Talk:Morgellons/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Request for Scientific Peer Review

A formal request for scientific peer review of this article is initiated. Anyone deleting it will be referred to the owners of this website.RamyB777 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"The owners of this website"? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Especially interesting in that I am a scientist, and happen to be an expert in this area, and yet RamyB777 seems decidedly unhappy with my editing, and my objectivity. I might submit, in all sincerity, that someone who suffers from this condition is faced with a profound conflict of interest (since it is their own health that is in question), and for them to call for a review is a manifestation of this conflict. When the available scientific evidence is that a condition is based on denial, then - by definition - no one who suffers from it is going to agree with the scientific evidence, despite the desire for justification. I'm perfectly happy to have other scientists, or medical researchers, review the content of this page; I have actually encouraged such participation in the past, and continue to do so. Wikipedia is not, however, intended to serve as a forum for Morgellons sufferers. This page's external links section is already heavily biased towards the pro-Morgellons side of the dispute, and there is thus ample opportunity for interested readers to experience what sufferers are saying about their condition. Dyanega 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Dyanega. After having researched the matter for a half hour or so, purely objectively, I see that as a wikipedia page this is inherantly going to be disputed. Its a condition whereby denial is effectively the primary symptom, the other symptoms are apparently more a biproduct of the denial. Anyone editing this article who suffers from morgellons is therefore going to be in a conflict of interest, as their own denial will affect what they percieve to be the causes of the illness. I'm not sure what the best way forward for this article is going to be, but it needs some thought, because morgellons sufferes are effectively going to need to be very careful and objective in what they write to avoid bias. Perhaps a section on matter from the perspective of morgellons suffers may be the most appropriate place for them to voice their views. The rest of the article may be better maintained by more objective scientists. After all, if you were gay for example would it be appropriate for you to be writting/ heavily editing an article on the treatment of homosexuals in iran/saudi arabia... unless you were extremely objective about it no it wouldn't be appropriate. Another aspect of this is that wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research. Therefore, if you are writting based on your own experiences, this is a form of primary research. In the case of the above analogy this would be like a persecuted iranian homosexual writting about his experiences in that article... not appropriate is it. Although its a fairly broad analogy I think it conveys the point. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for this article!

Im one of these people who suffer from this desease. After more than 3 years im happy to see that something is happening. BakuninXL 10:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

unnecessary sections removed

I removed sections titled MRF controversy and Delusional Parasitosis as they seemed unnecessay for the flow and were POV without need. --Dematt 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Delusory Parasitosis is the leading diagnosis for this "condition," and it would be negligent not to include it.
I did not remove the information, just dropped the section heading that was seperating the discussion of DP from the other differential diagnoses. I agree it is important and the information needs to stay. --Dematt 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree with your perspective!!! As a master's student, your entire discussion lacks credible scientific method and presentation. It is significantly biased towards the anti-Morgellons perspective Dematt! What is your graduate degree that makes you a scientific evaluator of the evidence? and furthermore, what is your ability to stand back from the situation and speak with neutrality towards the issue? In your writing, you have taken a very anti-Morgellons stance here and it is greatly lacks scholarly presentation. Please do a better presentation of both sides of the story. I have entered in bold on your article another perspective balancing the view which in my opinion makes the article more neutral. RamyB777 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

After 20 doctors, I finally was diagnosed with Morgellins from a parasitic specialist. I was successfully treated by Ivermectin 18 mg once a week for 6 weeks. The entire household had to be treated. This took 18 months from contracting this till full recovery, due to the fact no one knew what was going on. 4 months later - I was re-infected by a friend who had been infected from me, but did not know. During the 18 months my family had this - we infected @ 15 people/families. This is a parasite, the fibers are egg sacks. Oil or ointment, disolves the "glue" which holds these fibers under the skin, so when applied, in @ 10 minutes these fibers pop up & out of the skin. Depending on how long the parasites have been laying these fibers, will depend on how long these fibers look as they come up. Some look like worms, some look like black specs or splinters, these specs can be so small that they will fit in the groove of a fingerprint. Fibers that are forced outof the skin can be seen at 300x magnification, round eggs in these fibers. The parasite itself, looks kinda like a bed bug, but actually the head & legs look more like a shrimp. Acticin or Premrethryn is also effective over the entire body & scalp for 8 hours, once a week for 6 weeks. But anyone that you have infected also needs to be treated. It takes sbout 4 months to be completely infested to the point where they are hatching in your skin continuously and they will walk off of you and onto whomever is sitting next to you. Since these parasties are contagious and do go from person to person, when someone else gets infected - it usually reslults in a boil, which most hospitals or doctors diagnose as a spider bite, mrsa or an infection from itching. If you can get diseases from mosquitoes, sucking blood from one person then moving on to another, what diseases can be spread from these parasites? The symptoms are very similar to scabies, but scabies are easy to ditect, these need much more invstigating. I hope this helps someone who has this. This was a horrible nightmare.72.81.66.230 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This itself is enlightening; ivermectin and permethrin are both conventional treatments for scabies or lice. Based on your description, and if you were infecting other people, and these cured you, that indicates that you had scabies. This is a well-known condition, and those are well-known treatments for it. I myself have had scabies, so I know from personal experience. As mentioned in the article, some doctors will go along with what the patient says in order to get them to take the proper treatment ("rapport-enhancing"); this appears to be what happened in your case. Your parasitic specialist should be commended for curing the condition, even if he failed to educate you on the cause. Dyanega 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you Dyanega use the most fallable logic. Ivermectin and permethrin are also used to kill nematodes (which are categorized as parasites because they live off of their host). Are you an MD??? I simply cannot believe the kind of foolish logic you apply in your arguments to the postings of others. Your knowledge of these two medicines is limited. You print only that which you want to print to confirm your bias. Morgellons is NOT scabies. There is no mite and there is no lice. You may have had scabies, but from what the individual posted, they did not. You are applying a very negative type of medicine ("rapport-enhancing") as published in the American Journal of Dermatology as though it is the GOLDEN RULE of medicine. What happened to "unconditional positive regard" (Carl Rogers) and treating people as real people. What you have proposed here is an application of what is called "junk medicine" by many medical practitioners who are actually seeking to find a cure. Why don't you read the Physicians Desk Reference for Ivermectin and Permethrin and print the wide gammut of uses of those two medicines instead of printing your own narrow view.RamyB777 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A PhD in Entomology, on top of first-hand experience, gives me adequate credentials to speak about things like lice and scabies. My knowledge of the two medicines listed is that they are used to treat lice and scabies. The person above said her "symptoms are very similar to scabies". So, if her condition had the symptoms of scabies, was transmitted the same way scabies are transmitted, and was cured by the same treatment that cures scabies, the simplest explanation (I'm sure you've heard of "Occam's Razor") is that SHE had scabies. Put another way, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." - besides which, I might observe that, for someone who claims (immediately below on this talk page) to be doing research into Morgellons (and, presumably, how to cure it), you show not the slightest interest in this person's indication that they had Morgellons, and that these medications cured her! Can you explain why you do NOT believe that this person's example gives hope that these medications are a potentially valuable treatment for at least some of the people who exhibit Morgellons? Dyanega 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of the 20 doctors that I had seen, 10 of them were dermatologists. I had @ 12 skin samples taken, I thought I had scabies that what I kept telling these dr's to look for scabies, due to the symtpoms that I had. Each one ruled out scabies and the skin samples did not show this mite. I had infected bites on my face, in my ears and nose. I was told also that scabies do not go on the face. The university of PA is who saw the fibers and sent me to the parasitic specialist. Thats when my son & I were diagnosed with Morgellons. I was told these fibers were produced by our bodies, but I was having allergic reactions to the fibers. I was also given sulfur mixed in cream and that helped keep the reaction down. I was told that your body cannot be allergic to itself, so if thats true, why am I allergic to these fibers if my body is making them? After the treament of ivermectin , both my son & I were cured (well for 8 months). We were reinfected when we went over a friends house that I had not seen for 9 months. I had found out that 9 of his friends had been in the Emergency Room, over the previous year for these infected bites or boils, some of his friends were diagnosed with spider bites, or an infection from scratching. The boils get worse until the mite is killed, So I told my friend, he was infected and I proved it to him. He treated himself with over the counter head lice shampoo for 10 minutes and had these worm looking things come up out of his skin. The poeple I infected, none of them believed me until I provede it to them as well. They all had either little wart like bumps, or rashy or scaly patches, the one girl had little red specs on her stomach , the size of a pin. When I put oil on her stomach, within minutes the red dots came up & out of her skin as well as tan splinter looking things. Under the microscope at 100x these were fibers and the red specs were blood. Others had blood scabs, these were not the normal looking white skin scabs, these were dried blood patches. I have tried talking to CDC but have gotten no where. The one black spec that came up out of the center of a infected bite was moving by itself, so this spec was sent to the Univ of Penn and that spec was diagnosed as a bed bug, even though they do no burrow into the skin, but since they had no other reference that is where it ended. The other mite that was hatching out of the fibers (seen at 300X), was diagnosed as the normal bugs that everyone has living on their skin. It did not matter that it was hatching out of the egg in the denter of a fiber. Again with no reference written in black and white, no one is willing to think outside this box.72.81.89.252 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am. I've been running research outside the box for months now.RamyB777 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And you have published this where? Under what name? Funded by whom? Maybe you would care to come out from behind your pseudonym (since you accuse others of not having the necessary credentials, you presumably should allow us to objectively assess your scientific and medical credentials in kind), and indicate whether you have any ties to the MRF or the NMO. As things stand now, all of your comments scattered throughout this talk page suggest that you belong to one of these organizations (or perhaps you are George Schwartz), and if so, have a conflict of interest in this matter, a clearcut violation of NPOV, in addition to being a violation of NOR. How can anyone honestly expect people to debate them, or treat them or their opinions with respect, if they operate in bad faith AND personally profit from the belief in the disease? Dyanega 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Let's review this now - we have an anonymous editor who keeps chaging IP numbers, and is deleting and reverting quotes from medical professionals published in medical journals, and replacing them with POV statements. What is there about this that seems like a sincere attempt at collaboration? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support the editing of the introduction to read as if Morgellons is a recognized medical condition. I'm very sorry to say that WP is based upon the principle of verifiability, and use of known scholarly sources. At this point, none of the scholarly sources are supporting the recognition of Morgellons, and they do in fact seem to be universally denying its existence, in no uncertain terms. This MUST be made clear to the readers of this article. NPOV does not now and never has dictated that both sides of an argument are given equal weight - UNLESS they have equal supporting evidence; the present example is not such a case. Persistent attempts to hijack this article to a pro-Morgellons stance are not appreciated. When there are peer-reviewed studies published by researchers who are not affiliated with the MRF, then feel free to add that information. Dyanega 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The CDC Declared it a disease on January 30, 2007. That is evidence enough. What I see very clearly here is that you do not want ANY REFERENCE to ANY US ORGANIZATION including the National Institutes of Health declaring it as a RARE DISEASE included in your article. This is called confirmation bias and it is the worst kind of research because you are not willing to hear from the side that supports Morgellons as a real disease!!!! RamyB777 23:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The side that supports Morgellons is given their citations, and their viewpoint is represented here, especially via the numerous external links to their websites. No independent medical organization HAS formally recognized it as a disease yet, especially not the CDC, which has yet to issue a statement. I have contacted them, and been informed that they are reviewing the inclusion of Morgellons in their database, now that its presence there has been brought to their attention. And, for those of you keeping track, the list of IP numbers the same anonymous editor in Germany is editing from now includes 80.140.107.85, 80.140.110.89, 80.140.109.26, 80.140.116.200, 80.140.105.142, 80.140.82.184, 80.140.101.111, and originally at 134.171.28.83 - that the edits are all nearly identical is plain to see. They do not respond to requests for clarification or justification of their edits (except see what they posted to my user page here), and since the IP address changes with approximately every other edit, it clearly serves little purpose to place comments on their talk pages. I'll keep updating here as the list of IP numbers grows, as it appears this editor will not give up the edit war. Dyanega 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well many sufferers wrote me that too, that there is some user deleting all related Links to Morgellons Sites. This User is from Germany (T-Online DSL Service) and I can investigate on his IP-Address to find his name and why he is doing this. It seemed first that he is pushing more Mary Laitao `s site and giving bad comments on the other sites, on mine too. I don`t think so that my site is not acceptable, because I get a lot of good responses from sufferers because I speak out what can be possibly the truth. With certain picture material and documentation about. A lot of work just for nothing? This kind of competition between morgies is just a sidekick show, but not helpful at all. Every user can decide where to go and not being isolated just because one guy is always cancelling related links such as mine www.morgellons-research.org or from rense.com. Please stop that, you unknown terminator...Neumann 18:15, 7 June 2007 (CET)

You need to familiarize yourself with WP:NOT. Websites such as www.morgellons-research.org or rense.com that advertise products and services are generally NOT welcome in Wikipedia. There are many WP users who, upon seeing links to such websites, will remove the links, and with the full support and justification of WP policy and administrators. Dyanega 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What marks Wikipedia's article as grossly biased from the get-go is the statement early on that medical opinion "is divided" about whether Morgellons is a "medical illness", i.e. an infectious disease. There is extremely little support in the medical community for this concept, as the vast majority of MDs (including dermatologists) think it's a psychiatric disorder. In fact, this is a _central complaint_ among people who think they have Morgellons - that MDs won't take their "evidence" of infection seriously. So who's kidding whom here? Whoever has edited this article to suggest that "well, some docs believe it and some don't" is creating their own reality, when the truth is that MDs aren't buying Morgellons. Argue if you want that there's a chance research will turn up something astonishing, but don't misrepresent the current state of the science and opinion on this matter. DB

inclusion in a "rare disease" database does not mean anyone has declared it a disease

A recent edit of Morgellons included two actions that were, reverted; one was a violation of the WP:NPOV provisions, the other was not attributable. In the latter case, the link given [1] was NOT a citation that classifies Morgellons as a disease - it is a database of disease names that happens to include Morgellons (thus, it is not an attribution; no one outside the Morgellons Research Foundation has yet actively published that it is definitely a disease). That is a very important distinction. Second, giving the citation (and link) from Savely and Leitao is inappropriate UNLESS you state that they are part of the MRF, and not independent researchers. Since the MRF derives its funding from the presumption that Morgellons is a real disease, this is a conflict of interest; accordingly, nothing they publish should be taken at face value (i.e., it is not NPOV). It is no different than using promotional literature from the Church of Scientology as a source for the WP articles on Scientology. Maybe this needs to be spelled out more explicitly in the introduction to avoid further edits of this nature. Dyanega 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For the CDC to include the Morgellons link means that they actually find the research credible.RamyB777 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as 'non-attributable' argument of yours, how is this not attributable? The Office of Rare Diseases (ORD) was established in 1993 within the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).[2] They say that it is a rare disease. Excuse me, but I will trust them more than you. BTW. they don't specify if it is a skin or psychiatric disorder.
Second, I gave a citation that I found on the net, and only one of authors is affiliated to MRF, so the paper sias.
This work was supported in part by the Morgellons Research Foundation (McMurray, PA, USA) and the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS; Bethesda, MD, USA).
So, in your own words, it is inappropriate to state that they are part of MRF, because there are other institutions involved. Last, although MRF did sponsor this research, and I can tell that you dislike this organization for some reason, their research was published in a reputable third party 'independent' source, and therefore is appropriate for citation, (without a need to mention sponsors - although that does not hurt). They did not publish it, but American Journal of Clinical Dermatology did.
I just stumbled upon this topic in Psychology Today and found it interesting, and found Wiki page very biased.
Lakinekaki 20:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
First - did you actually LOOK at the link? They do not say it is a rare disease. They do not say anything. The name Morgellon's appears on their list, that is all. For all you and I know, they are listing it there based exclusively on the 300-year old report, and NOT on the basis of the modern phenomenon which happens to bear the same name. Can you demonstrate otherwise? If not, then it is not attributable.

Second - the article by Savely & Leitao was already listed and cited mutiple times in the article, and still is. There have been cases of things published in reputable journals that have proven to be false (cold fusion comes to mind); it is not the journal that gives credibility, it is the researchers AND the research itself, and in this case, (1) the researchers were being paid by an institution whose financial support is predicated on the existence and reality of this "disease", and (2) it was an opinion piece, NOT a research study. This needs to be made as clear as possible to readers here. Dyanega 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what problem do you have with the government provided information. Healthfinder.gov (coordinated by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP) and its National Health Information Center) links to MRF site from their rare disease page. It is not based on 300 year old description, bu on recent studies. And yes, I did LOOK at the link. I SEE very CLEARLY that this government health website is about rare diseases, and on this page [3] it lists a Rare Diseases Terms ... Disease: Morgellons Disease, Morgellon's Disease. Try to find some non-rare disease there, like this one for example.Lakinekaki 22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed a comment of your edit inclusion in a "rare disease" database does not mean anyone has declared it a disease. There is a word that describes statements like this --oxymoron. Lakinekaki 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This is to Lakinekaki...I do not really understand the 2 above responses where you seem to be attacking yourself, but I will comment on the link you provide. Indeed Morgellons is listed on the "Rare Diseases" site, but if you click on the link provided to PubMed, which is the database of Peer Reviewed medical journal citations, all the articles linked are about delusional parasitosis, so I think you are undermining the argument you are trying to make by providing that link in defense of your position. Saudade7 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As you note yourself, the only link on the Healthfinder.gov page is to the MRF site. Since we have already established that the MRF is NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE (by virtue of conflict of interest), this proves nothing - a resource citing the MRF's views does not equate to one supporting the MRF's views, and just because a search engine turns up Savely & Leitao's paper does not validate their conclusions. You may be unaware of how such databases and catalogs are compiled, but there is normally no attempt to individually evaluate the sources cited, no human judgment involved in whether a source is included appropriately or not. This is a common problem, and I can think of numerous specific examples of such things. I am personally aware, for the most recent example, of a digital catalog of insects on CD which happened to include a fictitious insect named in its listing. When I contacted the person who compiled the resource, he admitted that it was an error, and removed the name in the next CD release. Just because the name was included in a list of actual insects did not mean that anyone ever declared it was an actual insect - the compiler himself confessed that he had no such intent. So much for the oxymoron theory. I imagine that if one were to contact the people at the ORD and ask for clarification, that they might remove the reference to Morgellons, or at least red-flag it. The point remains that the only people to date who have classified Morgellons as a disease are people at the MRF (Ginger Savely and Raphael Stricker are both on the Board) or supported by the MRF. To uncritically accept or promote their opinions sidesteps the very real need for independent confirmation, and - given the available evidence - overlooks the fact that the medical community has been coming forward to state that there is no evidence that this is a genuine disease. There are many other articles in WP where one side of a controversy has little or no evidence compared to the other side, and people have hollered "That's bias!" when the article reflects this asymmetry - and their claims of bias have not been persuasive. While it is unfortunate that you and others perceive the Wiki entry as biased, I feel quite confident that should you ask for administrative mediation (as is sometimes done when some editors feel that others are acting in a biased fashion), that an objective review of the article's content will support the presentation as it stands: that there is no credible evidence, and no credible citations, to indicate that Morgellons is a real and unrecognized disease. Realistically, the page gives more credence than is perhaps deserved to the claims of the MRF; it is basically their word against the word of the medical community, and to date they have little to show in their own behalf. Nonetheless, the article DOES present their viewpoint, and even allows for the possibility that it may yet prove to be correct - but one cannot, conversely, bias the presentation to give them undue favor when the facts are against them. Sincerely, Dyanega 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

