - given the readership that this article will be mainly aimed at - I would have the same reserves as using the Oxford handbook or Kumar and Clarke - but would far from exclude it's use.

However, I will repeat, i cannot see how how an article such as this can only support the possibility of this "disease" being "a" delusional parasitosis by using editorial comments in nature and in the main - articles form "pop" psychology magazines and articles in regional newspapers. While I believe the reasoning behind citing delusional parasitosis as a possible diagnosis is valid - both because of a probability and the need to reduce any further cases which result from "mass hysteria" generated by ill conceived - if well meant - websites and articles - surely it is possible to use more reasoned references to support it?

As to "You should also acquaint yourself with [[WP:FRINGE)" I would much prefer not to waste my time but for the editors of the article to use common references rules. My experience of fringe theories is that if they are not valid - and are observable by scientific methodology - then they are easy to disprove and equally any counter arguments to them can be easily support by VALID and RELEVANT research in the journals. Really2012 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I should point-out - least I become associated with the "lunatic-fringe" that I do not support some of the extrema theories on the net that this is some sort of "alien" (as in UFOs) introduced disease or that it is the result of "nanobot infiltration". I am open however to the possibility that this maybe delusional parasitosis, a new strain of bacterial infection, etc, etc.Really2012 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bohart Museum of Entomology has a great online article about Delusional parasitosis. My favorite passage, under the Clinical Manifestations tab :

The Sufferer:

• Consistently and fiercely rejects negative findings or any that deviate from their perceptions of the infestation.
• May exhibit the "matchbox sign", where sufferers deliver or mail containers holding samples consisting of dust, lint, skin scrapings, toilet paper, dried blood or scabs, hair or other pieces of human tissue.

If it sounds familiar, it's because it is. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Emm said "If it sounds familiar, it's because it is." Thats good then - wont need any further investigation - no ned to waste resources, yes. And that HIV too - has symptoms the same as a number of other illnesses so all thatr research to find an alternative cause most have been a waste of time also. Thank goodness for that :-) Really2012 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Histological and electron microscopic appearance of skin biopsies?

I am a pathologist with a special interest in skin diseases. I found out about this disease today. I am particularly puzzled by the absence of histological images. Dermatologists routinely take biopsies of puzzling skin conditions, so there must be many biopsies of these lesions. The biopsies are examined by us pathologists. We frequently see fibers of all kind under the microscope and most of us are quite good at telling foreign from natural structures. Electron microscopy would be essential here. Could someone direct me to images or descriptions of the fibers under the microscope? Emmanuelm (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut & paste from my user talk page; this discussion belongs here:

See here [137]. I would be very interested to hear your take on these images. There is some rebuttal here [138] Herd of Swine (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Herd, these SEM pics are useful. My opinion is that some pictures, especially picture 3, show foreign fibers. Picture 2 shows a mineral particle (grain of sand). The others are not useful; foreign bodies rapidly get covered by gunk in the body, which is why SEM is not the most useful technique here. TEM or histology would be very useful as they look at the cut surface of the fiber, and hence its interior. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Other images [139]. Ward20 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ward, I had seen these images. By microscopic, I meant much higher magnification to evaluate the structure of the inside of the fibers. One particularly useful technique in this context is polarized light, which requires thin sections.

These low-power images, however, are very telling. They show unmistakable lint. The fluorescent image is textbook synthetic lint. The second pair of photos, however, is puzzling. It seems to show the lint under the epidermis (to be confirmed by histology; again, where are the pictures?). My understanding of this disease is that the fibers are going into the skin, not coming out of it. I think they get stuck on a sticky scab caused by scratching, then get incorporated when the skin re-epithelializes. This would explain the wide variety of material extracted from the lesions (fibers, sand), all foreign-looking.

Such an incorporation of foreign material is abnormal; normal skin excludes foreign objects from a healing ulcer. I therefore see this disease as an uncommon manifestation of a common condition, intractable itching. Instead of waisting their time on epidemiology, as the CDC just announced, researchers should experiment on patients to identify the sequence of events leading to the skin lesions. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your view is that of the majority of the most dermatologists, but wrongly or rightly the origins of the fibers are contested by some medical professionals. This section and references discuss the differing opinions. Ward20 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - medical professionals who happen to be past or present board members of the MRF. Let's not pretend that these are people who don't know which side their bread is buttered on. Dyanega (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss from "a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". Ward20 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and we've been over this before ("verifiable" and "reliable" are not synonymous) - I maintain that a medical professional who has been sanctioned by the U.S. Public Health Service's Office of Research Integrity for falsification of data is not a reliable source, and you've disagreed. I maintain that Morgellons research is fringe science, and that the appropriate WP policies apply here, and you've disagreed. And there is a difference between discussing such things here on the talk page, as opposed to editing the article, when it comes to needing to adhere to NPOV. So it goes. You're no less guilty of personal bias than anyone else here - you yourself have made this clear: "I do have a chronic illness that for 20 years has been controversial. I would rejoice to take a psychotropic drug and have my illness go away. I have, it didn't. Many emerging diseases have been claimed by the Psychiatric community. The most famous recent one is AIDS. There were others, epilepsy, diabetes, tourette's syndrome, autism. What happens is a fight over turf and jurisdiction with science taking a back seat over politics, sometimes for decades. That is exactly what is happening on this topic and it should stop for the sake of science and suffering patients. Be objective, people's lives and futures are literally at stake here!" Given that your apparent definition of "objectivity" is "actively rejecting anything the medical establishment says", we clearly have a fundamental disagreement - going even so far as to what constitutes "science". Dyanega (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your passionate debate confirms what I am saying : objective, high quality research is urgently needed to establish the sequence of events leading to the skin lesions. This research is time-consuming, both for the scientist and the subject, but not costly. There is no good reason to avoid doing it -- stop arguing and speculating, start experimenting! Emmanuelm (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Harvey in the Washington Post