APPARENTLY, the CDC DID FIND MRF CREDIBLE and included them on their list as a reference for the rare disease. The CDC did not make a mistake. You are not higher than the governmental authority issuing the credence for the disease.RamyB777 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The CDC has not yet declared that this is a disease; the investigation has not yet produced a report. You, like Lakinekaki, seem not to understand that a person compiling a listing of known diseases is NOT actually evaluating the validity of the claims themselves. If, for example, the citation that caused Morgellons to appear in the CDC's listing is the publication by Savely, et al., then the process is circular; MRF board members publish a claim that Morgellons is a disease, and the CDC lists their publication, therefore MRF supporters insist that the CDC has validated their claims? In what way is that logical? That is most definitely NOT how it works. Dyanega 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only say few things. If your assumption about automatic database updates is correct you may be right. However, A rare disease (also called an orphan disease) is a disease or condition affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States. An estimated 25 million people in the United States have a rare disease.... more than 6,000 rare diseases known today Now, lack of research of this disease speaks in favor that it is not very common, and therefore not very interesting/profitable/for-research-resource-use-justifiable disease == rare decease. Making a mistake in insect database (more than a million species) is much more easy than making a mistake in a 6000+ entry database. Now you argue it may not be disease at all. From what I read on internet, I believe there are both psychiatric and a skin one. Now, I see that conflict of interest may be a real issue, and as US taxpayer, I wouldn't want my money to go to some scam research. Anyhow, I am moving away from this article as it was just of temporary interest to me. Lakinekaki 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Do you have any idea what it takes for the CDC to recognize a disease as a disease?? The Mayo Clinic is now researching this disease and The New Morgellons Order has five MD's developing a case description for the disease which can be found at www.cherokeechas.com. The CDC does not add diseases to the National Institute of Health Rare Diseases list unless it is recognized as a valid disease. What I see here amongst the writers of this article is very, very poor argument, that is full of confirmation bias against Morgellons. What would make this article more credible would be an actual valid argument that is supported by actual science instead of the people here who are running their mouths against the disease and the foundation who is fighting to get it recognized. Try accessing the documents at www.cherokeechas.com and look for Morgellons USA, as well as the News Organizations that have documentaries on YouTube. Talk to the 9,500 families who have registered with the Morgellons Foundation through Oklahoma State University and interview them as to their symptoms. Perform an actual scientific study if you are not satisfied with the clinical evidence that already exists. What I do see here is unscholarly writing about Morgellons that negates the realities of 9,500 families suffering from Morgellons and that only represents the families that have registered. There are sufferers all over the globe. Stop publishing only those reports that look at this disease through a specific angle. Look at this disease through a parasitology angle, look at it through a nematode-genetic splicing angle, open your lens and do some real investigating instead of this mumbo-jumbo and bickering that does not represent the truth that Morgellons suffers are real and valid, and yes, there is valid research money to be spent on developing a cure. Think for a moment just how spreadable Morgellons is if it is a parasite that cannot be killed by chlorine in the water. That means that Morgellons is being passed into the water supply at a rapid rate. If it is a parasite, then it is also multiplying because it has not been treated adequately to stop it. It continues to thrive in the people suffering from it. If I continue to read such poorly written scholarship, I will personally request that your entire article be scrubbed from the Wikipedia website on the basis that it is flagrantly biased against Morgellons sufferers, the Morgellons Research Foundation, Morgellons research and anyone attempting to validate it and is therefore slanderous and out not be a part of something called an "encyclopedia." RamyB777 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The "specific angle" in this article is called "objectivity" - one of the most important underlying principles behind Wikipedia. I have contacted people at the Mayo Clinic, and have been unable to confirm that anyone there is "researching" Morgellons. If you would care to provide a citation or source I can speak with, then I would be grateful. Likewise, please indicate any publications where the CDC has stated that Morgellons is a disease - to my knowledge they have yet to do so, and will list anything in their database for which there is a published record EVEN IF the validity of that published record is later called into question, as in the present case. They have not yet completed their investigation, and you cannot presume to know that they will declare that Morgellons is a valid disease (what will you conclude if they declare that it is not?). You mention "clinical evidence that already exists" - you are welcome to provide citations to any such evidence, and if these citations do not come via the Morgellons Research Foundation (its board members or its supported researchers), www.cherokeechas.com, or any other entity that accepts monetary contributions from Morgellons sufferers, then you can expect that they will be given recognition in accordance with their credibility. You truly need to acknowledge - if nothing else - that any organization whose financial existence depends on the reality of Morgellons is NOT an unbiased source of information as to whether Morgellons is real or not! That is about as obvious as a conflict of interest could possibly be. Do you, or do you not, acknowledge this?

No one here, myself included, is attempting to "negate" anyone's suffering. I have no doubt that there are many thousands of people suffering, and I have met (and continue to meet) a fair number of them myself, which is how I have come to be acquainted with the condition, its history, and the medical research surrounding it. What this article serves to do is give an objective assessment as to the NATURE of these people's suffering; one sufferer chose to give it a name, that name has become widely-known, and accordingly that name has been given an entry in Wikipedia. However, what that person believes about the condition, and what the medical community believes about the condition, are at odds - again, there is no dispute over the existence of the suffering people themselves, just a dispute over the cause of their suffering. Both sides of the dispute are presented here, but since the two sides differ dramatically in their credibility, the more credible side of the dispute is given proper emphasis. If and when any facts should be made known that differ from what is presently given here, then have no fear that the article will be updated to reflect them. But there are no facts to support your claim that it is a parasite, nematode or otherwise, being spread in the water supply. That sort of claim is irresponsible and sensationalist, and has NO place in Wikipedia. Dyanega 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New March edit

I happened upon the Morgellons article yesterday, and took time to read it, because the word was strange to me, and the illness so bizarre. I pondered it overnight, Googled for background information, and began editing it for clarity and brevity today. My concern is not that it may be biased, but simply that it is difficult to read and understand.

I didn't consult the Discussion page before starting, and after reviewing its content and length, I'm glad I didn't! Most of the discussion appears to be about the alleged illness per se, rather than the content of this Wikipedia article.

The obvious issue is whether Morgellons is in fact a genuine, little-known illness; a handy catchall for a host of previously recognized medical conditions; a mental condition; or perhaps, even a hoax. It appears that Ms. Leitao and her Morgellons Research Foundation are responsibile for the name and publicity campaign since 2002. The clearest and briefest outline of the condition I've seen is that of the OSU CHS: http://www.healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/index.cfm.

IMHO, this article need do little more than describe the alleged condition, identify Ms. Leitao and the MRF and their activities, and note that research may determine whether Morgellons is an actual, and perhaps significant, public health issue. I may edit a little more for clarity, hoping that other contributors will agree, and do the same. -- Mukrkrgsj 07:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing for clarity and brevity, in and of itself, is fine - but the article DOES need to say that this is controversial, because that is the truth of the situation, and it DOES need to state that the medical community has not accepted the condition as a disease, because that is also the truth of the situation, and those are the most credible opinions. You should understand that neglecting to inform readers that the issue is unresolved is potentially misleading. As you yourself state: "The obvious issue is whether Morgellons is in fact a genuine, little-known illness; a handy catchall for a host of previously recognized medical conditions; a mental condition; or perhaps, even a hoax." That is what the article should say, and after your edits, it is not obvious that this is the case! I will also point out that Oklahoma State's research program into Morgellons is being run by Randy Wymore, the former director of the MRF; he is NOT an unbiased source of information!

I generally agree, Dyanega. The Wiki format and policies make it difficult to outline the circumstances of a controversy without taking sides, and I don't think the content I edited did so.

I agree the intro should include a statement "that the medical community has not accepted the condition as a disease"--with a link to a responsible medical source. If you know a good source, please add it.

I said the OSU page was the "clearest and briefest outline", not that it was accurate or unbiased. Please bear with me as I edit a little more. -- Mukrkrgsj 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote the above, I didn't know you had reversed my edit of the intro, and reintroduced some of your own bias. I briefly reverted to my earlier version, then merged some of yours with mine. -- Mukrkrgsj 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"My own bias" is that the article needs to avoid implying that this is a disease, because no one has demonstrated that it IS a disease. That's what NPOV dictates. The article did not say either that it was or was not - but now it reads as if it does, which means it is NOW biased, where it was not before. Your edits removed most of the clauses and statements that made the distinction. The introductory sentence should be the one that gives the alternative names, as well, and you shuffled the order of the citations so that some of them appeared as blank - a little more care with editing would be appreciated. Dyanega 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stating clearly that your position is that Morgellons is not a disease. The recent text of the intro, and your revisions to my corrections, already strongly implied that anyone claiming to have Morgellons actually had delusional parasitosis, a mental illness.

I'm afraid you honestly don't understand my position. My position is that this page cannot state either that Morgellons IS a disease or that it is NOT a disease; the page needs to state instead that there are people who believe that it is real, and others who believe it is not. It needs to then document who the people are on both sides of the issue, what their claims are, and what the evidence for these claims is. Dyanega 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But if there's no such thing as Morgellons, why do you insist on calling it a "controversial medical condition"? Why don't you just write: "There's no such thing as Morgellons, and those who think they have it are nuts!", and let it go at that?

Because neither my nor your personal beliefs have anything to do with the content or editing of the article. The article needs to accurately portray the controversy for the readers, and not take sides or promote "beliefs". What you seem to be missing is that - in a case such as this - the two sides of the debate are not equal, and you cannot accuse an editor of bias just because the article reflects that inequality. If there were peer-reviewed studies by dermatologists that were pro-Morgellons, and I were editing them out, or suppressing them, THAT would be bias. For that matter, if I were determined to be biased, I could do a much better job if I were to delete every reference to the MRF and anything they have ever claimed (invoking WP:SPS, for example) - but I have no intent to do any such thing; the article needs to present both sides. lt plainly IS a "controversial medical condition" - the controversy being primarily whether the condition is a physical disease, or a mental disorder, as you note yourself! You cannot justify concealing the nature and extent of the controversy; the statement that it is a controversial medical condition does need to remain in the article. Dyanega 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fascinating that an unknown number of Americans--maybe thousands--claim to be extruding wads of multi-colored, polyester fiber from lesions on their bodies! Victims of rare, new, and imagined ailments often coalesce into support groups, and the groups themselves are real phenomena, and worthy of scientific study.

I think many Wikipedia users will be interested in reading about Morgellons, and making up their own minds as to what it is. It would be great to get the MRF's permission to use some of their more remarkable photos in this article.

Please try to remember that this article is about Morgellons. Whether it is a genuine physical or mental illness is just part of the total story. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this summation. I also happen to feel this needs to be made clear to the readers. Dyanega 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position very well: you want to retain the present near-total bias of the article, but you would like to be perceived as being fair and objective. There is no "controversy". The essence of this article is your own position: that medical science considers Morgellons a mental disorder, not a physical disease.

In what way is stating "that medical science considers Morgellons a mental disorder, not a physical disease" (and then giving multiple citations to support the statement) NOT fair and objective? Can you supply citations from the medical community that disprove the statement? If there are none, you cannot say the reason they are absent is because of editing "bias".

What I don't understand is your continued refusal to permit any description of the alleged disease and its principal proponents, Ms. Leitao and her MRF--except to say they are wrong. The article clearly fails to "present both sides".

This time I am confused; I have reviewed my edits, and I haven't spotted any time where someone described the condition and I removed their description (unless the "description" was simply to classify it as a disease) - and, as far as I can see, the article plainly DOES give "a description of the alleged disease and its principal proponents, Ms. Leitao and her MRF" - in very similar form to the way it appeared before I made my very first edit of the article, in fact. Most of my removal/reversal edits have been in response to a single editor who kept deleting sourced material from the introduction, and/or editing it to state or imply that Morgellons was classified as a disease. Be that as it may, in what way do you feel the present treatment of this material is lacking, and what are you suggesting be added to the pro-Morgellons side that is not already included?

I'm arguing for a fair and complete description of the organization and its beliefs as a contemporary social phenomenon. I think Wikepedia users want, will enjoy, and can independently judge such an article for themselves. -- Mukrkrgsj 06:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you from adding a more "complete description of the organization and its beliefs as a contemporary social phenomenon", assuming that this presentation does not imply that these beliefs have been independently confirmed. That requires citations. Is it worth mentioning that many of the MRF and NMO personnel have openly declared themselves to be Morgellons sufferers? That certainly does speak to it as a social phenomenon. Or are you advocating a separate article about the MRF? How would you avoid having such an article be edited to include MRF promotional statements (and thus a violation of numerous WP policies)?

I'm surprised and disappointed to find such belligerent, intellectual dishonesty from a scientist and academician, at a site like Wikipedia. As I review the references, it appears that as an entomologist, you and your colleagues at UC Davis' Bohart Museum of Entomology are promoting the diagnosis of "Delusional Parasitosis" quite as fervently as your opponents are lobbying for recognition of Morgellons. I strongly recommend you disqualify yourself from any further involvement with this article. -- Mukrkrgsj 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised and disappointed to be the subject of belligerent ad hominem attacks simply because I am an entomologist. I most certainly do not have any connection with the Bohart Museum's website, and I'll be darned if I can see anything that either they or I have done is "promotion" of a diagnosis. Delusional parasitosis exists, I deal with it all the time, as do many professional entomologists, including those at UC Davis, I'm sure. We are certainly well-qualified to inform the public about it. Many of us read about it, do research on it, and learn as much as possible about it, so we can work to help those people who suffer from it. I see no need to apologize for being knowledgeable about the subject matter of the Wikipedia pages I help edit, and your suggestion that I "disqualify" myself is precisely the opposite of the aim of Wikipedia - having editors who know the subject matter, know when and how to use and cite primary sources, and summarize a topic objectively. Again, if I were determined to "promote" DP, then I could edit the page so it reads simply "DP and Morgellons are the same" and cite those medical studies which say exactly that - there would be no need to keep any of the remainder of the text, the quotations from the MRF, or the links, that even so much as allow for the possibility that Morgellons is something new and different. THAT would be bias, as long as the issue is even marginally undecided. No, the thing that disqualifies a person from being an editor is if there is a conflict of interest: ESPECIALLY if they personally profit from the promotion of a particular viewpoint - and in this case, there is no conceivable way I stand to profit either from the existence or non-existence of Morgellons. Perhaps you simply do not understand how seriously some of us take the responsibility associated with being a scientist. What I am "fervent" about is Reason; that's what science is, after all - the use of reason to answer questions. Maybe that relates to the categorization of this article under "rational skepticism"? Dyanega 06:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bohart Museum's website says--as does the Wiki article on Delusional parasitosis, that apparently was copied from it--"Delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's Syndrome is a rare disorder in which sufferers hold a delusional belief they are infested with parasites" ; and later, "The exact prevalence of this syndrome is unknown, although it is apparently rare to uncommon." [emphasis added]. Yet you say, "I deal with it all the time, as do many professional entomologists, including those at UC Davis, I'm sure."

You also say, "if I were determined to 'promote' DP, then I could edit the page so it reads simply 'DP and Morgellons are the same' and cite those medical studies which say exactly that". As I have been saying, that is precisely the thrust of the Morgellons article at this time.

Most dermatologists and psychiatrists have no special expertise in insect taxonomy; and I doubt that many entomologists are qualified to diagnose dermatological and psychiatric conditions. I urge you again to leave this article to independent editors who have no axes of their own to grind. -- Mukrkrgsj 11:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New introduction

I have edited the present introduction to make it more objective. Dyanega has been fiercely protective of the article's flagrant bias, so I am posting the first draft here, for comment:

Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a multiple-symptom syndrome, characterized by skin lesions containing fibers and granules, “crawling, stinging and biting sensations”, pain, and mental and emotional symptoms.
Dissatisfied with doctors' diagnosis of her two-year-old son's skin rash, Mary Leitao, of McMurray, Pennsylvania, formed the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF) in 2002. She is currently its Executive Director.
Leitao tentatively named it after a condition English author Sir Thomas Browne described in his 1690 monograph, A Letter to a Friend: "that endemial distemper of children in Languedoc, called the morgellons, wherein they critically break out with harsh hairs on their backs." The name is pronounced “More—GELL—uns”, with a hard “g”.
The MRF says Morgellons has been reported in every American state, and 15 other countries. Most of the U.S. cases are in California, Texas and Florida. The cause is unknown, and no diagnostic criteria have been established.
The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Rare Diseases has a website reference page for Morgellons Disease. It includes links to the MRF, and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC announced it would launch an investigation in California in August, 2006, but postponed it. The investigation may begin in 2007.
A search for Morgellons at the CDC returned no results. The NIH link to the CDC is to its Division of Parasitic Diseases page on Delusional Parasitosis. The page provides no information on that condition or Morgellons, but links to the Bohart Museum of Entomology, at the University of California, Davis.
Some dermatologists, and entomologists at the University of California, believe patients who think they have Morgellons are mentally ill. The dermatologists recommend treating the condition with strong antipsychotic medications.

Sections to follow would be titled: The Morgellons Research Foundation (brief outline); Symptoms; Diagnosis and treatment (including that of "Delusional Parasitosis" and antipsychotics), [possibly more to come]. The sections References and External links would be retained.

The existing content would be edited for balance. All necessary and appropriate links and references would be included.

Please do not edit this draft, or reply within it. Add your comments below.

-- Mukrkrgsj 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment is that you are insulting me, my entire profession, and the medical community, as well - plus insulting the readers of the article. Further, NO ONE in the University of California is calling anyone "mentally ill," or recommending treating anyone "with strong antipsychotic medication". I am appalled that you could even *suggest* something so far from the truth - that is called BAD FAITH editing. I have already requested third-party mediation to keep this article free of bias, and I'm sure they will find your suggested changes as destructive as I do. You should not edit the introduction to remove sourced citations. On what basis are you claiming those citations should be removed? Because they go against your personal bias? This suggested edit is guilty of the very crime you accuse me of. You have a remarkable definition of "objectivity", to be so rude and full of innuendo. Dyanega 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the Mayo Clinic's Definition.

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

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morgellons-disease/SN00043

Similarly I encourage all you brainy science types to look into nano technology....

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1015.php (the preceding unsigned comment posted by 69.157.81.115 at 00:27, 10 April 2007)

Actually, the only text that could be called a definition on that website is NOT the Mayo Clinic's definition. Please note the text: "What are the signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease? The Morgellons Research Foundation lists six primary signs and symptoms of the condition:" In other words, the definition they give is quoting the MRF's report - it is effectively the MRF's definition, posted on the Mayo Clinic's website (in fact, when I contacted their website manager a month ago, they disavowed any direct responsibility for the accuracy of any information on that page which came from third-party sources; primarily, the MRF). This is presumably why the page lists other opinions, and goes on to state "Consider various causes for your signs and symptoms, and follow your doctor's recommendations for treatment — which may include long-term mental health therapy." There is a WORLD of difference between an opinion being quoted and one being validated. The Mayo Clinic's page is, ultimately, a lot like the WP article as it stands. Dyanega 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation in process

Vassyana has opened the mediation process, in response to Dyanega's complaint. To see and participate in the discussion, go here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Morgellons -- Mukrkrgsj 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Delay and Obsfuscation of CDC investigation?!

I smell a rat here. Why has the CDC postponed the investigation several times? If an unknown condition that has been reported consistently in a specific area ,i would think has a scientist of a epidemic evolving. Secondly what has the CDC given has the reason for postponement? In this day and age with the threat of biological warfare and the increase of exotic conditions through global warming the CDC appears to be incompetent .--Redblossom 19:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can call them and ask, actually. They're a government institution, with working toll-free number (800) 311-3435. They recently removed their entry on Delusional Parasitosis from their "Division of Parasitic Diseases" website (someone there apparently recognized that it is not a disease), and along with it, any reference to Morgellons anywhere in the CDC system. It is possible they have simply decided Morgellons is not a disease, either, and if it is not a disease, it is not in their jurisdiction - though I admit, it would be helpful if they would issue a press release. You may have better luck with the NIH. I'll also note that Morgellons has not been "reported consistently in a specific area". The known "outbreaks" occurred only in the areas where there was a TV broadcast on the topic, and only for several days AFTER the broadcast, in a pattern resembling mass hysteria. Dyanega 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, someone there apparently recognized that Delusional Parasitosis does not belong to Parasitic Diseases website! before[4] and now[5]. No mention of Morgellons was there before, so you should fix your argument. Morgellons is still on Rare Diseases website - Rare==Not common. Lakinekaki 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No argument "fixing" is necessary. As stated many times before, just because Morgellons appears in a database of named diseases does not mean that anyone has proven that it is a disease. The link was from the Rare Diseases page to the CDC's Delusory Parasitosis page, so there is no longer a link between Morgellons and the CDC. Dyanega 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know the official response from the NIH Office of Rare Diseases, which confirms EXACTLY what I have tried to explain to you:
Our diseases terms are not at a complete list of all rare diseases and include physical illnesses as well as psychological illnesses. Included are conditions about which we have had inquiries or conditions that are cited in the literature as rare. These terms are used for information purposes only. This is not an official complete list but a vehicle with which we disseminate information. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are currently looking into the matter regarding Morgellons Disease and will determine whether Morgellons is a separate disease entity. If CDC finds that it is not, we would remove the term. If CDC determines that it is, we will keep the term. It is my understanding that the CDC has not finalized its findings.
I hope this puts that particular matter to rest now. Dyanega 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does (although it's OR)! Seems like you made up your mind before CDC decided - ...CDC has not finalized its findings. . Lakinekaki 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

New publications for research section

http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207001958/fulltext

Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 705-706 (April 2007)

Morgellons disease William T. Harvey, MD, MPH

To the Editor: The recent editorial by Dr Koblenzer,1 titled “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease,” appears with two referenced letters.2, 3 All authors imply that the term “Morgellons” and the related Morgellons Research Foundation are unwelcome imposters appearing on immutable turf. No author suggests awareness of either the Morgellons origin or the origin of delusions of parasitosis (DP) nor the assumptions and facts underpinning each.

The first approach we considered in responding to the editorial and letters was to address individual points raised by each. Repeated perusal suggested another more relevant approach. Each author provided abundant examples of an expansive medical system constrained by legal and fiscal (insurance) pressures that have resulted in the production of certified practitioners with little awareness of the necessary tools of critical thinking. The result of each is a hollow argument addressing a perceived issue without reference to the genesis, history, or information sources of either DP or Morgellons.

Serious students of the most basic sciences learn early that reality is the singular essence of each. “Truth” in this context is simply a semantic label given to current human understanding of that reality.4 Human truth never reaches reality, but as the Ancient Mariner, drifts forever, perhaps asymptotically approaching what is real. So it is with medical truth. Yesterday's texts are already trash, placing an enormous burden on each of us to look beyond our passed-on guidebooks, created as best they could be with the tools and knowledge available at the time.

Carl Sagan5 captured this essential professional obligation in an essay titled “The Burden of Skepticism.” He saw the essential task of every truth seeker to balance credulity and skepticism equally, impossible without the trait of intense humility in the presence of an unknowable universe. Within such a context, we as physicians must see disease names simply as labels and defined disease boundaries as crude guesses that continually evolve.

What then do we make of texts and distinguished tutors who tell us that all delusional people focused on dermal symptoms: (1) have created the physical signs they show us; and (2) their belief that parasites are responsible for their sickness is the product of a damaged mind? Those who try to freeze the present embrace skepticism of a new idea called Morgellons, but curiously, will cling fervently to a concept held as immutable fact, DP. The truth seeker will question both equally, and gather all that can be known about the assumptions and facts from which each were built. Most importantly, he or she will know the answer is, as always, in the patient and nowhere else.

All we had to do on encountering our first patient with DP was to examine the lesions with a child's portable microscope, query the patient about other signs and symptoms, then use current laboratory tests to characterize all distressing symptoms. Next was to examine others with the same signs, particularly babies, and scrutinize similar lesions unreachable by infant hands. Increasing numbers of similar patients (some not self-diagnosed) holding responsible professional positions successfully made it clear that DP lesions and psychosis were not linked by cause and effect.

As Koblenzer1 noted, inquiry into the history of Morgellons reveals that the term was adopted by a biologist-mother with affected children. When no physician could either name the illness or treat it, she found a placeholder title to aid communication while she sought to find answers. Thus, came the Morgellons Research Foundation,6 with 8263 registrant households.

To anyone willing to look and listen, all patients with Morgellons carry elevated laboratory proinflammatory markers, elevated insulin levels, and verifiable serologic evidence of 3 bacterial pathogens. They also show easily found physical markers such as peripheral neuropathy, delayed capillary refill, abnormal Romberg's sign, decreased body temperature, and tachycardia. Most importantly they will improve, and most recover on antibiotics directed at the above pathogens.

In the final analysis, everything we know is perception. What we perceive is still up to us, even as individual professionals. In the current climate of evidence-based medicine, more than ever, what we use as evidence and how we use it is paramount. Pez1103 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070227-000003.html

While most physicians seem to lean toward the delusional parasitosis diagnosis, there are a handful of people who think there's something real going on here. About a year ago, Oklahoma State neuroscientist Randy Wymore stumbled upon Leitao's Morgellons site and became intrigued. Wymore called Leitao and asked if there were any fiber samples he could look at. Within days, Ziplocs were arriving in the mail from around the country. Though the fibers all resembled one another, he says, they looked like no other synthetic or natural fiber he compared them to. Ultimately, he asked the fiber experts on the Tulsa police department's forensics team to examine them. First they employed a type of spectroscopy that identifies the chemical structures of fibers and compared them to their database of 800 fibers. No match. Next they subjected fibers to gas chromatography. Compounds put through this process are encased in a vacuum chamber and exposed to high heat; the temperature at which they reach boiling point is a clue to what compound they are made of. The forensic experts had a database that included the boiling point of 90,000 organic compounds with which to compare the fibers. But the machine ran to its highest temperature, 1,400 degrees, and apart from some slight blackening, nothing happened. The fiber experts were mystified. "The conclusion we were left with is that they are unknown fibers, not simply contaminants from clothing sticking to scabs," says Wymore. Wymore, who is not a physician, also asked Rhonda Casey, the chief of the pediatrics department at Oklahoma State University Hospital, to take a look at some of the patients for him, to get a medical opinion. "Honestly, when he first told me about it, I thought, they're all nuts," says Casey. But she changed her mind. "There was not one patient I saw who did not look ill," she says. What's more, they all looked ill in the same way, with neurological symptoms, including confusion, foot drop, in which a person loses control of their foot and has trouble walking, and a sagging mouth when they spoke. Many had been diagnosed with atypical forms of neurological diseases like Parkinson's or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease). She examined their skin via a dermatoscope, a light tool with a magnifying lens. And she did biopsies on both their lesions and apparently healthy skin. She says she saw fibers embedded in both places. The white ones, she says, are hard to see. A dermatologist who either didn't look at all, or didn't use a dermatoscope, might not see them under the skin. But some—the black, red, and blue ones—are blatantly obvious, she says. One young girl had a small pimple on her thigh with a bundle of black fibers just barely protruding from it. Many doctors have accused these patients of embedding fibers in the sores themselves, but Casey doesn't believe it. "As a physician, I can't imagine reproducing what I saw in that little girl's leg." There's also some evidence of an overlap with Lyme disease. Ginger Savely, a San Francisco nurse practitioner with a long history of treating Lyme patients, now sees Morgellons patients and says 90 percent of them test positive for Lyme disease. "I think that one of two things is happening," she says. "Either there's a co-infection people are getting at the same time they get Lyme, because there are a lot of infections spread by ticks." Or whatever is causing Morgellons is something ubiquitous that many of us are exposed to, but the disease develops only in people with weakened immune systems, like those with Lyme disease. Pez1103 09:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not make such sweeping changes to such a controversial article without seeking consensus on the talk page. I have reverted them. Interested2 14:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
these are hardly sweeping changes. They are quotes from publications. They cannot be disputed. They need to be included. Pez1103 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
These are not PEER-REVIEWED publications. They most certainly can be disputed if they are presented as sources of information (and, in this case, appropriately so). The credibility of William T. Harvey, Randy Wymore, Rhonda Casey, and Ginger Savely is very much in question, and simply because a reporter quotes them, or they get an editorial printed in an online journal, does not confer validity to their claims. It's no different from asking L. Ron Hubbard to speak about the Church of Scientology - he founded the institution, after all. Wymore, et al., are the people who founded and run the MRF, so they are NOT credible sources; given the tremendous financial incentive, the conflict of interest is as severe as one could possibly imagine. Please do note, that despite all this, the article does in fact still present their opinions. Dyanega 19:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
every derm you quote, every government agency is just presenting their opinion too, but they are cited. These cites need to be added. The derms quoted have seen a handful of patients, Dr. Harvey and Casey have seen hundreds of patients. Their opinions certainly have more validity. Pez1103 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Mary founded the foundation. Wymore no longer works for the foundation and Dr. Casey never did. The Tulsa police department have no conflict of interest. I don't believe that Dr. Casey still sees Morgellons patients anymore. Dr. Harvey is the chairman of the MRF, but as of July 31, he will no longer be seeing patients. He will continue to research Morgellons disease and speak out for the cause -- despite the fact that he receives NO compensation from the MRF and never has, nor has Wymore or Casey. Pez1103 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
And why in the world is Schwartz cited? What criteria does that meet? He's obviously off his rocker -- it's only there to mock the disease. Pez1103 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You violate WP policy repeatedly (the archives show this quite clearly), and then try to lecture people on proper use of citations? The opinions of these people have ZERO credibility as far as WP is concerned; read WP:COI again, please. Dr. Casey works with Dr. Wymore at Oklahoma State, and the Tulsa Police Department has never actually issued any reports I can find; we evidently only have Wymore's word for it that such analyses were performed, only his word as to where the fibers originated, and only his word as to what the results were. I am especially puzzled by your claim that the chairman of an organization could receive "NO compensation" for his services, and if Wymore and Casey are not being funded by the MRF, then why does the MRF's own home page say that they are funding their research at Oklahoma State? If you are mistaken about the latter - as is plainly evident - why should anyone believe your claim regarding the former? You do realize that having one's research paid for qualifies as "receiving compensation"? The number of patients they've seen has nothing to do with their credibility. What would give them credibility is if a doctor who was NOT allied with the MRF or NMO would examine so much as a SINGLE one of these hundreds of patients, and CONFIRM the diagnosis. After all these years, this has not yet happened. Does this not bring their credibility into question, if not one dermatologist can back up their claims? As for Schwartz, his credentials and credibility are as respectable as those of several other participants in this little drama, especially Stricker, Staninger, and Savely. One can only wonder why you would conclude that he is "obviously off his rocker" and not say the exact same thing about these others. Dyanega 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was saying that Wymore and Harvey were never compensated for their positions at the MRF. The MRF has contributed a few thousand dollars towards the research at OSU, but it is my understanding that did not go towards Wymore's salary -- but to cover expenses of the lab and to pay for a lab assistant. It is my understanding that Wymore has always volunteered his time, as did Casey. How do you confirm the diagnosis of a disease that has not yet been recognized? Casey has no link to the MRF, why dismiss her observations?? Pez1103 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware that the cost of running a lab typically exceeds a person's salary? Are you aware that Casey's work is supported by this same money, because she works in the same lab? You can confirm the diagnosis - which has been stated by the MRF - by having someone NOT affiliated with a Morgellons-based organization state "Yes, I have examined a patient myself, and found unidentifiable colored fibers emerging from their flesh". It's been five years now, thousands of self-reported Morgellons patients, and not ONE confirmed case - unless you count Schwartz and Staninger, who have completely different theories regarding what Morgellons is, and you have already expressed that you do not consider such theories credible. Please note, too, that there is a world of difference between "I have examined a patient myself" and "Dr. So-n-so sent me a sample he claims to have been taken from a Morgellons patient". Dyanega 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The police did speak directly to reporters and confirmed these findings. they are quoted directly in other articles. (I believe that they were quoted on Primetime live, but I'd have to go back and check.) The reporters aren't going to take wymore's word for it. Pez1103 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Then this should be simple to address, by locating a quote or document from a named individual in the Tulsa Police Department. I've dealt many times with reporters, they do not always check every source, especially when the person they are talking to claims to be an authority. You are assuming that reporters are not going to accept Wymore's claims without proof, but this is a common practice for reporters, as evidenced by the recent international news fiasco about honey bee "Colony Collapse Disorder" being linked to cell phones. Again, if you can find something issued by the Tulsa Police, then you are welcome to include the citation in the section where this case is discussed. Let me ask you: if the quote, when located, proves to be of the nature "Dr. Wymore gave us a sample he claims to have been taken from a Morgellons patient", do you admit this would not represent independent confirmation? Dyanega 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The mediation process

The last we heard from Vassyana, the volunteer mediator, was 28 days ago, on the Mediation page: [[6]]. Vassyana just left me this message on my Talk page:

Is the assistance of informal mediation still required for Morgellons? What's been going on with the article, in your view? Vassyana 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, it should be obvious that the article is still an incoherent, unreadable mess, that can only bewilder Wikipedia users. After a brief respite, the editorial process again is a public brawl, with Dyanega continuing to bully anyone who dares to disagree with his personal bias.

After the 28-day hiatus, I see no point in your resuming informal mediation. If there is anyone at Wikipedia who takes ultimate responsibility for the quality of its articles, it's far past time they took control of this one. Mukrkrgsj 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Though I am not a direct party to this debate, it is apparent to me that Mukrkrgsj is assuming bad faith. Murkrkrgsj - Dyangea posted his responses to your questions and arguments in the informal meditation: your choice not to respond was your own, and it does not lend credence to your assertion of bias. Tempers are running high, and as informal mediation appears to have been ineffective, I suggest that this be ratcheted up to a formal request for arbitration. In particular parties on both sides appear to be violating WP:FAITH, WP:NPOV, WP:Civility, and most importantly WP:Verifiability. -Interested2 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Interested2, I'm glad you agree that the informal mediation was ineffective, and it's time for formal arbitration. You don't have to be a "direct party to this debate" to comment; but your comments would be more constructive if you would read and understand the article itself, the last few weeks of discussion here, and the mediation pages.

In fact, there was no informal mediation. I had expected the mediator to mediate. Instead, Vassyana adopted the case on March 28; asked some pertinent questions, which Dyanega and I promptly answered; and disappeared, until the April 30 message I copied above.

The informal mediation process was not a private debate between Dyanega and myself. Vassyana asked us to: "answer all the questions with the assumption of good faith on the other side and address the content not the other editors. Please keep all answers short." I did. Mukrkrgsj 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Mukrkrgsj - I've been following this for a while now, mostly since the informal mediation went up. It's not my place to criticize members of the mediation cabal, but the fact does remain that the mediation was, in this case, completely ineffective. I suspect both parties involved here have vested interests in the article, but I feel as of this writing that the article is reasonably NPOV. Likewise, I am not criticizing your answers to the mediation questions, but rather the usefulness of the mediation itself. The biggest issues I've seen in the discussion are violations of WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV, and I think that barring a consensus among the users on this page as to what constitutes a legitimate source, arbitration is required for this dispute to be resolved. --Interested2 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Interested2, we agree that there was no effective mediation. As to your suspicion that Dyanega and I "have vested interests in the article", I stated in the Discussion above that I had never heard of Morgellons until I read the Wikipedia article on March 21, 2007.

Dyanega, however, has been outspoken here about his personal interest in Morgellons, and his conviction that it is not a disease; and his professional interest in a rare disorder called "Delusional Parasitosis". The website of the Bohart Museum, at the University of California, Davis, has a 17-page section on Human Skin Parasites & Delusional Parasitosis: [7].

I wrote during the preliminary discussion at the Mediation page:

"It is pertinent that Dyanega's WP profile says: 'I'm the collection manager of a major US insect collection, at the University of California, Riverside'. A Google search indicates that he is the Senior Museum Scientist at the Entomology Research Museum at U.C. Riverside, a facility similar to the Bohart at U.C. Davis. Its website says, 'The museum serves as a valuable resource for the pest control industry, agriculture, public health, forensic medicine and criminology, environmental biology, as well as the general public.' [emphasis added]

Dyanega says above: 'I have no personal or professional stake in the matter'; yet he wrote March 24, on the Morgellons discussion page: 'I most certainly do not have any connection with the Bohart Museum's website, and I'll be darned if I can see anything that either they or I have done is "promotion" of a diagnosis. Delusional parasitosis exists, I deal with it all the time, as do many professional entomologists, including those at UC Davis, I'm sure. We are certainly well-qualified to inform the public about it. Many of us read about it, do research on it, and learn as much as possible about it, so we can work to help those people who suffer from it.' [emphasis added]

Thus it appears that Dyanega, and his colleagues at U.C. Davis, are as fervently biased in their belief in 'Delusional parasitosis', as they claim the people at the MRF are, in their belief in 'Morgellons'. I submit that at this time, the Morgellons article strongly reflects that bias; and is likely to leave WP users with the prejudicial belief that anyone claiming to have 'Morgellons' is neurotic or psychotic." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06_Morgellons/Archive1

Mukrkrgsj 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


In other words, you believe that it is wrong for someone who has devoted their life to educating the public, and safeguarding public health, to be allowed to edit a Wikipedia page that can profoundly influence public education and public health. You repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between objectivity and bias, nor do you appear to understand the principles behind Wikipedia. As for "belief", this has nothing to do with "belief" - Delusory parasitosis is a well-known, well-documented condition, recognized for decades by both the scientific and medical communities, with formal diagnostic criteria, numerous peer-reviewed studies and reviews, known and proven treatments, and its existence is not a matter of debate, speculation, or belief. Morgellons, on the other hand, has no documentation and no evidence to support its existence other than that provided by a number of individuals affiliated with organizations whose existence and continued support is predicated solely upon debate, speculation, and belief: the belief that this is an unknown, undocumented condition - with the presumption that at some unforeseeable point in the future they will produce some definitive study that reveals how the entire scientific and medical communities were wrong in concluding that Morgellons was a suite of physical, physiological, and psychological conditions all lumped together under one name. No one, myself included, has ever stated that all Morgellons patients suffer from delusory parasitosis; however, for many patients the symptoms (and treatment) are the same, and no one has yet seen any evidence that what these particular patients suffer from is anything other than delusory parasitosis. Other Morgellons patients have been diagnosed with skin conditions, neurological conditions, and other such things: all known, all diagnosable, and treatable. No one outside the various Morgellons organizations has yet documented the existence of any patients whose conditions represented anything new, different, or previously unknown. There is a significant difference between saying "Morgellons does not exist" and saying "The medical and scientific communities have repeatedly stated that Morgellons does not exist" (and then giving citations). You are accusing me, and other editors, of doing the former (which would be a statement of personal opinion), when what the article contains is the latter. Let me ask you a serious question: if the CDC issues a report that states "Morgellons is a suite of physical, physiological, and psychological conditions, all previously known", will you desist? Or do you intend to dispute the CDC's report as long as the MRF is also disputing it? They are, after all, disputing every credible medical and scientific entity that has made a public statement thus far, and cannot afford to stop disputing them. There are still hundreds of businesses in Scotland that insist that the Loch Ness Monster is real and alive, too, but do you consider them credible sources of information for inclusion in Wikipedia? Where, exactly, do you see the line being drawn as to when something has too little supporting evidence to be treated as if it could be credible? Dyanega 06:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Dyanega here unequivocally states his opinion that "many" Morgellons patients suffer from "delusory parasitosis":

"No one, myself included, has ever stated that all Morgellons patients suffer from delusory parasitosis; however, for many patients the symptoms (and treatment) are the same, and no one has yet seen any evidence that what these particular patients suffer from is anything other than delusory parasitosis." [emphasis added]

He calls it "delusory parasitosis", but his internal link redirects to the Wikipedia article on "Delusional parasitosis". "Delusional parasitosis" is the rare disorder advertised by the website of the Bohart Museum of Entomology at UC Davis--a sister institution to the Entomology Research Museum at U.C. Riverside, where Dyanega works: [8].