William Harvey is the Chairman of the Morgellons Research Foundation. In today's Washington Post Magazine [140] there is a very long and detailed article on Morgellons. In it, Dr Harvey goes into detail on his theory of what causes Morgellons:

Harvey hypothesizes that a type of nematode, a wormlike parasite that lives in the soil as well as in the guts or lungs of about half the animals on the planet, mutated somewhere in the 1970s in Southeast Asia and jumped from animals to humans. The parasite is easily spread through the fecal-oral route if someone, for example, is out working in the garden, fails to wash his or her hands thoroughly and then eats an orange. Or it gets into the lungs by inhaling sputum or by kissing. The worm then takes up residence in the colon, Harvey theorizes, and the body's immune system holds it in check.

But when the immune system falters, the worms swarm in the body. That's what happens, Harvey hypothesizes, after a human is infected with a strain of bacteria first reported in 1986, Chlamydophila pneumonia. These bacteria like to live in immune cells, Harvey says, and they feast on those cells' energy. With the host's immune system compromised, the mutant nematodes begin reproducing exponentially, Harvey suspects. They burrow a hole in the wall of the colon, then usually travel at night through the bloodstream or the lymphatic system or crawl in hordes between the layers of the skin, like other species of nematodes are known to do, to the parts of the body with the most blood flow: the face, head and nose. There, a cranial nerve leads right into the brain. A pileup of worms could jam blood and oxygen flow to the brain, Harvey says. "That may explain the psychological symptoms," including the hallucinations, he says.

[...] The fibers, according to Harvey's theory, are really the hard shells, which he calls cuticles, that these worms shed at five stages as they grow from egg to larvae to adult. The red fibers are the males, he says. Blue fibers are female. "Using a 2,000-power microscope, you can see inside them," he says. "They look like little stovepipes to me. I can tell the blue ones are female because there's a kink in the middle for the sexual organs and some kind of pouch. And we have pictures of them laying thousands of eggs.

This obviously sounds rather far-fetched. But should it be reported in the Wikipedia article? Given that we currently have The Bug Man's theory on pesticides in there, it seems more notable than that, with Harvey being chairman of the board of the MRF. Herd of Swine (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so that you guys know, we pathologists are familiar with nematodes on histological sections, including the cuticles of the dead organisms. If you want to see for yourself, here is a Google Images search for Dirofilaria, an important genus. I have seen a case in a skin biopsy : from the first look, it could not be confused with textile fibers. For the third time now, where are the photos comparing Morgellons lesions with known organisms?

As far as anyone here can see, there are none, never have been; but various editors here have pointed out that simply because no one here can find such publications is not proof that none exist, so this cannot be mentioned in the article - even the phrase "There have been no clinical studies" (of Morgellons disease) was rejected until a source could be found for the quote. We, as editors, are not permitted to point out any of the numerous shortcomings of Morgellons research until and unless someone ELSE publishes such criticisms somewhere else, otherwise we violate WP:NOR restrictions. Dyanega (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong word. Would "[sic]" be appropriate?

"refute" roughly means "disprove". Should quotes be "[sic]"-ified?

"Many dermatologists refute the suggestion that this is an actual disease but instead indicate that many of these patients have psychological problems or other common skin disorders." Nomorebigots (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the usage here is more "argue against" rather than "disprove". From that I would say that the statement is OK as it is. It is certainly a common statement to see in the press, whether it technically be right or not. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

As it stands, this article does not do a good job of presenting the situation in a NPOV fashion, and I have tagged it accordingly. Major problems that I see off the top of my head (this is not an exhaustive list)

1. Referring to Leitao simply as a "biologist" gives a misleading portrayal of her credentials. It would be better to specifically spell these out - certainly I find it a misleading label for a lab tech with a Bachelors degree.
2. The lead completely fails to foreground the fact that it is not clear that this is a disease. The fact that this is a controversial subject needs to be in the first paragraph - indeed, the first sentence. To open the article with a description of Morgellons as a "condition characterized by" anything already violates NPOV, since there is no consensus that Morgellons is anything at all.
3. The description of Leitao's discovery states her findings of fibers and the like as facts. This is, in practice, disputed - especially given that it is arguable that the prevailing scientific consensus is that she is delusional.
4. The CDC investigation is being presented in a way that lends undue credence to the hypothesis that Morgellons is a distinct disease. Statements like the CDC statement that Morgellons as an infectuous process is a "remote possibility" are needlessly buried in the article, suppressing the importance of this controversy. On the whole, the CDC issue is being used to imply that Morgellons is on the brink of recognition - this runs counter to the CDC's actual process, which is more skeptical and prone to investigating remote possibilities just in case.
5. The symptoms section treats Morgellons as a real disease.