The Bohart's website says:

"Delusional Parasitosis is a mistaken belief that one is being infested by parasites such as mites, lice, fleas, spiders, worms, bacteria, or other organisms. (If of interest, please read from the sufferer's view.) This site has been created in an attempt to centralize accurate information on this misunderstood and increasingly common syndrome."

The page continues:

"Delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's Syndrome is a rare disorder in which sufferers hold a delusional belief they are infested with parasites. A related symptom involving a tactile hallucination of insects, snakes, or other vermin crawling over the skin is known as formication. The origin of this word is from the Latin formica, 'ant'." [9]

It's notable that the Bohart says "Delusional parasitosis" is both "a rare disorder", and an "increasingly common syndrome".

The Introduction to the Bohart's 17 web pages on "Human Skin Parasites & Delusional Parasitosis" says:

"If symptoms of itching and crawling sensations in the skin persist and no evidence of parasites can be found, then a syndrome called Delusional Parasitosis must be considered. A variety of causes have been suggested for these sensations, including parasitism by Collembola and Strepsiptera or the presence of organisms called Morgellons. "Morgellons" is a term used to describe what are purported to be fiber-like parasites of the skin, but after decades of detailed study there is no evidence of an unknown organism fitting this description. There is also no evidence that Collembola or Strepsiptera are biologically capable of parasitzing humans. However, there are quite a number of physiological, hormonal and neurological syndromes that will cause these symptoms." [emphasis added] [10]

So the Bohart says "Delusional parasitosis" is "a mistaken belief that one is being infested by parasites"; and "a rare disorder in which sufferers hold a delusional belief they are infested with parasites"; and it specifically cites "organisms called Morgellons. 'Morgellons' is a term used to describe what are purported to be fiber-like parasites of the skin".

And fellow UC museum entomologist Dyanega just said here, that "many" Morgellons patients suffer from "Delusional parasitosis".

Are "many", if not all, who wonder if they have "Morgellons", actually suffering from "Delusional parasitosis"?

Apparently not.

The Morgellons Research Foundation, which claims to represent 9,941 "registered families", says:

"Most individuals with this disease report disturbing symptoms such as crawling, stinging and biting sensations, as well as non-healing skin lesions which are associated with highly unusual structures. These structures can be described as fiber-like or filamentous, and they are the most striking and least understood aspect of this disease. In addition, many sufferers also report symptoms of disabling fatigue, severe mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, sharp decline in vision, and serious neurological disorders." [11]

The MRF says the symptoms of "Morgellons" sufferers include certain "sensations", "lesions", and "structures" that are "fiber-like or filamentous". Whatever Dyanega and the Bohart may think, the MRF doesn't claim that anyone is "infested by parasites".

We still don't know what "Morgellons" is, what causes it, or how to treat it; but if the "Morgellons" patients the MRF speaks for don't think they're infested with organic "parasites such as mites, lice, fleas, spiders, worms, [and] bacteria", they certainly don't have "Delusional parasitosis". Mukrkrgsj 11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


I think you may be taking Dyangea's remarks out of context. Let's please try not to be hostile. Perhaps one of the two of you, since you are the parties at issue here, should formally request mediation? --Interested2 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[Below is an exchange between Interested2 and Dyanega, under the heading "Possible Arbitration", copied from the Talk page of the Mediation article: [[12]]]


It is my concern that this mediation has been unsuccessful. Both parties continue their previous behavior on the Talk:Morgellons page and in the article itself. I feel it would be beneficial to request a formal arbitration. --Interested2 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and ironically, things were completely quiet for almost a month until you showed up and provoked our "muckraker" colleague. Also, there has been no carryover of our dispute into "the article itself", as you state above. If this is the kind of treatment expert editors receive on Wikipedia, it is little wonder that so few of them bother to contribute. Dyanega 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm on your side in this dispute, Dyanega - I strongly feel that Morgellon's is delusional parasitosis. I'm merely trying to keep everything calm, and part of that is assuaging the side that continues to rant angrily. That Mukrkrgsj interpreted it as an opportunity to preach is regrettable, but in any event I did not intend to poke him - he made a statement about the mediation and I agreed that it was unsuccessful. As for "quiet for almost a month", I showed up to revert severe POV edits by Pez1103 to the article itself, not to incite a new debate. After watching the article for around a month (which is, I freely admit, a rather brief period), I conclude that Mukrkrgsj and Pez1103 continue to insert serious violations of WP:NPOV into the article, and as informal mediation seems to have been ineffective here, suggest formal arbitration. Nothing less will stop the continual NPOV violations. --Interested2 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I continue to agree with Interested2 that formal arbitration is long overdue. Mukrkrgsj 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Text moved here from main article

The following text was posted in the main article, and now moved here by me --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello from the antipodes.

For the sake of all the suffering we have endured, what a journey! Please try this one... Take several hypericum; St John's Wort tablets and place them in a deep vessel. Put enough water on the capsule to make a paste, this can take a while as the capsules are finely powdered, and dense. Apply the paste directly to lesion, you will be amazed at the sensation of coolness which ensues. If the paste is allowed to dry it has a very tenacious grasp on the wound. If dryness causes irritation, one can apply a mentholated ointment to soften the hypericum which totally covers the lesion. Once the paste has been applied and one has slept pus will exude from the lesion, which is a quantum shift in morgellons treatment, once the pus is formed, by effective destruction of the morgellons biota, the bodies immune system is able to, finally respond. The fibres seem to adhere to the paste and as Dr Schwartz described with diatomeacious earth, it may asphyxiate them. However, under the crust of hypericum paste will be a sinus of loose mobile pus, which can be removed by gentle pressure around the affected area, which, the ability to be able to squeeze such painful areas, is, in itself amazing. After the pus is removed, preferably, OFF TO THE LAB!!, the crust can be removed along with the cluster, matrix or labyrinth of fibers which will be there. My conjecture as to the evolution of morgellons in the body, its causitive agent and treatment steps are as follows: At the point/s of INTRUSION into the body the quorum sensing abilities of this agent "hive" in a mycoplasma with nodules projecting through to the sub-dermis. From the initial trauma of intrusion, the upper dermis remains intact, whilst underneath broils in a mealstrom of biological activity, porphyria, lupus, thc n' lsd....What a great genetic splice...The first signs will be an intact watery blister, accompanied with shooting spasms of electric intensity. After an insidious period of unfamiliar muscular and skeletal pain, adherent neurological maladies occur, brain fog....too much lsd n' thc I'm sorry to say. We are simply genetically engineered proto types, which underlies the imperative for good to prevail over the malodorous evil which is ensconced in this disease. Suppuration may or may not occur in the early stages but by the time it does the entire body is affected. But my belief is that this disorder has an Achilles heel. It must maintain the "hive/s" to survive. Kill the hive, destroy the quorums base, problem solved.

Best regards, Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.242.169 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 May 2007

Well. I definitely agree with the "too much lsd n' thc." As for... any of the rest... Well, thanks for posting this so the world can read it. 74.36.55.28 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki rules

I quoted two articles -- one from Psychology Today and one from the Amercian Journal of Dermatology. I did NOT even give my opinion -- just quotes -- and that violates Wiki rules? That's completely ridiculous. Anything that suggests that Morgellons isn't DOP is a violation. Qotes from Derms who believe that it's DOP are OK; quotes from doctors who believe it is not, are banned. Pez1103 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


First, it is disingenuous of you to call those "articles" - you know perfectly well the difference between an article and a letter to the editor (in the former case) and an article and an "investigative news report" (in the latter case). Neither of those is a peer-reviewed source. Second, these people you are quoting are not just "doctors who believe it is not" - they are "people who are making a living off of what they claim is Morgellons research, a few of whom happen to have MDs". They are not objective or reliable sources. Why won't you actually read Wikipedia's policy guidelines? PLEASE? Look up WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:COI and then learn why these people and the things they say fall under these restrictions. Let's imagine a hypothetical situation: let's say I am an MD, who declares one day that people who compulsively wash their hands are all infected by a previously unknown bacterium which grows on the hands and needs to be scrubbed off; I then start a non-profit organization to accept money from compulsive hand-washers, and this money is all channeled into research that I and my friends carry out to find a cure for this bacterium. I stop seeing patients, because I don't need to any more, given the support from the donations. I use the donations to fund a website where we all "publish" our theories. The medical community rapidly comes forward saying that no one has been able to find any such bacterium, but I continue to submit editorials to real journals promoting these theories, and talking to reporters. Then I create a Wikipedia entry describing this bacterium, and defend it against editing from people in the medical community. All hypothetical, but anyone can see how easy that would be to do. In such a case, why, exactly, should anyone, anywhere, accept anything I (or my friends) have to say as being credible or unbiased? I will also say this ONE MORE TIME: if you would read what the medical community is saying, and what is written in the article, no one is of the opinion that ALL Morgellons patients have DP. Some of them have undiagnosed diabetes, some have paresthesia, some have lice, and so on - there are all sorts of known conditions that patients have, but that they self-diagnose as "Morgellons". That is what people who have no vested interest in Morgellons are saying when they examine Morgellons patients. No one outside of the "Morgellons community" has yet found a Morgellons patient whose condition was not recognizable as something already known. If citations of that nature ever appear here, rest assured I will not delete them. I do in fact understand what WP:NPOV means. In the meantime, quotes from anyone who is on the board of directors of the MRF or NMO are pretty much not going to be accepted here without explicit disclaimers or rebuttals - that means Leitao, Wymore, Casey, Harvey, Savely, Stricker, and all the rest - once again: WP:RS, WP:SPS. Dyanega 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


That's all completely untrue. The MRF has received emails from over 100 physicians who believe that their patients have Morgellons and who are seeking advice on how to treat these patients. Again, Casey has no affiliation with the MRF. She does not work for Wymore. She's a pediatrician at OSU that Wymore asked to look at some patients for him. I don't believe that she was even paid to do so. As I said before, Harvey will no longer be seeing patients after July, but will continue to research the disease because he believes that it is real. He currently sees patients with various chronic diseases, not just Morgellons patients. The derms you sited were not published as peer reviewed articles -- they were all just their opinions. The reality is that there has been next to no research on this disease. But, I am not going to bother trying to argue with you. The truth will come out soon and you'll look like the biased, closed minded person that you really are. Wiki will be remembered in history as perpetuating biased propaganda, based solely on assumptions, with no research to substantiate itself. Just because they haven't found the cause for Morgellons yet, does not mean that there isn't one. 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Pez1103 is correct, that Dyanega continues to misinterpret "the rules".

Dyanega says here, "Look up WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:COI"; and later, "I do in fact understand what WP:NPOV means."

Let's do that, beginning with WP:NPOV: [emphasis added]

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."

What does that mean?

WP:SPS: "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. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Dyanega may prefer the "truth", as he sees it; but WP requires just verifiability. Verifiability means that "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source"; and that source is not limited to "peer-reviewed journals":

WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material."

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

"Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable."

Finally, WP:COI pertains to a conflict of interest on the part of the editor, not the source:

WP:COI: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual or organized groups of editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors." Mukrkrgsj 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Since you have seen fit to selectively quote, allow me to do the same, with an excerpt from WP:SPS followed by a related passsage from WP:RS:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Sources of questionable reliability In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

  • Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  • Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

and from WP:NPOV I offer the following:

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Undue weight

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

By this latter standard, in particular, nearly everything in the Morgellons article that pertains to the MRF and things claimed by its board of directors and advisors, should NOT be included in Wikipedia, and it reinforces what I have been stating here all along: if one side in a dispute has the predominance of opinion on their side, it is NOT bias if the article reflects the imbalance, as in the cited "flat earth" example. Extensively quoting the MRF's directors and advisors is giving their opinions undue weight, plain and simple. Dyanega 01:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that several of the passages you cite support my interpretation of the rules, and among them is this very important one; "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Most, if not all, of the citations attributable to MRF affiliates violate two or even all three of these criteria. They were all published without peer review (no fact-checking facility, by definition), and none of the authors are dermatologists. As I have said repeatedly, they are not reliable sources as WP defines them. Dyanega 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Dyanega continues to obfuscate. A quick glance at the sections cited demonstrates that I quoted from the fundamental statements of principle at the top of the pages, while he delved deep, in search of tenuous support for his misinterpretations.

As I made clear above, "Verifiability means that 'any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source'; and that source is not limited to 'peer-reviewed journals'". Nor must all the sources be dermatologists; indeed, the article's primary sources on "Delusional parasitosis" are entomologists like Dyanega himself, not medical specialists.

It's especially notable that he quotes from Verifiability/Sources of questionable reliability: "Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." One would think the Morgellons Research Foundation could at least be cited in the article about Morgellons, yet Dyanega says here: "nearly everything in the Morgellons article that pertains to the MRF and things claimed by its board of directors and advisors, should NOT be included in Wikipedia"! Mukrkrgsj 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

I've just reedited the Introduction, and the Delusional parasitosis sections. IMHO, the new text of these two sections is the clearest and fairest since I happened upon this article, and began tentatively editing for clarity and brevity on March 21.

Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mukrkrgsj (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


Comments? You remove true statements and replace them with false and misleading ones, and ask for comments AFTERWARDS, especially after just reading the rules about giving "undue weight" to minority viewpoints? That's an insult to myself and every honest editor in Wikipedia. Maybe we'll just let the mediator sort this out, if you can't restrain yourself and play by the rules. Dyanega 08:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


I'd still like to hear from anyone who doesn't have a personal or professional interest in this article. Mukrkrgsj 10:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dyanega's comment above didn't say he reverted my recent edits as soon as he saw them. Anyone who wants to see how the Introduction and Delusional parasitosis sections can be improved will have to read them in the history files. I'm not surprised he didn't want anyone to see the difference.

Looks like there's no hope for an honest article about Morgellons until Dyanega is prohibited from vandalizing it. Mukrkrgsj 11:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Current state of things

I apologize for my extended absence. I was offline for a few weeks and I'm getting back into the wiki swing of things. I am checking in to see if the comments left on the informal mediation page are still an accurate representation of how people view this article. Additionally, I would like to pose two questions to the editors here. What do you most disagree with in the recent edits of others? What do you most agree with in the edits of the same people? What points are you willing to compromise on? Vassyana 06:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're alive and well, Vassyana. When you read the comments posted during the month you were absent, you'll see that I'm in favor of formal arbitration, rather than any further informal mediation. Mukrkrgsj 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have ever argued with someone whose primary debating skill is to accuse you of the offenses that they themselves commit, then you'll understand what it is I disagree most with in Mukrkrgsj's recent edits. There is not one iota of good faith evident in his edits, nor any sign that he is willing to acknowledge WP policies (because they're "only guidelines"), nor that he has an objective appraisal of the facts surrounding this condition or the people involved. Consider, for example, the attempt to replace the NPOV phrase "Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial medical condition, described as..." with the POV phrase "Morgellons or Morgellons disease is..." - which is explicitly the sort of misleading edit that WP policy sternly warns editors to avoid. He has repeatedly misrepresented what the medical and scientific community say (and what I also say) about the connection between DP and Morgellons, by implying that the viewpoint is that all Morgellons patients have DP - this is false. I have compromised considerably in allowing numerous edits to stand that involve questionable sources, and undue weight being given to minority views. I welcome any third-party review of the situation as it stands - examination of the edits first and foremost, especially in regards to WP policy regarding NPOV, minority viewpoints, and what constitutes a reliable source; secondary consideration might be given to the contents of the talk page and mediation page (it's the article that counts here, because that's what people read). Dyanega 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Dyanega reverted my recent edits as soon as he saw them, so anyone who wants to see how the Introduction and Delusional parasitosis sections can be improved will have to read them in the history files. I'm not surprised he didn't want anyone to see the difference. Looks like there's no hope for an honest article about Morgellons until Dyanega is prohibited from vandalizing it. Mukrkrgsj 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Anyone involved in mediation or arbitration can see the difference, and that's what matters at the moment. You were fully aware that there were ongoing attempts at mediation, and yet you went ahead with substantial edits that were precisely of the exact nature that represents the core of the dispute! Since the mediation has begun, I have restricted my edits to very minor changes, in the spirit of good faith, but you did not return the courtesy. I will remind you, as well, that it is a matter of public record that a large number of your edits in the not-so-distant past were NOT blocked or deleted or reverted by myself; as long as you limit things to statements of verifiable fact, and maintain NPOV and adhere to other guidelines, I am not going to interfere, and the record shows this. At one time in the past, you did in fact propose an edit here prior to making any changes; I objected, and no other opinions were offered, and the edit did not proceed. That is, in principle, the way any alterations or additions to a disputed article should proceed, and it would have been a lot less contentious had you followed that example - not by making the changes first, and then asking "How do you like it?". If, for example, you had simply wished to reorganize the sequence of paragraphs, many such changes in placement would have been fine - but the additions and alterations to the text were NOT acceptable, especially not in light of the dispute. Dyanega 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism is a serious accusation, Mukrkrgsj. Do you have any evidence at all to back it up, aside from your personal opinion of Dyanega's edits? I suggest that this article be locked as-is until such time as this dispute can be resolved. -Interested2 19:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Interested2 wrote above, "I'm on your side in this dispute, Dyanega - I strongly feel that Morgellon's is delusional parasitosis." Whatever Morgellons may be, by definition it certainly is not the rare condition called "delusional parasitosis" that is promoted by Dyanega's entomologist colleagues at the University of California, Davis.

Nevertheless, I have agreed with Interested2 that informal mediation has not been productive--in fact, the volunteer mediator began the process, and then vanished for 28 days--and recommended the article go to formal arbitration. I also agree the article should be locked pending arbitration--but not "as-is".

I have repeatedly stated the obvious: the current article is incoherent, but it is heavily weighted in favor of Dyanega's--and Interested2's--prejudices regarding Morgellons and the MRF. I therefore recommend the article be removed entirely pending arbitration. Mukrkrgsj 20:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


I would be willing to accept that solution, thought I await Dyangea's opinion on it before rendering my final decision on it. --Interested2 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Remove the page? That hardly serves the public interest, and I rather suspect that even a temporary removal of the page will lead to the creation of POV forks and additional pages; there is no reason this cannot be summarized all in one article, and maintained objectively. Dyanega 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Temporary removal of this severely biased article would certainly serve the public interest. Dyanega's continual defense and maintenance of its bias are the obvious reasons Morgellons has not been objectively defined and described in the present article. Mukrkrgsj 01:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Research Section

I reiterate that the two quotes above from JAAD and Psychology today should be added to the research section to balance it out and the quote from Schwartz should be removed. I am seeking agreement from someone NEUTRAL on this. Pez1103 10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Placing large chunks of text such as you proposed adding is unacceptable (it is exactly the sort of "undue weight" issue that violates WP policy - which you have already circumvented by placing these on the talk page rather than simply placing links TO them); there is no problem with referring to at least the second of these in a footnote, or extracting a single sentence quote here and there. Any inclusion or quotation of Harvey's letter must be balanced by specifying - as is done presently with regards to the original Morgellons opinion piece - that it is in fact a letter to the editor, and NOT a presentation of research, and you must also include recognition of Dr. Harvey's affiliation with the MRF. In a courtroom, he would be considered a "hostile witness" and the jury would be notified. Maybe you can come up with a specific suggestion for an edit, and place it on your personal talk page (if it is still large) before proceeding with changes to the article. As for the quote from Schwartz, there is no objective distinction between allowing his theory as to what Morgellons is to appear in the article, and allowing the MRF's theory as to what Morgellons is to appear. They are both significant minority theories (approximately 7 people is not effectively any different from a single person, when compared to the majority). To remove Schwartz's theories and leave the MRF's theories would be exercising a double standard. Dyanega 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
By neutral, I meant not Dyanega 204.115.33.49 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Proposed new sections

Here are the new Introduction and “Delusional parasitosis” sections Dyanega doesn’t want the public to see. I think they are far more readable, coherent, and accurate than the present mess.

It’s obvious that I didn’t make any radical changes—and in fact, left in some historic content that probably should be removed. What troubled Dyanega is probably the reduced emphasis on his personal and professional prejudices.

In particular, I have begun to clarify that whatever Morgellons may be, it certainly isn’t the rare condition called “Delusional parasitosis”; and that it is not a “controversial” condition per se. The primary source of controversy appears to be some entomologists like Dyanega, who have a vested interest in identifying insect parasites for dermatologists.


Introduction

Morgellons or Morgellons disease is characterized by symptoms of "crawling, stinging and biting sensations", and "non-healing skin lesions" associated with "fiber-like or filamentous" structures. "[M]any sufferers also report symptoms of disabling fatigue, severe mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, sharp decline in vision, and serious neurological disorders." [13] The cause is unknown, and no diagnostic criteria have been established.

Dissatisfied with doctors' diagnosis of her two-year-old son's rash, Mary Leitao, of McMurray, Pennsylvania, coined the name Morgellons, and formed the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF) in 2002. She is currently its Executive Director. Leitao tentatively named it after a condition in Sir Thomas Browne's 1690 monograph A Letter to a Friend.

The MRF says Morgellons has been reported in every American state, and 15 other countries. Most of the U.S. cases are in California, Texas, and Florida[1]. The National Institutes of Health Office of Rare Diseases presently links their entry on Morgellons[2] to the MRF.

Researchers from the MRF consider Morgellons a distinct and novel disease, however it shares characteristics with a number of recognized medical conditions, including attention-deficit disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Nanette Orman, an adjunct clinical professor from Stanford University, believes it may be related to Lyme disease.[14]

The condition the MRF describes is controversial because some authorities, including dermatologists and entomologists, identify it with delusional parasitosis: a rare mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by organic parasites. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology printed two letters, and a commentary on them, in its November 2006 issue. Their consensus was that dermatologists should humor patients who think they have "Morgellons disease", but treat them for delusional parasitosis. [3][4][5].

A Nature Medicine article reported [6], "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, in which people become irrationally convinced that they harbor parasites." Morgellons has been successfully treated with the antipsychotic medication Pimozide[7], which has been used to treat delusional parasitosis

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled an investigation, but postponed it six times since June 2006.


Delusional parasitosis

The primary source of controversy is whether Morgellons is a rare mental disorder called Delusional parasitosis. To date, studies from the medical community indicate that Morgellons and delusional parasitosis are the same condition referred to by different names[3][4][5]. No formal clinical studies have yet demonstrated an etiology of Morgellons, though one study 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[7].

The website of the Bohart Museum of Entomology, of the University of California, Davis, says: [15]

"If symptoms of itching and crawling sensations in the skin persist and no evidence of parasites can be found, then a syndrome called Delusional Parasitosis must be considered. A variety of causes have been suggested for these sensations, including parasitism by Collembola and Strepsiptera or the presence of organisms called Morgellons. "Morgellons" is a term used to describe what are purported to be fiber-like parasites of the skin, but after decades of detailed study there is no evidence of an unknown organism fitting this description. There is also no evidence that Collembola or Strepsiptera are biologically capable of parasitizing humans. However, there are quite a number of physiological, hormonal and neurological syndromes that will cause these symptoms."

The Bohart says "Delusional Parasitosis is a mistaken belief that one is being infested by parasites such as mites, lice, fleas, spiders, worms, bacteria, or other organisms"; and further describes it, saying: [16]

"Delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's Syndrome is a rare disorder in which sufferers hold a delusional belief they are infested with parasites. A related symptom involving a tactile hallucination of insects, snakes, or other vermin crawling over the skin is known as formication. The origin of this word is from the Latin formica, 'ant'."

Some entomologists have joined dermatologists in calling Morgellons a mental condition, rather than a physical disease. Entomologist Nancy C. Hinkle, in her article Delusory Parasitosis [8], outlines thirteen indications attributed to delusional parasitosis, including these:

The presentation of physical evidence such as skin scrapings and debris
Obsessive cleaning and use of disinfectants and insecticides
Rejection of the possibility of psychological or other explanations
Emotional trauma, desperation, social isolation
Having seen numerous physicians, to no avail

The belief that fibers are emerging from their skin is still present in these patients. This belief is generally regarded by doctors as either delusional, or a result of simply mistaking fibers from clothing (lint) as fibers emerging from the body.[9]

Patients who suffer from delusional parasitosis, and who also believe they have Morgellons, will often move from doctor to doctor in search of one who will offer them the diagnosis they are seeking. As a result, some doctors have adopted the use of the term "Morgellons disease" as "a rapport-enhancing term for delusions of parasitosis"[5]. In the letter cited, Dr. Jenny Murase wrote,

"because the term “Morgellons disease” does not have the word “delusions” embedded in the term, it is a useful way to communicate with patients regarding their disease. As a case in point, I have established a close relationship with the patient described above by referring to her delusions of parasitosis as Morgellons disease."

In February 2005, a report on a Fox affiliate in Duval County, Florida, prompted the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) to investigate. The DCHD report noted there was a significant spike in reported cases after the news report, and said "this is attributed to the airing of Fox News’ coverage of the illness and is not a true cluster of disease."[10]

The DCHD report concluded:

"… it was determined after extensive reviewing of these articles that Morgellons Disease is synonymous with delusional parasitosis (CDC, 1999). DCHD Epidemiology consulted a pediatric dermatologist within the health department for his professional opinion. It was concluded that this is a psychological condition that has been mentioned in literature for hundreds of years."[11]

One doctor, declining to be named for a news article, indicated that he treats patients simply by placing a cast over the affected area of skin, protecting it from the patient's scratching, which results in healing in a matter of weeks.[12] This lends weight to the theory that perceived skin abnormalities interpreted as the manifestation of Morgellons are a side-effect of habitual scratching.

Mukrkrgsj 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I think the current one is better. There is no need for denying that Morgellons is controversial (see pubmed [17]), denying this is not helpful to anyone. We should not pretend this is an established disease (even if it really exists, that does not mean it is established). Waiting until the 5th paragraph of the introduction before explaining the controversy is unacceptable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


The proposed text clearly does not deny that there is controversy; nor does it "pretend this is an established disease". You didn't specify what to see at pubmed; but a search for "Morgellons" goes to a page listing eight articles--seven of which have "Morgellons disease" in the title.

It is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article to condemn the subject of an article in the first sentence. This article is not supposed to be either for, or against its subject. This article is simply about Morgellons--whatever it is, or may ultimately be demonstrated to be.

The purpose of any article here is first, to briefly define and describe the subject. All that is readily available to the public about Morgellons is that it is a little-known medical condition, for which the Morgellons Research Foundation advocates. Having said that, the proposed Introduction gives equal space to those who think it controversial--despite the fact that Morgellons obviously doesn't fit their definition of "delusional parasitosis". Mukrkrgsj 00:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Your edits are, in several places, unacceptable.
Calling it a controversial medical condition is a statement of fact, and not a condemnation. You have NO right to imply that it is accepted as a disease. The first sentence MUST open with the phrase, regardless of how you wish to end it.
Therefore:

Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial medical condition, often described as having symptoms of "crawling, stinging and biting sensations", and "non-healing skin lesions" associated with "fiber-like or filamentous" structures. "[M]any sufferers also report symptoms of disabling fatigue, severe mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, sharp decline in vision, and serious neurological disorders." [18] The cause is unknown, and no diagnostic criteria have been established.

Shortly below that, two paragraphs need to be switched in sequence, and the innuendo and "weasel words" removed:

Morgellons is controversial because many medical, public health, and scientific authorities, including dermatologists and entomologists, identify many Morgellons patients as having delusional parasitosis: a mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by organic parasites. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology printed two letters, and a commentary on them, in its November 2006 issue. Their consensus was that dermatologists should agree with patients who have self-diagnosed "Morgellons disease", but treat them for delusional parasitosis. [3][4][5].

Researchers from the MRF consider Morgellons a distinct and novel disease, however it shares characteristics with a number of recognized medical conditions, including attention-deficit disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Nanette Orman, an adjunct clinical professor from Stanford University, believes it may be related to Lyme disease.[19]

In the section on Delusional parasitosis, the following text will work:

The primary source of controversy is whether some Morgellons patients suffer from a mental disorder called Delusional parasitosis. To date, studies from the medical community indicate that Morgellons and delusional parasitosis are, in large part, the same condition referred to by different names[3][4][5]. No formal clinical studies have yet demonstrated an etiology of Morgellons, though one study has demonstrated that patients can be cured using Pimozide, reinforcing the contention that the condition may be synonymous with delusional parasitosis, which is treated with the same drug[7].

The sections of text that follow the above, excerpted from the Bohart Museum's website, seem to particularly offend Mukrkrgsj, and I would suggest removing them - not only to reduce the offense, but because they are a secondary source - and replacing this material with the definitions and descriptions of DP given in a peer-reviewed, PRIMARY source on the topic. There are many such primary sources giving definitions and symptoms of DP, and I'm sure that if Mukrkrgsj does not trust me to choose such a source objectively, then he can find one to replace the Bohart's website text. I think everyone can agree that using a secondary, anonymously-authored source when primary source material is available, is a poor practice.
The next sentence that is phrased in a misleading fashion, and needs to be revised to be accurate, is the following:

Some entomologists have joined dermatologists in stating that in some cases, Morgellons is a psychological condition, rather than a physical disease. Entomologist Nancy C. Hinkle, in her article Delusory Parasitosis [8], outlines thirteen indications attributed to delusional parasitosis, including these:

To continually phrase the text so it sounds as if people are claiming that ALL Morgellons patients have DP is not accurate, not fair, and cannot be supported as NPOV. Note that the article itself correctly indicates that Morgellons patients are diagnosed with numerous other medical conditions, some of them real diseases. The bottom line is that no one is saying "No Morgellons patients have a disease" - what they are saying is that "As far as we can see, no Morgellons patients have any disease that is not already familiar to the medical community".
At any rate, you can see how I would edit these passages, and how they are more in keeping with WP policy. Dyanega 06:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


I refer readers to my original content, and ask them not to be confused by Dyanega's obfuscation. I would add only that:

  • I have the same right to call Morgellons a disease, as did the authors of seven of the eight papers cited by pubmed.
  • Morgellons is, by definition, not "Delusional parasitosis"; nevertheless, so long as this article continues to equate it with that rare condition, I welcome the material from the Bohart. It emphasizes Dyanega's personal conflict of interest, as the Senior Museum Scientist of the Bohart's sister institution: the Entomology Research Museum at U.C., Riverside.
  • I agree the article needs to list more of the medical conditions which may help explain, or be associated with, Morgellons

Mukrkrgsj 03:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

I have read the article and the talk page and have looked at the references and outside links.

The article itself is confusing. At times it appears to be describing a real disease, at others a psychiatric disorder. There is undue weight given to the claims of proponents of this being a disease as there is a lack of any 'evidence' that would be or has been accepted by the medical profession. The Tulsa Police Department Laboratory claim, unless backed up by a report from said department is suspect and should be removed unless verified, few reputable labs will do any studies without authorization and paperwork.

The media reports, in general, have little weight, in that the 'story' is compelling and contains the common theme of 'underdog against the establishment' that is good reading but is not science.

The external links have many problems. One or two are basically Wikimirrors, and to outdated versions of this article. The 'pro' links are all a rehash of the same information and should be pruned down to one or two, the addition of the others seems to be an attempt to promote the 'pro' POV by sheer numbers. Two of the 'pro' links (to the same German site), lead to a page selling a cream purported to be a treatment for this condition. This is clearly spam and they should be removed. I believe that any page with advertising is unacceptable per the external links policy, several of the EL's contain ads. The www.carnicom.com site is especially misleading in that it uses scientific jargon by someone with no claim to credentials to seemingly assign biological attributes and scientific method to the images. The operator of the site also claims that some sort of biological warfare is being carried out by NASA, his evidence being pictures of airplane contrails. No, I did not attempt to read much of this site, the fringe nature of which is obvious to even a casual perusal. If this section is not cleaned up I will remove the offending links in a day or two

The medical establisnment has been glaringly wrong before, Lyme disease and heliobacter pylori are good examples, but they are much more often right. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


I concur with some of your comments, especially: "The article itself is confusing. At times it appears to be describing a real disease, at others a psychiatric disorder." That is precisely the point. The article has been biased--and that bias is strongly defended--by at least one regular editor, who has a personal and professional stake in equating Morgellons with "delusional parasitosis". I also agree that several of the references cited, especially the news stories, lack authority; and finally, that: "The medical establisnment has been glaringly wrong before, Lyme disease and heliobacter pylori are good examples". It's notable that Morgellons may be associated with Lyme disease.
I disagree, however, with your contention that "There is undue weight given to the claims of proponents of this being a disease as there is a lack of any 'evidence' that would be or has been accepted by the medical profession." This encyclopedia article is to tell users about Morgellons, not to judge whether or not it is a "disease". In any case, as I recently pointed out above, a search for "Morgellons" at pubmed goes to a page listing eight articles--seven of which have "Morgellons disease" in their titles.
The external links should be pertinent to the content of the article, not "pro" or "con". Some of your comments may be apt, but I recommend you not remove any links at this time. Mukrkrgsj 23:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


If the purpose of the article is to tell users 'about' Morgellens, then whether or not such an entity exists does seem relevent. In addition, the PubMed articles, with the exception of two letters to the editor, one by Dr Harvey, the other by Ms Leitao, are in no way supportive of the existence of Morgellons as a disease, rather they seem to consider it in terms of an aspect of treating patients with delusional parasitosis. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 02:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


As you point out, most of the articles listed by pubmed--and cited as authorities here--"are in no way supportive of the existence of Morgellons as a disease, rather they seem to consider it in terms of an aspect of treating patients with delusional parasitosis." That is what's fundamentally wrong with this article--and Morgellons by definition is not "delusional parasitosis"! Mukrkrgsj 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


"This encyclopedia article is to tell users about Morgellons, not to judge whether or not it is a "disease"."
Incorrect, an encyclopedia article should inform reader about what Morgellons is considered to be, according to the current medical and scientific insights.
From WP:EL
In regard to the totality of links,
Avoid undue weight on particular points of view
On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.
At a ratio of 18:1 for sites that favor the 'pro-Morgellons' faction, this is clearly applicable, in that mainstream medical opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of other explanations for the symptoms suffered by these people.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 02:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"a search for "Morgellons" at pubmed goes to a page listing eight articles--seven of which have "Morgellons disease" in their titles"
And of those 8 articles, 5 or 6 deal with the controversy surrounding the disease.
"but I recommend you not remove any links at this time"
Based on what policy? See the section below, where he explains in detail the problems with many of the links. Some of them should be removed instantly rather then be retained in the article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

addition to research section

I would like to add the following:

http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207001958/fulltext Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 705-706 (April 2007)

William T. Harvey, MD, MPH, chairman of the MRF, wrote a letter to the editor of the American Journal of Dermatology in which stated his finding regarding the dozens of Morgellons patients he has seen. "To anyone willing to look and listen, all patients with Morgellons carry elevated laboratory proinflammatory markers, elevated insulin levels, and verifiable serologic evidence of 3 bacterial pathogens. They also show easily found physical markers such as peripheral neuropathy, delayed capillary refill, abnormal Romberg's sign, decreased body temperature, and tachycardia. Most importantly they will improve, and most recover on antibiotics directed at the above pathogens."

Dr. Harvey receives no compensation from the MRF Pez1103 10:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


In what context? If in the external links section, please see my comments above and reference the appropriate external links guideline. To use this to make any claim of medical proof of the existence of Morgellons, this is a letter to the editor of the AJD, not a peer-reviewed article. The difference between claims and reliable sources is covered at length in the above postings. As the chairman of the board of the MRF, his lack of compensation does not preclude a conflict of interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
Jeez, that bot is fast! To continue, this is not research, it is opinion. I have no personal stake or opinion on Margollens but I do insist that WP not be used to promote or prove the unproven.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

The letter states,

"To anyone willing to look and listen, all patients with Morgellons carry elevated laboratory proinflammatory markers, elevated insulin levels, and verifiable serologic evidence of 3 bacterial pathogens. They also show easily found physical markers such as peripheral neuropathy, delayed capillary refill, abnormal Romberg's sign, decreased body temperature, and tachycardia. Most importantly they will improve, and most recover on antibiotics directed at the above pathogens."

You state in your request to add this to the article that this is the result of examing "dozens" of patients, yet the MRF, of which Dr William T Harvey is Chairman of the Board, states on its website that there are thousands of people with this disease all over the world. In the above quote Dr Harvey states that all patients with Margollens exhibit these symptoms. Are his claims then based on thousands or dozens?