In short, the article needs to foreground the controversy, and, frankly, the prevailing scientific opinion - that Morgellons is a specific form of delusional parisitosis. This opinion should be represented in the first sentence, and all sections should be framed in terms of the debate between people who claim that Morgellons is a distinct disease and what remains the scientific consensus that it is not. This does not mean that the article should declare Morgellons to be a form of delusional parasitosis - that would also not be NPOV. But it needs to make sure that it is always describing the debate, not explicitly or implicitly taking sides while occasionally reporting viewpoints from the other side. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Leitao has worked as an Electron Microscopist and an Immunohistochemist.^[10] Are those terms preferable?
2. The third sentence in lead states, "A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis".^[2][11] I believe these conditions are regarded as disease[141], but the article has tried to avoid using that term so as to not advance a POV.
3. The description of Leitao's discovery is as the two RS that are cited describes it. I am not aware of any RS that states the prevailing scientific consensus says that Leitao is delusional.
4. The CDC has not stated what they think it is. Dan Rutz, MPH, a communications specialist with the CDC used the term "remote possibility". The CDC calls Morgellons "Unexplained Dermopathy", dermopathy is a disease of the skin, but the article does not state that to advance a POV either. More than 1/3 of the lead discusses various attitudes about Morgellons from three secondary sources.
5. The medical journal articles published on Morgellons describe these symptoms.

There are two sentences that describe Morgellons in a relatively neutral fashion before stating, "A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis." I am not sure why the article needs to frame all sections in terms of the debate. That would give undue weight on describing the debate. Reliable sources have described much more than just the debate. The article is trying to fairly report on the total topic of what reliable sources have stated. Ward20 (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand my objection. I will try again. In practice there are two competing and dramatically opposed viewpoints on this topic - one is that Morgellons is a real and distinct disease, the other is that it is a special case of delusional parasitosis. These viewpoints are diametrically opposed, and short of simple and uncontrovertable statements of sociological fact (i.e. "The CDC is studying X") there is very little common ground of statements, since each viewpoint necessarily denies the premises of the other. Thus a statement like "the symptoms of Morgellons are X" is POV because it de facto assumes that Morgellons is a distinct disease with symptoms. It is just as problematic as a lead that begins "Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis." In a heavily controversial and contested subject, great care needs to be taken to always frame claims in terms of the two opposed sides of the issue. A good start for the article might be "Morgellons is a proposed name for a category of dermatological symptoms including list of symptoms. The identification of Morgellons as a distinct disease is controversial. The prevailing view among dermatologists is that Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis. The Center for Disease control is currently conducting research in this area." And then subsequent sections should be clearly framed in terms of those two conflicting viewpoints. Right now too much of the article is implicitly written from the viewpoint that Morgellons is a distinct pathology. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So that we can move closer to consensus, let me add my thoughts. Although the article may need a few tweaks, I am leaning more toward Ward20's arguments. Here is my take on some of the numbered arguments above:

1. Leitao: Regardless of whether she should be described as a "lab tech" or a "chemist", she has published in a reputable journal. That gives her some degree of credibility.
2. The lead makes it quite clear that there is controversy regarding whether this is a physically manifested medical condition or delusional parasitosis.
3. I agree with Ward20. There needs to be documentation (preferably from a mental health expert) that "the prevailing scientific consensus is that she is delusional". Otherwise this argument has no merit.
4. I don't think the article " lends undue credence to the hypothesis that Morgellons is a distinct disease". Since this is a matter of opinion, we need more consensus before increasing the weight of argument toward one side or the other.
5. I disagree with Phil Sandifer. The very first sentence of the section is, "Morgellons is currently not recognized as a unique disorder".

So far we only have three opinions here. If others don't weigh in, we might need an RfC to get more opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Note: It is coincidence that two editors in this discussion have usernames Ward20 and Ward3001. If there are doubts that we are separate people, I invite an administrator to verify this. Ward3001 (talk)

I have no problem with verification. Ward20 (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, my issue is not weight of argument, but rather explicitness of presentation - I have no problems with the balance of information, merely how it's presented - Pro-Morgellons claims should be clearly attributed as such, as should anti-Morgellons claims. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think explicitness and attribution would improve the article. I believe I understand your concerns in your paragraphs above. Some of your suggestions certainly could be utilized. I believe the situation is a bit more complex in many cases, especially perhaps two competing and dramatically opposed viewpoints on the topic. But there were a lot of arguments and compromises to get the article to this point and there is certainly room for improvement. I will try to write more comments tomorrow for discussion.

I will talk about one concept tonight that is not well developed in the article. It illustrates why there are actually more than two views. That is the "known skin conditions" section. The editor Dyanega has been saying this for some time. I hope this does not dredge up old wounds as Dyanega and I differed on what weight to give the view of a new and unknown cause of Morgellons.

Most of the article as it exists now was developed last fall. Perhaps there are better articles about that concept now. I am not sure if there were not good articles then, or if it got overlooked or buried when editing was running swiftly last fall. Ward20 (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure proposed is accurate. The name was used as a temporary label and stuck. ^[12][13] I had/have no objection to dropping Leitao's name from the lead, but other editors wanted it there so readers would know the medical community had not established the term Morgellons. Ward20 (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to have the word "proposed" there somewhere to note that there is not consensus about Morgellons, but you're right, the name is set - perhaps proposed condition? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree about dropping her name from the lead. I would also strongly advocate dropping "delusional parasitosis" from the lead--even given that it is the standard explanation, its presence there does affect the NPOV because of the implications of "delusional". And I agree with Ward20 that a new search should be conducted for later material--the " (multiple) known skin conditions possibility" is a very real one.DGG (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drafting proposals for new lead

"Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease" is a label that is used for a medical condition by a large number of people who suffer "a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores)...Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision."^{[12][13][10][6]} Medical professionals have also suggested using the terms Morgellons Syndrome and Unexplained Dermopathy for Morgellons.^[14][6]

A Nature magazine article, and the 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology, states it is disputed Morgellons represents a new disease entity. Many health professionals, including dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.^[2][4] According to the Mayo Clinic, Morgellons disease is controversial, and health professionals are divided in their attitudes about Morgellons: some believe it is a specific condition and expect it to be confirmed by research in the future; some believe it is not a separate condition, rather its symptoms result from other conditions, often psychological; and some do not acknowledge Morgellons disease at all or reserve judgment until more is known about the condition.^[3] The U.S government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states it is not known at present whether persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.^[6] The CDC has begun an epidemiological investigation of the "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka 'Morgellons')."^[15]

---

Set up a draft above to edit and tear apart to see if a consensus can be found to improve the lead. I tried to be more concise, put in more attribution, moved and framed dispute and controversy higher in lead, substituted a secondary source for a primary source. Please change content above, explain below and give a reasonable edit summary. A number of editors found this method easier than making constant changes to a difficult article. Your mileage may vary, this is a suggestion. Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

report ----> say Ward20 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong ref, change MRF to CDC. Ward20 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor word changes. Ward20 (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

- say they Ward20 (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

many ---->a large number of, per Atlas of Human Parasitology description. Ward20 (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• That sucks quite badly, actually. The present lead is better. It's a term coined by Leitao and latched onto by a frenzy of self-diagnosing Internet users who refuse to accept that anything with "delusional" in the name can possibly describe their symptoms, since obviously it's real. Referring to the number of self-diagnosed "sufferers" gives spurious validity to s disease which is essentially not accepted by the relevant professional community. "Medical professionals" have not suggested that the disease is called that, they've suggested that the proposed condition of unexplained dermopathy be investigated to find out if it is real or not; if CDC comes up blank, it will revert to being delusional parasitosis (which is probably what it was all along). Essentially these folks are trying to reclassify their condition to something with a less pejorative name, but the Morgellons crowd use such an absurdly wide definition that I don't see Morgellons being the name chosen even if they are successful in changing the name of delusional parasitosis. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these people do not believe they are delusional and are using a different label than delusional so they are not dismissed, sounds like common sense doesn't it. We report this and the different views the medical community have on this issue without bias. Putting disclaimers into the views about supporting one position is not NPOV in my opinion. IMO neither is calling a person a a lab technician when a RS says they have worked as an Electron Microscopist and an Immunohistochemist.^[10] Is there a RS that says she is a lab technician? Would you call this person a lab technician? Is the degree that relevant if they have done the job?

The draft stated that other terms have been suggested and supplied sources for it. The draft did not even say disease in relation to the alternative names. As far a proposed condition I believe that is not correct either. Whatever condition they have DP, scabies, menopause, or infection it is not proposed, it is a real condition just as the lesions are real. Have you seen the pictures in the sources? Are the lesions and scars proposed? Ward20 (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence (other than her own words) that she's a scientist. I think electron microscopist might be fair. As for "proposed condition", what would you call "reported, but unconfirmed, set of symptoms". That's really all we have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning biologist vs. lab technician vs. electron microscopist or Immunohistochemist, the Journal article which Leitao helped author^[10] sources electron microscopist or Immunohistochemist. News articles source biologist[142] and biologist and electron microscopist[143]. I could not find as source for lab technician and none has been supplied per the request for a source. I removed lab technician from the lead as it does not appear to meet BLP requirements, and inserted biologist to agree with two sources and existing stable text in article. Ward20 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When the Mayo Clinic discusses it they use disorder twice, condition five times, proposed zero times. The CDC January 15, 2008 Morgellons briefing used Morgellons Syndrome twice, unexplained illness three times, and condition about 50 times (not exaggerating), proposed zero times. At the CDC briefing, Dr. Pearson principal investigator for the Morgellons investigation said," First of all, what is very clearly to us is that there are a number of persons who are suffering the condition and the symptoms that we described." Koblenzer, said about Morgellons (not linking full text because of copyright, but a Google search will find it), "This condition has recently reverted to the name given by Sir Thomas Browne in 1674, to an apparently identical symptom complex, Morgellons disease." and, "My own approach has been to explain to the patient that from my examination, biopsy, and tests, I have been unable to find evidence to support any of the possible causes put forth by either the patient or the Web site, though I in no way doubt the patient’s experience."