The letter states,

"...evidence of 3 bacterial pathogens," and "...antibiotics directed at the above pathogens,"

yet the nature of the pathogens and the names of the antibiotics are not listed.

He may be right. Everyone else may be wrong. I have a friend who suffered for years from ulcers and was told to stop eating spicy food and reduce stress, when the answer, unrecognized by the medical cummunity, was antibiotic therapy for heliobacter pylori, but Wikipedia is not the place to propose or promote unproven theories. This is why such material is not acceptable for use here.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


It remains notable that Harvey wrote in rebuttal to three previous JAAD articles, which are References 2, 3, and 4 here. We need to look a little closer at those articles, on which so much of the bias here is based. Mukrkrgsj 01:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what way it is notable that he wrote this letter. I have pointed out the problems with the content of the letter, it adds nothing to the case for Morgellons and less to the content of this article. I would like to see the PubMed articles in their entirety but they are not abstracted and available for a fee only. They may be only additional editorial replys or rebuttals and have little value here. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

re: external links

I have gone through the links in relation to the guidelines set out in WP:EL. I will remove the unacceptable links unless there are objections that reference these guidelines.

Acceptable link to organization concerned with Morgellons

Unacceptable link. This site contains little or no additional information and includes advertising for a product purported to treat Morgellons.

Unacceptable link. No additional information from first link. Contains attack pages on opponents of the recognition of Morgellons that include animated gifs of said opponents with flames coming out of their mouths, elongated noses (ala Pinocchio), heads shaking 'no', (apparently in denial of the existence of Mogellons), etc.

Unaceptable link. Soliciting for fee translation of medical documents and sale of products purported to treat Morgellons

Tenuous connection to OSU, possibly acceptable. I will contact OSU and see if this research is in fact sponsored and approved by the University.

Unacceptable link. This site contains a plethora of ads for various products and services unrelated to the subject. In addition it contains misleading and innacurate information about the subject..."researchers discovered a link to what was called Morgellons in the 1600's..." No such research has been conducted according to this article, it was the claim of the parent named in the article. No information here that is not available on the morgellons.org site.

Redundant link. Blurry photomicrographs of something with claims by layperson as to identification and biological activity. Other images are available on morgellons.org site

Unacceptable link. This is a forum/blog

Unacceptable link. This is a survey for sufferers to self-report symptoms.

Unacceptable link. A forum/blog to discuss the above site. It contains 3 posts.

Unacceptable link. An especially misleading site in that it uses scientific jargon by someone with no claim to credentials to seemingly assign biological attributes and scientific method to the images. The operator of the site also claims that some sort of biological warfare is being carried out by NASA, his evidence being pictures of airplane contrails. No, I did not attempt to read much of this site, the fringe nature of which is obvious to even a casual perusal.

Redundant link. Other images are available on morgellons.org site

Acceptable link, but barely. Basically one person's opinion debunking Morgellons. Little factual information and many forum posts.

Unacceptable link. This site contains little or no additional information and includes advertising for a product purported to treat Morgellons. Basically a sub or sister site to morgellons-research.org (above)

Unacceptable link. All information available on morgellons.org site. Misleading wording regarding research.

Unacceptable link. Again a rehash of info on morgellons.org. Also has mention in FAQ of possible bio-terror, bio-experimentation which it does not confirm or deny.

  • Morgellon Site Morgellons Disease Information Research & Support Community

Again a rehash of morgellons.org info. No new info on the iste.

The first words on this page are an ad stating..."Accidental" breakthrough: Miracle-Pill halts Disease. Learn the truth in this Special Report! This says much about the credibility of this site which is yet another rehash of previous info and images, and links to articles about the dangers of nanotech. Has one valuable link to a Psychology Today article that could be used in itself as it presents the most balanced view I have seen so far.

I am posting this as a courtesy in light of the heated discussions on this talk page but I believe the questioned links could be deleted without comment. If you have any objections, please reference the appropriate WP:EL guidelines as they relate to the specific link. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


WP:EL says, "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Killing sparrows may have time to review each and every link, and determine whether they are "acceptable", but most of us are probably more concerned about the quality of the article itself. This is hardly the time to add more minutiae to the discussion. Mukrkrgsj 00:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


The links are part of the article and therefore should be cleaned up and discussed along with the rest. I think it is not fair to call this "minutiae", especially given the serious problems with these links that Killing sparrows pointed out. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


You raise one good point: :WP:EL comments that "The guideline of this article refers to external links other than citations. Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references."
Whether the links are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" is at this time entirely Killing sparrows' opinion. The detailed contents of the sites to which the links point are certainly minutiae, compared to the quality of the article itself. Finally, of course, Dyanega just argued that there should be no substantial edits while there were ongoing attempts at mediation. Mukrkrgsj 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you have completely misunderstood (or deliberately misrepresented) something I said. I said that since you and I were involved in a dispute, that WE should keep our edits to a minimum pending any resolution. And, to set something straight, once and for all - you seem to take great relish in ad hominem attacks on me based on my willingness to state my real name and real affiliations, and that you consider my knowledge of DP a drawback to my qualifications as an editor - you are completely wrong about what sort of "professional stake" I have in this matter, and it is ridiculous to think that I have a conflict of interest. You state above that I "have a vested interest in identifying insect parasites for dermatologists". I have never, in my life, identified a specimen for a dermatologist or other medical professional. I have identified samples for numerous patients who had DP, which I do in fact know how to diagnose, and four who said they had Morgellons (whose symptoms, samples, and stories were the same as the standard DP sufferers). I don't get paid for examining these samples, I do it as a public courtesy, and in fact my boss would rather refuse to allow visitors with skin samples into our building, since they disrupt our work. I have no connection to the Bohart Museum - a sister institution relationship does not mean that we are a "team" - there are LOTS of schools in the UC system, and I have no interest in promoting the Bohart's website. My interest is in educating the public - for the benefit of those who do not themselves have any such condition, and to help those who DO. Educating the public means making the information that IS available, available HERE on Wikipedia, and ensuring that it is an objective presentation of what is known. Given that this is what Wikipedia is for, it is not a conflict at all - my interest, and those of WP, are the same. The dispute here comes down to your vehement disagreement as to what "known" means, and how much to trust unsubstantiated claims. Finally, you have also gone overboard reading the definition of DP as it is literally presented on the Bohart's page (which is NOT authoritative, as I have said), and claiming that "This proves that DP and Morgelllons are different, because DP's definition says imaginary parasites, and Morgellons does not" - ignoring the fact that even in the article itself it is pointed out elsewhere that the self-reported symptoms of DP (the "stories", as it were) vary from patient to patient, but involves something emerging from their skin - it is not ALWAYS "parasites", that is just the most common perception. The only difference is that Morgellons sufferers state that the "something" in their skin is fibrous; in the past, these people were just a subset of the DP community. There really is no difference in the definitions insofar as that portion; what makes the Morgellons description different is the "brain fog" stuff, but "brain fog" is nothing a doctor can examine.
Be that as it may, I agree with killing sparrows's assessment of the links. Dyanega 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why so much anger and hostility?

Six weeks ago, before I happened upon this article, I had never heard of Morgellons. After reviewing the article, its sources, and this discussion--and some active participation in the discussion--I have one major question:

What is it about Morgellons, and its support group the MRF, that inspires so much anger and hostility?

What is it about an almost unknown medical condition, that reportedly affects an unknown number of unidentified patients, including children and infants, that makes some editors demand that Wikipedia ruthlessly condemn them as fakers and loonies?

I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it. Mukrkrgsj 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't condemned anyone (outside two of the other editors of this article) for anything - I've "condemned" you for failing to follow WP:NPOV and other policies (likewise Pez1103), and I stand by my assertion. You have accused me of the same thing in turn, which is why a mediator was invited in - if nothing else, to sort out who here is not adhering to the rules. The "justification" is that you're violating WP rules! Could that be any simpler or more straightforward? You seem to be hell-bent on interpreting it as attacks on the MRF, or on Morgellons sufferers, but it's not about them - it's about how you are trying to edit the article to promote a minority viewpoint, using unreliable source information. It's not prejudice about the topic itself, it's frustration with editors who don't follow the guidelines that editors are supposed to follow. Dyanega 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A proposal from Killing sparrows

I hope that you do not consider the points I have raised to be bitter, mean-spirited or hostile. I assure you they are not intended that way, nor do I believe that any of the editors on either side of the issue have such intentions. Your third paragraph above, probably goes to the heart of the matter in the use of the words, 'unknown' and 'unidentified'. The article's greatest weakness is that it is about something that is recognized as real by a very small group, and is proactively denied by a very large group that includes many, if not all of the recognized authorities in the field.
Any new thing will have difficulty gaining acceptance in any field of study and until it does will have an even harder time finding a place in Wikipedia. WP is not about promoting or proving or publishing new ideas. It is a record of what is proven or published by accepted authorites in the field.
Regarding the assertion that some editors condemn those afflicted as loonies or fakers, I think you are wrong. I believe that insisting that mainstream views of the situation should receive the most weight here is an attempt to follow the guidelines and policies and does not imply a heartless attitude towards anyone. All current, published and verifiable information on this topic seems to confirm that many of these people are suffering from something already in the literature and that many of these cases may be psychosomatic in part or in whole. Whether or not this is true is something that only time will tell.
Another point to consider is that Wikipedia is not about Truth. This may seem odd, but it is the case. If Dr Harvey were to study every Morgellons patient and prove conclusively that it was in fact a concrete disease whose symptoms included the exact ones claimed and to further find and identify the causative agent and develop a treatment that in all cases resulted in a dramatic and complete cure, the information would still not be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia until it had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia is not about proving or promoting anything. That is left to others, whose methods satisfy our guidelines.
I have a suggestion for the parties most involved in this dispute, both pro and con. Leave this article for awhile. Take it off your watch list and don't look at it for two weeks. Drink some tea and eat some cookies whenever you are tempted to come back here.
During that time I will make an attempt to modify it in such a way as to preserve both sides and satisfy the guidelines for NPOV. I would probably make it much shorter, cut the number of external links and reduce the 'heat level' in general. I will of course welcome any one with a neutral interest to help me with this. Passionate beliefs and the willingness to stand up for them are important but they can get in the way of achieving consensus and seeing a middle ground. I think a deep breath, an assumption of good faith and a hot cup of tea are what is called for here.
If at the end of that time and a look at the article you still feel that it is biased or that others are not acting in good faith and you cannot accept the article it can be reverted and taken to formal arbitration. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


A white knight? We just gave informal mediation the benefit of the doubt, and the mediator disappeared for four weeks. If your offer is sincere, I think you'll find that Dyanega won't let you do what you promise to do. And if you are not, you and Dyanega will have prevented any improvements by objective editors for another two weeks.

Thanks, but no confidence. This article needs to go to formal arbitration, NOW! Mukrkrgsj 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that Wikipedia does not have "formal" arbitration of articles. The process you are referring to, Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration will not judge the content of the article, but the behavior of the editors involved. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I was initially in support of immediate formal arbitration, I feel that killing sparrows makes a fine point. KS, I support your idea. --Interested2 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Mkrkrgsj, I am disappointed in your response. You seem to assume bad faith, a lack of objectivity and possible collusion with another editor on my part. If this editorial dispute is taken to arbitration I doubt this stance will serve you well. A few weeks time, giving other editors a chance to improve the article, is not an unreasonable approach to the current situation, which has been ongoing for months. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

External links removal

Per my concerns listed above I have remove the links. I feel that any additions to this section need to be justified per the external links guidelines. I will also look at the 'In the news' section and evaluate them per the same guidelines, I think many are redundant. If there is reference to 'many media reports' in the main article, some of these could possibly be added as reference to that statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Good move. -- Fyslee/talk 06:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Could Morgellons perhaps be caused by MICROFIBER blankets, clothing, etc?

I have no personal experience with Morgellons, but I saw the photos of affected skin on the Morgellons Research Foundation website. Could Morgellons be caused by microfiber blankets, etc? Microfibers are extremely thin artificial fibers that are being used to make blankets, clothing etc. It's a booming business, and pretty new. If you have fibers that are extremely thin, then naturally their ends will be extremely sharp.

For a while I was sleeping on a torn mattress, with the foam rubber showing through. I noticed that some of my own hairs worked their way deep into the foam of the mattress, just as a result of the repeated rubbing caused by my natural movements during sleep, or while resting on the mattress.

Similarly, could it be that people are getting microfibers under their skin, by repeated rubbing caused by their natural movements against blankets while sleeping or resting, or something similar with microfiber clothing?

Does anyone have experience with both Morgellons and microfiber blankets or other products? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.198.155 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Laymans POV

I am new to posting here and am a layman. I followed this post because of a bedbug infestation. The company from which I bought treatment for the bedbugs also sent me a pdf on "collembola" syndrome, which was linked to Morgellons syndrome. So I did some research. About springtails, and insect parasites. Interestingly, the only additional references I found to the problem were offered by other companies selling cures, complicated cures at high prices. I felt their literature was designed to inspire fear and prey on peoples vunerablities. No other references were found from CDC, google, dermatological sites. This fact, and the language of the pdf makes me believe that Morgellons/Collembola is a marketing ploy. I believe this could be a contributing factor to this discussion. Frankly, if you have fibers, granules extruding from your skin, chronic dermatitis, and you experience confusion and fatigue, you seek a doctor. It bugs you day and night. The doctor says, hey you're crazy. Perhaps you let it go at that, but I assume that a statistically significant portion of sufferers would carry it further, and seek second, third, fourth opinions. Someone, many people, would contribute samples which would be examined. I believe that researchers, upon finding a new disease,microbe,virus,pathogen, would become very excited! It would be on the news, Nobel Peace Prize, Pulliter Prize, Fox News goes crazy. But instead, nothing. I think it's the business of snake oil salespeople. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linty (talk • contribs) 02:58, 17 May 2007


Bugs (Film)

How will the upcoming film version of the play "Bugs" impact this discussion and national attention to the topic (and this page)?

Edit June 1 and 2

(cur) (last) 17:15, 1 June 2007 Interested2 (Talk | contribs) (22,401 bytes) (rv to "but especially with". The observable symptoms are similar to those of DP, and it does a disservice to those afflicted to suggest that its as likely as ADD.) (cur) (last) 06:26, 1 June 2007 24.6.34.203 (Talk) (22,385 bytes) (?Background - "but especially with", not supported by facts. Delusional parasitosis not consistent with fibers and granules are coming out of the skin, short-term memory loss, fatigue.) (cur) (last) 05:25, 1 June 2007 24.6.34.203 (Talk) (22,401 bytes) (?Delusional parasitosis) (cur) (last) 05:15, 1 June 2007 24.6.34.203 (Talk) (22,402 bytes) (?Delusional parasitosis)

On June 1 I edited two quotations because they were incomplete. I added a few sentences to include the full text which puts the quotations in better context.

I also changed "but especially with" to "and" for reasons I stated. Interested2 reversed the edit on June 2 stating, "The observable symptoms are similar to those of DP, and it does a disservice to those afflicted to suggest that its as likely as ADD."

I disagree. The sentence does not talk about symptoms. It states, "Morgellons shares characteristics with a number of recognized medical conditions,...". Nowhere in Wikipedia,or in any reference is the term "but especially with DP" based on data. Many Dermatologists associate Morgellons with delusional parasitosis (and some do not), but that is only one characteristic and should not override all others.

Symptoms are not substantiated or quantified for Morgellons vs. other diseases in literature nor in Wikipedia. Therefore the statement "The observable symptoms are similar to those of DP, and it does a disservice to those afflicted to suggest that its as likely as ADD.", is not accurate because the sentence can not proport to quantitatively correlate Morgellons symptoms or characteristics to other illnesses. (Hence my edit).

For example: Of the illnesses mentioned many have sensations of skin crawling and none, including classical DP, of fibers coming out of skin. Also, short term memory loss, communicability, and fatigue are not part of classical DP.

I'll note that "short term memory loss, communicability, and fatigue" are not excluded from classical DP, since many patients with DP are also clinically depressed, and the first and last of these three can be associated with depression.

Almost any illness (cancer, heart disease, etc.) has a subset of depression, (In any given 1-year period, 9.5 percent of the population has depression), which can then be associated with almost any symptom. Standard argument used over and over by the Psychiatric community.24.6.34.203 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Communicability" is a supposition, and can easily be fallacious (e.g., folie a deux).

It has not been proved or disproved but is widely reported by patients and families. Should we ignore a growing body of evidence?24.6.34.203 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying to ignore it - people are saying that there is no difference between this and something we have already been seeing for decades. No one has yet demonstrated otherwise. Dyanega 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever these "people" are, the argument is flawed by a mounting body of evidence that something is different here in the number of publications (medical and news), videos, pictures, and demographics of Morgellons patients. IE: not little old ladies, but children, professional baseball players, doctors, and middle class families. Kind of like, at what point does global warming become proven?24.6.34.203 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As for fibers, no one in the medical or scientific community has ever demonstrated that Morgellons patients have fibers emerging from their flesh, so this too fails to differentiate Morgellons from DP.

No, there are pictures from the medical community that have been shown in reference 2.

Reference 2 is not a peer-reviewed publication; it was published as an opinion piece, meaning nothing in it was evaluated for accuracy or veracity - since when do "letters to the editor" qualify as scientific evidence? Dyanega 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dyanega, I believe you are wrong about this. From the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology:

Internal Review by Editorial Staff The Journal Editor and/or therapeutic area editor will perform an initial appraisal of each manuscript. Manuscripts are judged on the interest and importance of the topic, use of scientific method, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the Journal's readers. Articles meeting the appropriate criteria and accompanied by the appropriate documentation are then passed to external peer review.

External Peer Review The aim of the peer review process is to ensure publication of unbiased, scientifically accurate and clinically relevant articles. All articles are peer reviewed by members of the Journal's international Editorial Board and/or other specialists of equal repute before a decision on publication is made. Peer reviewer identities are kept confidential, but author identities are known to the reviewers. Peer reviewers are asked to disclose potential conflicts of interests that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review of an article.

Though "The Mystery of Morgellons Disease" is listed under Current Opinion, it is also listed as an Article. It is written with an abstact and structured like an article, not like a letter. I have written to the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology and asked them to clarify if the piece was peer reviewed or not.

By the way, references 4,& 5 are listed in the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology as notes and comments under the classification of letters. Reference 6 is classified as correspondence and reference 3 as commentary.

Using your criteria, the statement in Morgellons WP article, "Morgellons has been successfully treated with the antipsychotic medication Pimozide[6], which has been used to treat delusional parasitosis." may not qualify as scientific evidence because it may not have been peer reviewed.