The causes may be disputed and uncertain, but sources say the symptoms and condition are actual, not proposed. Ward20 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the symptoms are disputed, even as a syndrome (i.e., set of symptoms). The last time I checked, no one has been diagnosed with the syndrome unless first diagnosed by the Foundation or self-diagnosed after reading the Foundation web site. (That's not inconsistent with the CDC transcript above, in that they are even slower than we are to accuse people of fraud, or even of unintentionally inducing psychosomatic symptoms.) And the Foundation had stated that this is clearly not the same as the "original" syndrome. If Koblenzer has a different opinion, that might be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biologist

After reading the Nightline "article" (transcript? promo?), I find that the fact they call her a biologist questionable. The piece looks like an MRF press release. I realize it probably isn't, but they didn't use any critical material. In fact, I'm not sure that piece is reliable except for reporting on quotes and on the existance of the broadcast. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why is there such a problem excepting this decease?

Our world has had many changes and new creations. We recently discovered human asian bones in the northwest. This blow away our Christopher Columbus story with the natives here and then our pilgrim rules we eventually coerced them into in some way. No one believed in AIDS at first. If some brave strong soul got to work on that faster many lifes would have been saved. Whats the concensus, is it that we have too many needy people making up problems to get attention or is it we have to many people that would rather close there eyes and hope it washes away. Change will happen it always does. We just need to keep our eyes and our ears open. And also start off believing and listening before disregarding what could be a possible pleage that will harm us or a useful organizim that could have many helpful uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.217.227 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because no experts in the relevant field have ever diagnosed it? It may be true that "no one believed in AIDS at first", but there was no question of the patients or doctors lying. With Morgellons, it's still correct that there have been no diagnoses of Morgellons other than by Morgellons Foundation doctors, and there's little evidence that anyone other than those so diagnosed have the symptoms. Perhaps the CDC study will establish that there's no "there" there. Perhaps it will determine that the syndrome actually exists, in spite of evidence. Who knows? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California Department of Health Services

"In a letter to the MRF dated June 11, 2003, the California Department of Health and Human Services stated that, "After reviewing your website to gain some information about the patients…the patients appear to have a constellation of symptoms that do not fit any currently definable disease, infectious or otherwise." -It was an e-mail, not a letter. -There's no "California Department of Health and Human Services" -It was from a masters-level public health person in a "Vector-Borne Disease Section" of an "Infectious Diseases Branch" in the Department of Health Services under the the California Health and Human Services Agency. -The quote gets nicely edited to make it say something it doesn't. The whole thing says, I paraphrase, "ok, there are alot of symptoms your describing here but they are really broad so these people need to see some good doctors and we can't make any conclusions about them because we don't see patients here, please send them to doctors. Oh yeah and IF the doctors find something then we will find out about it." -Who knows if the letter is real anyway it is self-published by morgellons, not a reliable source. RetroS1mone talk 02:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organic versus psychological

OK I know it is a common way to put things in neat categories that some doctors still use but it is 2008. The more people find out about psychological disorders, they turn out to have organic causes. A patient thinks it is insulting when you say oh you just have a psychological disorder. It means the way most people talk, you are just crazy, your making it up! Maybe not waht the doc means, but it's what people hear. People that talk about Morgellons patients like this are not being sensitive, maybe not accurate either. Or they are trying to put words in the mouths of doctors so patients will listen to them instead (and pay them)! Can we stay away from saying stuff like "Some cases of delusional parasitosis may have organic causes", thanks. RetroS1mone talk 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

There appears to be use of wording in the article that advance the point of view that Wikipedia shows doubt regarding Morgellons, see WP:WTA. Claim, purport, proposed, however, etc. are being used to cast doubt on the statements or opinions of Morgellons speakers or content. This appears to be confined to the arguments of Morgellons sufferers or supporters. Dermatologists statements, opinions, or material that support other positions have not been reworded like this, nor should it be. Positions should be worded fairly so chosen words should not subtly promote a point of view or be pejorative.

Disclaimers should not be put after studies or statements by Morgellons supporters unless sources can be found that address that particular point, see WP:OR and WP:SYN. Disclaimers have not been inserted after opposing positions without sources, as is proper.

The sentence, "Despite the lack of evidence that it is a distinct condition, or any agreed set of diagnostic symptoms, a large number of individuals have self-diagnosed with the condition and, motivated by a widespread lack of acceptance in the medical community, have used political means to attempt to have the condition recognized." is nether WP:NPOV nor accurate. There is an unknown condition that has pictures of lesions and artifacts published in medical journals and in television news broadcasts. Conclusive proof is lacking, but lack of evidence is incorrect. A large number of people that self identify as having the illness (CDC terminology), but to say they are motivated by a lack of acceptance by the medical community to use political means to have the condition recognized is WP:POV and WP:OR. Ample references exist (for example) that people suffering with symptoms and their doctors want the medical community to research and be aware of the illness so they can be properly treated (NPOV). Ward20 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement in question is almost certainly accurate. Perhaps the "motivation" clause should be scratched, although there is a "widespread lack of acceptance in the medical community", but there's no question about the rest of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A major problem with the content is, "have used political means to attempt to have the condition recognized." That gives the impression of trying to force acceptance by the medical community through political means. As far as I know the only politics has been to try to make the medical community more aware of Morgellons and to urge reseach to investigate it. Ward20 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that we have any way of telling, as the existence of people who actually have the syndrome is still not verified by medical practitioners not affiliated with the Foundation. The phrase I restored seems the most neutral available, under the circumstances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow, please elaborate how "people who actually have the syndrome is still not verified" relates to the NPOV discussion, and what phrase was restored? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Should have been the phrase sentence I restored. I removed the "motivation" clause, as noted above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand how "people who actually have the syndrome is still not verified" relates to the NPOV discussion, and there appears to no source that states morgellons pateints "have used political means to attempt to have the condition recognized." The citation provided does not verify the material. Ward20 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation provided refers to the first clauses in the sentence (in particular, the statement "a large number of individuals have self-diagnosed with the condition"), while this citation later in the article supports the claim of political action. There USED to be a citation to one of Pez1103's Morgellon's support group newsletter postings specifically telling sufferers to help with the letter-writing campaign, but that was removed as being an unreliable source. Perhaps it's simplest to just add the Time citation to the end of the sentence in question. Dyanega (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree political action and letter writing has been used to ask for more awareness and research for Morgellons. Yes, the citation later in the article would be better for the statement, and it says:

• But Smith and his fellow sufferers are itching for answers. That's why they've pressured the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to assemble a team of scientists who will determine whether this disease is in fact for real. The 13-member team is expected to share their findings within the next two months. "We're not ready to concede there's a new disease," says CDC spokesman Dan Rutz. "But the volume of concern has stepped up because a lot of people are writing or calling their congressmen about it because they're frustrated that there's been no organized way to deal with their suffering."

I have not seen documentation of any political action asking for medical recognition of Morgellons. It would not make sense to do so, as it seems there is no agreed clinical definition by any medical organization. We are discussing semantics to an extent, but IMO the present text subtly mis-represents the patients. The cdc's Michele Pearson, principal investigator for the CDC investigation in the press release covers most if not all of the content of the statement including what the patients want. I will try to put a proposal based on that source on the talk page.

Concerning the disclaimer, "but did not provide evidence for these claims", it is factual but it is not NPOV to put a disclaimer that casts doubt on the statement. No disclaimers follow Dr. Noah Craft's statement about fibers or Robert Bartholomew's statements, and they provide no data or evidence. An article could be skewed by selectively putting a pejorative disclaimer after many such statements. Ward20 (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people are making extraordinary claims others are not. Its not pejorative when you say someone made an extraordinary claim and they didn't give evidence it is just a fact. RetroS1mone talk 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's more than just that issue, even if it is mentioned in WP guidelines; there is a fundamental asymmetry here, which it is certainly possible to represent accurately. Namely, a doctor who says "I have seen no evidence that there are any disease organisms in these patients" explicitly indicates there is no evidence for them to provide, and no "disclaimer" is needed for readers to come to that conclusion. A doctor who SPECIFICALLY says "I have hard evidence that this is a real disease" and then fails to provide that evidence is a very different matter, because the absence of the claimed evidence is NOT something a reader will be able to determine unless they examine the original source. It would misrepresent the source by implying - incorrectly - that the source provides evidence. As such, failing to mention the omission of evidence is failing to properly summarize the content and nature of the source. If Harvey had claimed to have evidence that he was the first man on the moon (and no one bothered to deny his claim), would it be fair to just cite the claim at face value and NOT indicate that he offered no actual evidence? One should not misrepresent sources that way, especially when the topic is this controversial. It's not that hard to understand. Heck, we just revised the intro because a citation didn't say what it looked like it was being cited for; if misrepresenting the content of a source is a bad thing, and we can agree on that, then NOT telling people that Harvey's publications contain no evidence is also a bad thing we should agree on. Otherwise, it's a double standard. Dyanega (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a double standard about properly summarizing the content and nature of the source. This source terms Leitao a biologist and a stay-at-home mother, another source a biologist. She graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Massachusetts at Boston with a BS in Biology. She has worked at Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center as an Electron Microscopist and an Immunohistochemist. It is deemed she should be termed a stay-at-home mother? A person with which background would be best suited to give an opinion about an unexplained illness? Humm.

Because the article does not indicate Harvey offered no actual evidence it would misrepresent the source by implying - incorrectly - that the source provides evidence?

From the article:

1. "Dr. Noah Craft, a dermatologist at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, has seen a handful of Morgellons patients and biopsied their skin lesions, but found only normal skin and inflammation, as one would find in a bump that has been picked at." Source offers no actual evidence.
2. Extraordinary claim: "Dermatologists say any fibers are from clothing embedded in self-imposed sores, and the fibers patients bring in bags are textile in nature." Sources offer no actual evidence.
3. Extraordinary claim: "Robert Bartholomew, a sociologist who has studied the Morgellons phenomenon, states that the "World Wide Web has become the incubator for mass delusion and it (Morgellons) seems to be a socially transmitted disease over the Internet." Source offers no actual evidence.
4. "It is common for patients who believe they have Morgellons to reject a physician's diagnosis of delusional parasitosis. It has been suggested that the term Morgellons should be adopted by dermatologists to enhance their rapport with their patients, allowing them to overcome this resistance." Source offers no actual evidence (but one source not listed talks about one patient)
5. Extraordinary claim: "Although most Morgellons symptoms are well-known and characterized in the context of other disorders, "reports of the strange fibers date back" just a few years, to when the MRF first became active on the internet." Source offers no actual evidence. Note source misrepresented, "Widespread reports of the strange fibers date back only three years, to the time they were first described online". "Widespread" is omitted and that's important. Also note, if someone does the math the source was published June 2005 minus three years gives 2002 which I believe is the actual date the MRF was founded and had a web presence (check the MRF site and the The Wayback Machine site.