Does anyone have reference 6? I would like to check some other facts on the article as it pertains to the Morgellons WP article. 24.6.34.203 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many that have come from patients and news reports. As far as I know no one has proven them to be fake.24.6.34.203 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No one in the medical community has ever examined a Morgellons patient AND found any fibers, to my knowledge. The only fibers anyone has ever seen are those supplied "post-removal" by the patients or by Morgellons researchers. Are you familiar with the concept of "chain of custody"? How can you prove something is a fake, if the person supplying it cannot prove where it came from? When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, there's no question that the rabbit itself is real - the question is whether it actually came out of the hat. Dyanega 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at reference 2., and do not ignore the doctors and professionals that have come forward in publications and other media. Peer review is well and good, but WP does not require peer review. Yes I am familiar with chain of custody. It's not the chain of custody that you are talkin about, but it's a very short chain of custody when a professional or doctor sees and pulls a fiber out of a person's skin. The reports from the patients that many professionals have no interest in even looking at the fibers in their skin seems to be very arrogant.24.6.34.203 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the chain of custody is crucial, since the only doctors involved in that chain are doctors who are affiliated with the Morgellons Research Foundation - they cannot be expected to be impartial, since they derive financial benefit from the promotion of Morgellons as a distinct and novel disease. If you are as worried as you profess to be about the health and well-being of the people suffering from Morgellons, why do you show no sign at all of being concerned with the possibility that these people are being misled? Dyanega 01:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, Morgellons research is no different than any other. Doctors that research Morgellons get grants or donations to fund themselves or their research the same as other reserch. That is the way much research is funded. They are EXPECTED to be impartial. If they are committing fraud, the law and the medical establishment has procedures in place to deal with it. If the researcher is correct it usually does bring them financial benefit. That is the system in place.
That is NOT how the system works. The doctors doing research into Morgellons are not getting grants from anywhere other than the MRF, an organization that promotes the disease - there is no independent oversight into how the funds are being spent, or evaluation of the results, or external peer review, as applies to nearly EVERY other granting agency in the world. Morgellons researchers do not have to be correct to get money from the MRF - all they have to do is agree that Morgellons is a real disease, and no one has yet demonstrated that this is actually true. The law and the medical community cannot file lawsuits for fraud until and unless someone complains that they have been defrauded, and I sincerely doubt that anyone suffering from Morgellons is going to turn around and challenge the one organization that they have pinned all their hopes on, and ask for their money back. Dyanega 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The above is opinionated, biased, and wrong because you do not believe Morgellons to be a "REAL DISEASE". You apply one standard for Morgellons and another for your viewpoint of the "REAL DISEASE".

How can you know, "the doctors doing research into Morgellons are not getting grants from anywhere other than the MRF"? In fact, you don't because the CDC is setting up research into Morgellons and they are not getting money from MRF. Furthermore, even if true, SO WHAT. "Promotes the disease" is a loaded term. MRF and the patients they represent believe the cause of their disease is something other than you believe, and they are spending their money to "prove or disprove" it. That does NOT make them wrong, evil, or any different than other organizations spending money to research illness (except maybe our government that spends it liberally). The money spent by the MRF has to be documented in public records, and the research done will be documented, reviewed and published if a journal accepts it. Organizations grant money to research according to how valuable the LEADERS OF THE ORGANIZATION BELIEVE the research to be. No research has to be "correct" (whatever that means) to apply for and receive money from organizations, that is why it is called research.

The last sentence of your paragraph applies to ALL research except for your "doubt" which is pure speculation on your part. Ward24.6.34.203 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned with the possibility people with Morgellons are being harmed by those that advocate they are delusional. When you label someone delusional, society tends to ignore them and their situation. That is not the way it is supposed to be, and many will deny it, but it is true. Ward24.6.34.203 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, since most DP sufferers bring in samples of lint to be examined, the claim of finding fibers in or on one's body is a very common thing in classical DP; it is actually one of the strongest lines of evidence suggesting the two are synonymous. The only difference is that in classical DP the sufferer claims the fibers are alive AND emerged from the flesh; in Morgellons, the claim is only that they emerged from the flesh, but without the insistence that the fibers are/were themselves alive. Dyanega 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dyanega, I am not aware of any references for your assertion of fibers in the skin of classical DP that predates Morgellons year 2002, can you supply some?

Please do not paraphrase me - I said "emerged from the flesh", and not "embedded in the flesh", for a reason. Classical DP sufferers very commonly produce samples of fibers (the "matchbox sign") that they claim emerged from their flesh - usually lint. Read any of the literature on DP that discusses the matchbox sign and its typical constituents, it's quite well-documented. Dyanega 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to bully me, you said, "fibers in or on one's body", close enough!

I did run a pub med search and found no references where it is typical that classic DP patients claim fibers emerged from the flesh. "The matchbox sign yes", but that is factually different than claims of fibers emerging from the skin.24.6.34.203 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't. DP patients present pieces of lint, claiming they are parasites that emerged from their body. Lint is composed of fibers. What, they have to use the WORD "fiber" in these references instead of "lint" in order for it to be considered the same thing? Dyanega 01:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To be more clear, my statement of what is factually different was meant to indicate: Most Morgellons patients say fibers emerge from their skin, and present the fibers. Most classical DP patients DO NOT say fibers emerge from their skin, and present skin scrapings that may or may not contain fibers or lint. Ward24.6.34.203 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you said you have seen Morgellons patients. Did you look at or for the in vivo fibers they said were in their skin?24.6.34.203 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)24.6.34.203 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

They gave me samples which they said had emerged from their skin, and when I told them they were fibers and not insects - that was when they declared they had Morgellons, as they had suspected (one of them had already come to that conclusion, but wanted me to confirm that the samples were NOT insects, which is what they had originally suspected...until they heard of Morgellons). None of the people I have met ever showed me any fibers in their skin; it was always "post-removal" samples. Dyanega 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dyanega thanks for the information.24.6.34.203 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So Interested2, let's resolve this and move on. Thanks.

Dyanega, this exchange has been interesting but I doubt it has changed very much. I want to get back to the topic of the reversion "and" to "but especially with".

Here is what I think is a very strong argument for my "and" edit:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. 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. Readers are left to form their own opinions.24.6.34.203 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And here is an explicit reason why your invocation of WP policy will work counter to your interests (I will re-quote, since you seem to have missed the point elsewhere on this page):

DIRECT EXCERPT:

Undue weight

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

As you can see, by WP policy, the article as it reads gives TOO MUCH weight to the pro-Morgellons side of the dispute, because it is by definition a "tiny minority". If you truly want an objective, neutral version of this page, one that adheres stringently to WP policy, then the pro-Morgellons side is going to be reduced to insignificance. Be careful what you ask for. Dyanega 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Background: My name is Ward K. I do not have Morgellons. I was a Mechanical Research Engineer at Xerox. 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!24.6.34.203 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Floating an idea

As I see it, the exchange between Dyanega and myself has shown he is more inclined to believe Morgellons is DP than I. More importantly, we may have been discussing some the heart of the dispute.

He has talked about similarities of Morgellons and DP and I about differences.

We (and others) have discussed/debated the various levels of proof required for medical and scientific research vs. levels of proof required for WP and public information.

It seems to me information on Morgellons (and the forms of information dissemination) is diverse and rapidly changing. IE. researching for my replies yesterday I found The CDC Delusional Parasitosis page has been removed and a response to an inquiry of the CDC as to why the information was removed (that probably should be in the article). I found on YouTube some fascinating videos reporting to be Morgellons' fibers. But as Dyanega pointed out, chain of custody and discussion of scientific method is lacking. However, NIH investigators may have some compelling things to look at if they get off their ass.

The proposal is: we incorporate in the article in a neutral way reasons for the dispute similar to the topics above. That way viewers of the Morgellons WP article are shown more insight why the article is controversial. Ward 24.6.34.203 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation "The Mystery of Morgellons Disease: Infection or Delusion?" is a peer reviewed article.

X-Originating-IP: [XXX.XXX.XXX.XX] Subject: Peer review of Morgellons disease article for Am J Clin Dermatol Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:14:40 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Peer review of Morgellons disease article for Am J Clin Dermatol Thread-Index: AcepcsTwPlHI+Fj0ThasL2F/2iSlVA== From: "Olney, Roger" <> To: <> Cc: "<>,<> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2007 02:14:40.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[C55052D0:01C7A972]


Dear Mr XXXXX

Thank you for your e-mail.

As stated in the journal under 'Aim and Scope', 'All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts', and I can confirm that this was the case with this article.

I hope that is helpful to you. On that point, it wasn't clear from your e-mail why you would be interested in this information and I wonder if you would mind letting us know the reason for your request on this point.

Yours sincerely

Roger Olney Editor American Journal of Clinical Dermatology

Ward24.6.34.203 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong here, something out of context.

Under Morgellons theories and research

What is, "reporting on Ms. Leitao's plight" doing in here? it does not make sense to me.

"The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reporting on Ms. Leitao's plight, noted that Dr. Randy Wymore, Oklahoma State University assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology, and former MRF director, recruited two Oklahoma State faculty physicians who tweezed fibers from beneath the skin of some Morgellons patients."

Ward 24.6.34.203 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking a wikibreak from this article.

TSIA. -Interested2 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Any expert who claims they are able to write or speak on this disease must first meet with and analyze the skin, mucous and other "products" of a patient with this disease before they should be allowed to comment. This can be done scientifically. I am willing to be that person (cisfl2004@netzero.com). Otherwise they have no idea at all what they are talking about and should not be allowed to edit no matter what advanced degrees they have. They have NO REAL knowledge of this syndrome. It is new and they have never seen anything like it. The only expert is one has has had this for many years and has a clean bill of mental health from a mental health professional.

Interseted2, frankly I am amazed at your proposal. I would like to point out you reverted my edit that a letter was actually a peer reviewed article after I separately discussed and proved in Editing Talk:Morgellons why the previous text was wrong. I quote:
"Though "The Mystery of Morgellons Disease" is listed under Current Opinion, it is also listed as an Article. It is written with an abstract and structured like an article, not like a letter. I have written to the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology and asked them to clarify if the piece was peer reviewed or not."[20]
Then I copied an e-mail from an editor of the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology stating it was a peer reviewed article.[21]
From your actions, I don't know if you do know the difference between a letter and a peer reviewed article.
You are asserting anyone who edits this article, "must first meet with and analyze the skin, mucous and other "products" of a patient with this disease before they should be allowed to comment." And "The only expert is one has had this for many years and has a clean bill of mental health from a mental health professional."
And you should be "that" person.
But you believe Morgellons is DP, from your point of view if you have had this for many years you should be delusional.
Why not Gregory V. Smith, M.D., FAAP - Director, Clinical Advisory Group the New Morgellons Order[22]?
You also state, "They have NO REAL knowledge of this syndrome. It is new and they have never seen anything like it." I believe this statement can be used to argue Mogellons is not DP.
I ask you stop using the word syndrome. Although it is a technically correct term, it is commonly used by the "its all in your head group" to bias the reader. Syndrome has in its definition, "Subjective medical conditions are not supported by evidence of an underlying physical cause.", therefore a common assumption is conditions that are not supported by evidence of physical causes must have mental causes. In reality, usually the physical causes just have not been discovered yet. Syndrome added to the term Acquired Immune deficiency caused much delay in the recognition of the true severity and nature of this disease at the beginning of research.
To select an elite group that has the sole power to change articles seems to me counter to what WP strives for.
Ward24.6.34.203 20:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Struck out because of a misunderstanding and stupid writing on the author's (my) part.
Ward24.6.34.203 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


That wasn't my statement above. It's an unsigned comment....check in the history for who wrote it. I believe it was an IP. -Interested2 03:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Interested2, I see, I apologize to you, and I am sorry if I offended you. I wrote my comments based on the belief that the writer favored the DP view. That was stupid and wrong on my part. I will address relevant statements to cisfl2004@netzero.com.
cisfl2004@netzero.com, As you can see above I messed up. I am sorry for the mixup on my previous comments.
I still ask you stop using the word syndrome. Although a technically correct term, especially when used within the medical community, it is commonly used by the "its all in your head group" to bias the layperson. Syndrome has in its definition, "Subjective medical conditions are not supported by evidence of an underlying physical cause.", therefore a common assumption (frequently incorrect) is conditions that are not supported by evidence of physical causes must have mental causes. In reality, usually the physical causes just have not been discovered yet. Syndrome added to the term Acquired Immune deficiency caused much delay in the recognition of the true severity and nature of this disease at the beginning of research. I have personal experience with this problem for 20 years because of the acronym CFS, although that is not the illness I have it turns out.
To select an elite group that has the sole power to change articles seems to me counter to what WP strives for.
This group has asked for independant peer review, which I don't have any experience with on WP. I believe objective comments on the talk page, and constructive edits on articles are always welcome on WP.
Ward24.6.34.203 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Ward24.6.34.203 06:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits

Marc, consider removing link to Morgellons Research Organization because of a number of items.

1. they sell products there 2. there will be objections to too many links talking about disease vs DP. 3. The external links section should be small according to WP, and I believe The New Morgellons Order at http://www.cherokeechas.com/index.htm is a more scientific and neutral link than Morgellons Research Organization.

Dyanega, I can't find on the page "The Mayo Clinic page specifically states "According to the Morgellons Research Foundation...")".

I found these three attributes to the MRF on the page:

The Morgellons Research Foundation lists, the Morgellons Research Foundation doesn't, The Morgellons Research Foundation reports.

Exactly - the information on that page came from the MRF, and the Mayo Clinic people compiled it into that webpage. The SOLE source of information for the descriptions of Morgellons there is the MRF. Note also the comment below. The Mayo Clinic page is a secondary source, the MRF is the primary source. Dyanega 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the page is signed By Mayo Clinic Staff Mar 2, 2007, and is copyrighted by the Mayo Foundation

The phrase. "Based on information supplied by the Morgellons Research Foundation, the Mayo Clinic created a webpage titled:" infers the MRF and the Mayo Clinic staff collaborated. This seems to be speculation and may or may not be true. Attribution is not the same as collaboration.

Even if there were collaboration on the page. We are only using the sentence, "Morgellons disease shares characteristics with various recognized conditions, including attention-deficit disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease, obsessive-compulsive disorder and a mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by parasites (delusional parasitosis)." That statement may have been written by the Mayo Clinic Staff so the phrase you put would not be relevant. We should confirm these points.

Ward24.6.34.203 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mayo response to my inquiry on MRF input to "Morgellons disease: Managing a mysterious skin condition Article"

From: "Contact Us - Mayo Information" <mayoinfo@mayoclinic.com> To: xxxxx@xxxxx Subject: RE: MayoClinic.com (Thread:496023)


Dear Ward:


Thank you for your patience. 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.

Sincerely, Dana Mayo Clinic Online Services


Ward24.6.34.203 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To keep things legal, copyright request GFDL submitted to Mayo foundation

For use of:

"Morgellons disease: Managing a mysterious skin condition," which states "Morgellons disease shares characteristics with various recognized conditions, including attention-deficit disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease, obsessive-compulsive disorder and a mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by parasites (delusional parasitosis)."

and

"Reports of Morgellons disease have been made in every state in the United States and 15 countries around the world. Most reported cases are clustered in Calfironia, Texas and Florida."

On page http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morgellons-disease/SN00043

Ward24.6.34.203 09:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a near-verbatim quote from a passage in the Savely et al. article which was given as the citation for it before. WP policy is to cite the primary source whenever possible, rather than a secondary source. I'm restoring the citation as it was. Dyanega 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


The verbatim quote (quoted even) is from Mayo. Savely et al published details first.

Present WP version: The MRF states that reports of Morgellons disease have been made in every state in the United States and 15 countries around the world. Most reported cases are clustered in California, Texas and Florida.[2].

Mayo text: "Reports of Morgellons disease have been made in every state in the United States and 15 countries around the world. Most reported cases are clustered in California, Texas and Florida."

Savely et al text: "The US states of California, Texas, and Florida appear to have the highest number of reports of Morgellons disease, with primary clusters noted in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, and in Houston, Dallas and Austin Texas. California accounts for 26% of the cases in the US. All 50 US states and 15 nations, including Canada, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands, have reported cases of Morgellons disease."

Think about best approach. Maybe quote the original Savely text, I believe the Mayo version better.

Reinserted link to Mayo text that is also a direct quote.

Ward24.6.34.203 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Herd,

Concerning the link removal to talk page.

The wording in that paragraph is predicated on the e-mail received from Mayo about its webpage. The e-mail is displayed in talk section #33. Removing the link removes the background behind the wording. I think it needs to be there because of that. The previous wording was not correct in it's context. Please reply. Thanks.

Ward24.6.34.203 02:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ward24.6.34.203, Wikipedia articles should be backed by references to verifiable primary sources. Personal emails do not count. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Herd of Swine 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, " articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians." [23]

Wikipedia gives editors examples of boilerplate letters to solicit information and permissions from sources. I don't believe there is a way to e-mail and receive those directly to WP, so editors must present information received to WP somehow. The e-mail I published on talk page gives all information necessary for verification.

"Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as: there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."[24]

Ward24.6.34.203 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was using "primary sources" in the wrong sense there, what I meant was Reliable Sources. It seems the point in contention is if a particular article was peer-reviewed or not. This hardly seems important enough to justify the use of a personal email posted on a talk page as a source. If the reader cannot verify the assertion, then it should not be made.Herd of Swine 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It might be a moot point anyway, the symptoms list in that article was outdated, and I replaced it with the most recent symptom list from the MRF.Herd of Swine 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't believe it is valid to replace a citation from a peer reviewed published journal article with a preliminary and not peer reviewed symptom list from a website, even if more recent. What does UTC stand for?

Ward20 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The web site is the original source of the symptoms list. The same authors that wrote the paper wrote the web site. Is this not the symptom list for morgellons? You want to put up an old list, why? Nobody is disputing the list of symptoms, that's the case definition. Why not have the more accurate version?
UTC stands for both "coordinated universal time" and "temps universel coordonné", it's a compromise. Herd of Swine 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I would say a preliminary list that is a work in progress and not peer reviewed may not be a more accurate version, and certainly should not carry as much weight as one from a peer reviewed journal

Ward20 09:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed George Schwartz

I removed the paragraph of George Schwartz, he's been disbarred for peddling narcotics and he self-published his book. He's a fringe figure on the Morgellons story, and his inclusion (and his speculation about parasites and global warming) adds nothing to the article. Herd of Swine 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Koblenzer: not in this letter or references or any letter cited

does any one claim to have used Olanzapine, or Pimozide to sucessfully treat Morgellons.

Ward20 01:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Koblenzer states in J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;55:920-2., "The challenge of Morgellons disease"

Of the psychotropics, I still find that pimozide, in a dose of anywhere from 0.5 mg to 2 mg once daily, works more quickly and more reliably than others of the atypical antipsychotics, perhaps because of its known action on opioid pathways,6,10 although risperidone and aripiprazole are also reportedly effective.18,19

References noted above
6. Wallengren J, Dahlback K. Familial brachoradial pruritus. Br J Dermatol 2005;153:1016-8.
10. Munro A. Delusional disorder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 78-93.
18. Lee CS, Koo JYM. The use of psychotropic medications in dermatology. In: Koo JYM, Lee CS, editors. Psychocutaneous medicine. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 2002. pp. 427-51.
19. Koblenzer CS. Psychotropic drugs in dermatology. In: James WD, Cockerell CJ, Dzubow LM, Paller AS, Yancey KB, editors. Advances in dermatology (vol 15). St Louis: Mosby, Inc; 2000. pp. 183-201.
Herd of Swine 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


The letter "The challenge of Morgellons disease" has many problems.

1. Not peer reviewed

2. Letter first talks about diagnosis of DP and various forms, then proceeds to say Morgellons must be the same disease and describes symptoms of typical DP but without any note of any particular differences of Morgellons, or that any of her patients said or believe they have Morgellons.