It would be appreciated if RetroS1mone stopped adding words to avoid, and errors into the article. Thank you.

Ward20 (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:WTA: "In some cases, these words and constructions do not presume guilt, but simply note that a party makes an assertion known to be incorrect or without consensus. Including them may be acceptable when describing unproved or disproved ideas, fringe theories, and other uncontroversial situations." Morgellons is unproved, is considered a fringe theory by the medical community. MRF and Ward20 could be completely right about everything and if they get proven right then Wikipedia should show that. Today it is still a fringe theory, not a violation of WTA to use words emphasizing Morgellons is not considered a seperate condition. Plus WTA is a guideline not a handcuff.

About Leitaos profession, she was a stay-at-home mom when she claims she found fibers in her son. She says she worked in labs for a few years after getting her undergrad degree in biology in Mass. She became a stay at home mom, she had three children, how long since she worked in a lab? Saying "Biologist Mary Leitao found x" implies she came home one night from looking at emerging disease samples at lab and found one in her son. It implies a levle of expertise she may not have, just like capitolizing Electron Microscopist and Immunohistochemist very fancy sounding names for very routine techniques done by lab technicians. ILADS btw is not a reliable source is it. There is nothing wrong with being lab tech or stay at home mom. It is not pejorative.

About extraordinary claims, the Internet theory is in the proposed explanations. It is proposed. You can verify it is proposed with the sources, you don't need evidence it is true. There is support for it like the Pop araticle but its not needed. When a doc says I didn't find any evidence this baby is a re-incarnation of Alexander the Great its like, duh. When a doc says this baby has never even heard of Alexander the Great but they're acting like him in their crib, then yeah let's see some evidence.

Date of founding MRF, the Psychology Today is about the most comprehensive article, it says March 2004. Also when Leitao called it Morgellons. Thats verified, 2002 is not.

About Munchausens by proxy, Mary Leitao says about this in interviews and gives it as a reason for starting MRF so it is relavent. The doc at John Hopkins that saw them didn't see anything wierd about the son, saw this huge file, and his expert opinion was the mother had a problem not the son. No implication he diagnosed her, it was just his explanation and every one including Leitao agrees he said it and its important. It is sourced ok and doesn't violate WP:BLP and it is a important piece of information when you evaluate the whole Morgellons phenomeneon. RetroS1mone talk 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote RetroS1mone used from WP:WTA is irrelevant to the words disputed in the article, only admit, confess, and deny are addressed by the quote.

RetroS1mone wrote, "Today it is still a fringe theory, not a violation of WTA to use words emphasizing Morgellons is not considered a separate condition." Using words described in the NPOV tutorial and the guideline Words to avoid: that introduce bias in attribution to emphasize a POV is just wrong.

RetroS1mone wrote, "MRF and Ward20 could be completely right about everything and if they get proven right then Wikipedia should show that." Insinuating that my own views coincide with the MRF's views is a dubious and incorrect proposition.

The internet theory has some problems. According to this article Morgellons and mass hysteria are only connected by the author's words and unnamed experts. Gary Smalls said nothing about Morgellons in Hillary Rhodes' article, “Mass hysteria is technically defined as an outbreak of physical symptoms that spread by sight or sound or both, and they have a psychological cause,” said Gary Small, a psychiatry professor at University of California, Los Angeles, who has researched the subject. “Now we’re finding other forms of communication, and I’m not surprised the Internet is getting involved. The Internet increases spread by logarithmic scales. It’s just so quick and worldwide.”

The mass hysteria hypothesis should be near the bottom of Proposed causes and pathophysiology. The other proposed causes have medical journal sources and medical experts in their sections. The mass hysteria section has no medical experts on Morgellons or journal articles. The Popular Mechanics article is misquoted about the fibers and is wrong.

The extraordinary claims argument is unacceptable because of a double standard. I believe all the contested statements are in the Proposed causes section. For example, the statements, "Morgellons lesions" have been found on infants' bodies in locations that the infants cannot themselves reach to scratch" and the statement, "World Wide Web has become the incubator for mass delusion and it (Morgellons) seems to be a socially transmitted disease over the Internet" should be treated equally. By disparaging one point of view with disclaimers, debates within topics are engaged in and is not NPOV

About Leitao's profession, the source that calls her a stay-at-home mom also calls her a biologist and a medical researcher in various contexts in the article. The source used medical nomenclature when she was considering samples from her son. The source used the stay-at-home mom description when she was working from home to contact and organize the symptomatic patient community. Electron microscopists and immunohistochemists positions in hospital laboratories can be anything but routine. Expertise in preparation, analysis, and handling of biological specimens and controls used in these professions are relevant to Leitao's ability to judge what she observed with her son. In the context of the WP article, the stay-at-home mom description is a less relevant pejorative POV wording of her expertise compared with electron microscopist and immunohistochemist. ILADS is a WP:RS. The Lyme disease, Lyme disease controversy, and Erythema chronicum migrans articles use ILADS as a RS many times, and The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ published their persistent Lyme disease guidelines.

The date of founding of the MRF is 2002. Read the links to the MRF site and the The Wayback Machine site. Here are more sources, ".Morgellons Research Foundation, the nonprofit organization that Mary Leitao founded in 2002", "A South Carolina woman who founded the Morgellons Research Foundation came up with the name for the condition in 2002", "The Morgellons Research Foundation began accepting registrations from people with symptoms of this unrecognized disease in 2002", and "2002, when the "Morgellons" was selected by Mary Leitao".

About Munchausens by proxy, I found no RS stating, "Mary Leitao says about this in interviews and gives it as a reason for starting MRF" The infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University did not even see her according to the citation, so there is only unfounded speculation at best according to Psychology Today. In no source did I find that "Leitao agrees he said it" or that she said it. The only way it is important is to discredit her. There is another source that says something a little different. Possibly the same Johns Hopkins doctor did see her and her son, but it is unclear if it was the same doctor, and it does not state conclusively he saw them. The statement, "I found no evidence of [anything suspicious] in Andrew," could have been concluded by looking at medical records. IMO the Munchausens by proxy material is certainly a BLP violation. Ward20 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ward, WTA is a guideline not a hammer and Morgellons is a fringe theory. Words like claim and proposed etc are ok here.

I didn't say you were in MRF, if what I said was misleading to you I am sorry.

I don't see the problems with the mass hysteria hypothesis, they are reliable sources.

Mass hysteria is in the right place just after delusions bc it complements it may be we could combine them?

Extraordinary claim is not a double standard. Mass hysteria is a hypothesis. Infants with sores is not a hypothesis it is a medical observation by a doctor that doesn't report it in the literature.

Mary Leitao was a stay-at-home mom when she says she saw the fibres, do you dispute that. She got her undergrad and worked in a lab for a few years and then raised her kids at home, her youngest one was two when she saw the fibres. Would you say "historian George W. Bush said this or that about Iraqi history," No because he got his undergrad in history but he is a politician now not a historian. Say its routine or not routine whatever, how do you know Leitao when she worked as lab technician had "expertise in preparation, analysis, and handling of biological specimens and controls" do you have a rs for that.

The date of founding makes the most sense in the extensive context of the Psych Today a rs. But your right there are contradicting sources prob because they got their info from the mrf website. So there is a conflict, we could update the article to say there is a conflict. Do you know may be Leitao started a website in 2002 and then officially started nonprofit in 2004. That makes sense but is there a source, we would need that.

Munchausens by proxy, I am surprised you did not read those interviews, I can give you the link later. RetroS1mone talk 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think 2002 is the correct date for the start of the MRF, in addition to it being widely reported as such, here's a dated post (7/2/2002) from Leitao, discussing the work of "The Morgellons Foundation": [144] (quite an interesting read there). --- Herd of Swine (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right Herd of Swine I wonder if its Leitao did the web site in 2002 and did the official non profit registration in 2004, does any one know? Interesting read!! electromagnetic fields and 8 dollar microscopes!! RetroS1mone talk 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ward20, "Possibly the same Johns Hopkins doctor did see her and her son, but it is unclear if it was the same doctor, and it does not state conclusively he saw them." Here it is from the source, Post-Gazette, "On the advice of Dr. Frac, Drew and Ms. Leitao drive to Baltimore to visit the Hopkins expert, Dr. Heldrich. He forms his own conclusion about proper treatment of Morgellons. 'I found no evidence of [anything suspicious] in Andrew,' Dr. Heldrich wrote to Dr. Frac after the visit. Then he added: 'Ms. Leitao would benefit from a psychiatric evaluation and support, whether Andrew has Morgellons disease or not. I hope she will cease to use her son in further exploring this problem.'" Ask any doctor what "visit" means it means they saw the doctor. Ask any doctor, a mainstream doctor or some one on MRF board like I dunno Dr. Raphael Stricker. Visit means visit.

Ward20, "I found no RS stating, Mary Leitao says about this in interviews". Chicago Tribune and Texas Monthly not RS? There's also some of Morgellons advocate sites with it but I guess they are not rs. RetroS1mone talk 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morgellons Research Foundation article to be merged here

The Morgellons Research Foundation article should be merged here as there is not enough content or notice to justify separate articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge. The foundation article has a fair amount of material redundant with what we have here already. The rest could make a small section on this page. Antelan^talk 15:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...somewhere in the archives of this talk page is the major debate the editors here had which provoked the removal of all the stuff about the MRF to its own article. I think a fair summary of the bottom line (why it was decided to create a separate MRF article) is that the details of what the MRF is, its history, its advocacy role, etc., are all peripheral to the issues surrounding Morgellons, and the Morgellons article has enough in it without further distracting the reader. I will note, for comparison's sake, that there is no section in the Lyme disease controversy article that discusses the history or role of ILADS, the main advocacy group for "chronic Lyme" - and which also happens to be led by Dr. Raphael Stricker of the MRF. In fact, there is no article in Wikipedia for ILADS. I do not support the idea of a merge - if other editors don't like the MRF article, then improve it however you see fit, but please do not cram it in here. I'd be tempted to say simply delete it, but in all fairness, the MRF does fulfill the criteria for a notable organization. Dyanega (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ref section for convenience, please keep on bottom of talk page