Then says, "My own approach has been to explain to "the patient"....and then treatment above.

3. Letter does not discuss any proof her treatment has successfully treated Morgellons, or give any patient numbers (not even one case) of successful treatment of Morgellons.

4. For efficacy of the drugs she uses, she cites papers below that have nothing to do with Morgellons.

6. Wallengren J, Dahlback K. Familial brachoradial pruritus. Br J Dermatol 2005;153:1016-8. 10. Munro A. Delusional disorder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 78-93. 18. Lee CS, Koo JYM. The use of psychotropic medications in dermatology. In: Koo JYM, Lee CS, editors. Psychocutaneous medicine. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 2002. pp. 427-51. 19. Koblenzer CS. Psychotropic drugs in dermatology. In: James WD, Cockerell CJ, Dzubow LM, Paller AS, Yancey KB, editors. Advances in dermatology (vol 15). St Louis: Mosby, Inc; 2000. pp. 183-201.

Ward20 03:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ward, most dermatologists would say that many people who think they have Morgellons have some involvement of DOP in their condition. Yes, she's saying that she's treating Morgellons in some patients, in part, by treating their DOP. You could spell this out in the article if you want. The distinction between Morgellons (a complex syndrome with many symptoms), and DOP (a monosymptomatic hypochondriacal psychosis, which is generally only one of several symptoms a Morgellons patient might have), is important, and I'm not sure it's fully made clear here. Herd of Swine 04:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What you say has a germ of truth, as any illness has a psychological component.

But, that is not the thrust of my argument. Koblenzer basically says if she is treating DP patients then by definition they MUST ALSO be Morgellons patients. She makes no distinction between them as a group and offers no discussion of numbers of patients successfully (or unsuccessfully) treated in either case. Her letter is worthless as far as discussing successful psychotropic drug treatment of Morgellons.

You are very smart, you know there is a difference in what you said and she says.

Besides that, it is a letter, it is not peer reviewed, and as Dyanega argues, should not be given much as scientific credibility.

Ward20 05:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm. That's the wrong Koblenzer reference; not the one I was referring to. There are multiple Koblenzer references, and the one I was referring to is titled "Pimozide at Least as Safe and Perhaps More Effective Than Olanzapine for Treatment of Morgellons Disease". Dyanega 08:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons to doubt Koblenzer has ever treated any Morgellons patients with Pimozide in either letter. In her Oct 2006 letter Pimozide at Least as Safe and Perhaps More Effective Than Olanzapine for Treatment of Morgellons Disease she speculates Pimozide may be more effective than Olanzapine for Morgellons. But never states in that Oct letter she has treated any Morgellons patients with Olanzapine or Pimozide at all. In the references she talks about Olanzapine treatment by Meehan for patients who are definitely not Morgellons patients. You must read the Meehan letter in order to realize that.

Then one month later she publishes another letter about The Challenge of Morgellons disease and talks about Pimozide treatment of "the patient" but not identifying her patients specifically as Morgellons patients. So the question begs to be asked why did she not also state in her Oct 2006 letter she treated Morgellons patients with Pimozide? Surely she didn't get "the patient"s and treat only for approximately one month. An obvious answer is she is playing fast and loose with the facts. The whole thing reeks of unscholarly writing on her part.

Ward20 09:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a point of contention? The MRF says that 95% of people who think they have Morgellons have been diagnosed with DOP. Anti-psychotics are a standard treatment for DOP. Koblenzer's articles are about Morgellons, and she has diagnosed them with DOP. This does not mean that Morgellon IS DOP, it just mean that people who think they have Morgellons generally get diagnosed with DOP. The question of if thousands of doctors are making the wrong diagnosis is another matter, but the facts are that DOP is the most common diagnosis, and so standard treatments for DOP are often applied to Morgellons patients.
The articles DO discuss treating with antipsychotics, Murase says "After taking cultures and a biopsy, I reassured her that there were no bacterial, fungal, or parasitic infections. I emphasized that I did not doubt the authenticity of the sensations she was experiencing, and I empathized with how disconcerting it must be to feel bugs crawling and stinging her skin. I explained that sometimes medications that psychiatrists use to calm nerve signals help patients with Morgellons disease. She is currently on the anti-psychotic risperidone, followed by both dermatology and psychiatry. As is the case with the majority of patients with delusions of parasitosis, she ill likely need antipsychotic medications long-term to keep her disease under control.", and Koblenzer I quoted before.
I personally don't think it's a good idea to equate DOP and Morgellons, since there are often physical symptoms involved, and people don't understand DOP, and think it's just a mental illness. But the fact is that many dermatologists and the popular press portray it that way, and the that portrayal should be talked about Herd of Swine 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is presently the article does not state facts variable by sources.

Ward20 06:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The article states plenty of verifiable facts, and just because you don't like the Koblenzer's conclusions does not make it any less viable a citation! WP is about what people say about Morgellons - and Koblenzer's opinion about it is JUST as verifiable, if not more so, than Randy Wymore's, Mary Leitao's and any of the other people cited in the article, because it is backed up by a clinical study; the ONLY difference is that she has equated DP and Morgellons, and she is entitled to do so, and entitled to be cited as such. PLEASE do not keep deleting the reference. Dyanega 09:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my statement was worded badly. It should have said: The point is presently the WP article makes assertions of facts with references that are not varifiable within the references. Koblenzer's article(s) very simply do not say Morgellons has been successfully treated or cured (she never specifically states she treated any patient with Morgellons, her letters are full of inference and innuendo) with the antipsychotic medication Olanzapine or Pimozide. Any information that is wrong in the WP article does not belong there. The text I deleted said, "one study published in the American Academy of Dermatology has demonstrated that patients can be cured using Pimozide." What was wrong (letter is not study, wrong Journal, letter did not demonstrate that patients can be cured using Pimozide). The reference can stay if the information attributable to the reference is verifiable (and by verifiable I mean the reference supports what is presented in WP), otherwise not.

I do not know which study you are refering to, could you please elaborate?, "Koblenzer's opinion about it is JUST as verifiable, if not more so, than Randy Wymore's, Mary Leitao's and any of the other people cited in the article, because it is backed up by a clinical study."

Ward20 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you really want to move Randy Wymore?

Belongs in Nature Medicine news article which is it's source.

It still cites the source. Dyanega 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Randy Wymore, former director of the Morgellons Research Foundation, claims that Morgellons patients have masses of dark fibers visible at 60x magnification under the unbroken skin, while unaffected individuals do not. "That took away any possibility that this was not a real thing," Wymore says.

His citation is included with the other citations from the MRF, as is appropriate, not in the paragraph discussing medical opinions (his is not a medical opinion). Dyanega 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But anyone can have a medical opinion. What weight it carries in what forum is a different debate.

Let's not get into that debate, Wymore's statement is more an opinion of what he physically observed then it is a medical opinion. Herein is a central crux of Morgellons. Are there real fibers under and coming out of the skin of patients? His is one (1) published opinion of a scientific observation of that phenomena. It is a data point and nothing more. The differing opinions expressed in letters and studies are also data points. If the data points are presented in a non biased manner, hopefully a truer picture of Morgellons will be revealed.

As to the discussion of what is or is not appropriate in the the paragraph: I would like to point out the phrase quoted in the WP paragraph, "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, in which people become irrationally convinced that they harbor parasites.", was a statement by the author, Nature correspondent Emma Marris, who is a reporter. In addition, no doctor quoted in the Nature Medicine news article said Morgellons patients have common skin illnesses or psychological disorders. And, she included Wymore's statement as a counterpoint to the doctors that talked about "patients with symptoms similar to Morgellons" and "those with parasitic delusions".

Therefore, Wymore's statement rightfully belongs after the Nature Medicine news article "Most dermatologists....."

Ward20 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not conceal authors' identities and affiliations

The recent edits by Ward20 removed statements indicating to readers when the authors of cited works belong to the MRF. When a quote comes from an unreliable source, then this should be made clear to the readers. From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The authors in question are therefore, by definition, not reliable sources, and so it is essential that readers be alerted whenever these unreliable sources are being quoted. Otherwise, WP policy would support the exclusion of any such references in the first place, and I'm sure that this would be considered similarly unacceptable to the present editor. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the MRF is to be treated as a reliable source, then how exactly is it factually incorrect to indicate when the authors of an article belong to the organization? If it is not factually incorrect, there is no reason to delete the information. They are not - demonstrably not - being "singled out"; throughout the article, most of the authors of various cited works are named, and their affiliations stated. Given the pattern of edits thus far, I find it hard to assume that Ward20's removal of statements regarding MRF affiliation represents a good faith edit, and I maintain that it is in violation of WP policy.

I will offer further support for my stance here, again quoting from WP policy on "Sourcing and attribution" from WP:FRINGE:

"While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement." And similarly: "Including ... a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view."

If quotes from MRF researchers and board members are not attributed to them, when they are EXTREMELY controversial, as in the present case, then they are not being properly contextualized, and are instead being endorsed. It must be made clear that these are, in fact, statements made from a particular point-of-view. Dyanega 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Discussion
I am extremely sad Dyanega said, "I find it hard to assume that Ward20's removal of statements regarding MRF affiliation represents a good faith edit, and I maintain that it is in violation of WP policy."
The 01:25, 18 June 2007 Dyanega reversion of my text says: the article (peer reviewed) was published by members of the Morgellons Research Foundation in the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology., is not correct. My text said: an article (peer reviewed) published by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, is correct, and in fact the MFR did not publish this article but were the authors.
My sentence, "discusses reasons why Morgellons and delusional parasitosis are not the same. It (the article) states: "Morgellons disease may be linked to an undefined infectious process"., was changed with weasel words by Dyanega to: "discusses reasons why they believe Morgellons and delusional parasitosis are not the same. They suggest: "Morgellons disease may be linked to an undefined infectious process".
The phrase "reasons why Morgellons and delusional parasitosis are not the same" implies that they are NOT the same, but this has not been established independently; it is an opinion and is not indicated to be such, as it should be, to comply with NPOV. Dyanega 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
My text: Researchers in the article published by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology used a different treatment: was changed by Dyanega to: MRF researchers used a different treatment:
At the end of my original text one researcher was singled out in the 01:25, 18 June 2007 Dyanega reversion by the addition of: One of the MRF researchers who co-authored this article is also the President of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS).
Dyanega argues above, The authors in question (MRF) are therefore, by definition, not reliable sources, but stated WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process".
I believe a peer reviewed article published by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology is a reliable source, and they believed the authors were reliable and authoritative. The article was published as a peer reviewed article as I have discussed previously. No reliable sources in the article state the MRF authors are untrustworthy, or not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
If you wish to get into the professional careers of Raphael Stricker and Ginger Savely, and the various things that make them untrustworthy sources, that is beyond the scope of what needs to be put into the body of the article itself, but it is all a matter of public record. Just off the top of my head, Savely had her practice in Texas shut down, and Stricker has been federally sanctioned (in 1993) for falsification of data (http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/newsletters/vol1_no2.pdf). I think these sorts of things constitute evidence that the authors are "untrustworthy" - or do you interpret falsification of data some other way? As for authoritative, I certainly don't see what credentials Leitao or Wymore have regarding dermatology. Dyanega 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The disciplinary action of Dr. Stricker is indeed a black mark against him, and the ORI prohibited him from publishing from 1993 to 1996. But that does not necessarily mean his present article is untrustworthy. Since the previous transgression is public record, the present article should have been very carefully reviewed by the peer review board of the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology. They published the article and there are no reliable sources that state the article is flawed.
Savely should not be demeaned by an off the top of my head statement. I believe she did not have a practice that was shut down. As a Nurse practitioner, the doctor she worked under could not support her controversial treatment of a controversial disease. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Many doctors that treat another controversial illness (chronic Lyme disease) with long term antibiotics sometimes find their practice questioned by medical review boards.
And the fact that medical review boards, national health agencies, and medical professionals condemn these treatments and the people practicing them does NOT indicate to you that there is reason to question what they are doing and saying? Do you believe the doctor who she had worked for would have fired her if he thought she was trustworthy? Maybe you and I have a very different idea of what the evidence indicates. Dyanega 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That is for the informed reader to decide, not an editor that wants to side with the establishment. No doubt about it, I do believe you and I have a very different idea of what the evidence indicates.
Ward20 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as credentials Leitao or Wymore have regarding dermatology, of course they are not qualified to speak on the broad topic of dermatology. They are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, "Morgellons". I would like to remind you of Augusto and Michaela Odone, two parents in a relentless search for a cure for their son Lorenzo's adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD). As a final point, Dermatologists are diagnosing DP and prescribing psychotropic drugs for a mental illness, also somewhat out of their specialty.
Ward20 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Leitao is "authoritative" regarding Morgellons in the same manner as L. Ron Hubbard being "authoritative" regarding Scientology; that is exactly why her opinion represents a conflict of interest. She named it, she promotes it, and she heads a non-profit organization that solicits public donations on the premise that her claims regarding it are truthful. As a final point, neither she nor Wymore are MD's - dermatologists ARE. They're entitled to write prescriptions. Dyanega 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Leitao is "authoritative" regarding Morgellons in the same manner as Augusto and Michaela Odone. They did not name it but their child had it, they conducted and promoted research, and they headed a non-profit organization that solicits public donations. The premise is "The goals of the Morgellons Research Foundation are to increase funding for research, and to find a cure for Morgellons disease."[13]
Dermatologists are entitled to write prescriptions. My point is they are obligated to write them for conditons in which they have knowledge. Most dermatologists are not experts in the field of mental illness.
Ward20 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
But Dyanega says, They are not reliable and, "that readers be alerted whenever these unreliable sources are being quoted", but, They are not - demonstrably not - being "singled out"; throughout the article.
It seems to me the MRS are being singled out, and in the revision being discussed, the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology references minimized, and the author affiliations substituted.
Dyanega states above: "throughout the article, most of the authors of various cited works are named, and their affiliations stated."
I count 7 papers cited from journal articles and only the MRF article affiliates authors with an organization.
"Stephen Stone, president of the American Academy of Dermatology" certainly looks like an affiliation to me, as does "Dan Rutz, spokesman for the CDC Morgellons task force" and "The website of the Bohart Museum of Entomology, of the University of California, Davis". Other than that, if any of the other authors/sources has an organizational affiliation, you are more than welcome to add the information. That is no reason for deleting existing information. Dyanega 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As a final point, I would like to add, I edited and replaced non- referenced material with NPOV second source referenced material from the Mayo Clinic. My edit was reverted by Dyanega with no explanation or discussion.
Only for a matter of minutes; you will note that I immediately restored that deleted text! Dyanega 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe I am owed an apology, and my 22:11, 17 June 2007 Ward20 edit should be restored.
The one edit WAS restored. Dyanega 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ward20 04:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Peer review does not mean something is correct or true. While it is a useful indication of the relative quality of an article, it does not confer it any kind of absolute inerrancy or assurance of lack of conflict of interest. Of course the article would not state the MRF authors were untrustworthy, since the authors were the founder and board members of the MRF! This is very important to note, as this opionion article, and other information from the MRF, forms the basis of all other descriptions of the Morgellons list of symptoms. Morgellons has been defined by these few people (Leitao, Stricker, Savely), and they have conflicts of interest. Why would you want to hide that? Herd of Swine 07:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Herd of Swine,
That is an interesting generalization, but can you cite any reliable sources that specifically state the article in question, The Mystery of Morgellons Disease Savely, Leitao & Stricker, published by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 2006, 7(1): 1–5. has conflicts of interest or is inaccurate? If not, then the article should be accorded the respect of a peer reviewed article published by medical journal.
You also accuse Leitao, Stricker, Savely of conflicts of interest. This is a serious charge without citing reliable sources that prove this allegation. Can you cite any?
Ward20 04:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Citations? Leitao is the Executive Director of the MRF; that is as direct a conflict of interest as one can POSSIBLY imagine. If Morgellons is determined to be a hoax, she might even go to jail. Stricker is the President of ILADS, and specifically claims, in the article, that Morgellons patients should be tested for Lyme Disease, and benefit from Lyme treatment; that stands to profit ILADS, and - since Stricker and Savely both still see patients - stands to increase the number of patients they personally are seeing (I have even communicated with a Morgellons patient who is seeing Savely - and guess how she wound up at Savely's door?). In other words, promotion of Morgellons as a novel condition stands to put money in every one of their pockets AND enrich the organizations they are the heads of. That is the very textbook definition of "conflict of interest", and therefore exactly what WP policy indicates is NOT a "reliable source". Dyanega 22:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Using that criteria, the Koblenzer, Murase, Bohart Museum of Entomology, and Stephen Stone text should not be used because promotion of Morgellons as DP enriches their own pockets and their profession by suggesting Morgellons patients see dermatology/entomologists instead of infectious disease specialists. It seems to me the argument is one sided.
I believe the WP policy you are talking about (not completely sure as you did not cite) applies to editors not sources.
Ward20 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Someone changed the lead section from the old summary, to a chunk of text from the Mayo page. I reverted this. See Wikipedia:Lead_section for reasons why. It could still do with some work (as could the entire article, which is getting very messy). Herd of Swine 00:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Herd of Swine,
I read the Wikipedia:Lead_section, and the present introduction satisfies that criteria as well as presenting the information that was in the un-referenced text.
There are now two NPOV second sources that are above reproach comprising the introduction . It seems to me that that is the best way of handling a controversial subject. If you revert them back to un-sourced material please specifically explain why. Do you believe the CDC and the Mayo Clinic are presenting the information in a biased fashion or have a conflict of interest?
Ward20 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Ward20 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The lead section is not meant to be a place where you simply quote two large chunks of copyrighted text. It's a place to summarize this article. The previous lead did this quite well. The lead only need sourcing if it is material that is not explained further in the article itself. If you think the CDC and Mayo material is good source material, then you should re-write it in your own words, and then reference it. Wikipedia articles do not consist of a list of quotes. See, for example, the article on Chronic fatigue syndrome. Herd of Swine 21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And actually, looking more at the CFS lead, that's a very good model for what the Morgellons lead should be. I'll have a go at writing it like that if nobody objects? Herd of Swine 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to state the symptom list should be NPOV and say what Morgellons patients actually complain about. The CDC's list "cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision" is NPOV. The words cognitive dysfunction, emotional effects, formication, are biased toward the mental illness view.
Ward20 02:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Those symptoms are symptoms of many physical illnesses. Formication is generally ONLY caused by physical causes and is simply a short way of saying what the CDC says: "crawling, biting, and stinging sensations" = "formication". The actual list on the MRF site contains many other "mental" things (including bipolar illness and obsession). I'm not sure what basis you have for preferring the CDC list over the MRF list? Should the CDC's word on Morgellons always be given weight over the MRF in all situations? I feel you should report the sitation as a whole - the case definition as provided by the MRF is part of the story - but how should it be included?
Herd of Swine 06:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Herd of Swine states:
Formication is generally ONLY caused by physical causes and is simply a short way of saying what the CDC says: "crawling, biting, and stinging sensations" = "formication".
No. is generally ONLY is a contradiction in terms. "Formication" is an "abnormal skin sensation" ie. not normal, and "The causes of formication can be both actual physical conditions, including menopause, and psychological hallucinations induced by substance abuse.", implying a judgment the CDC phrase does not imply. The text is not equal. Formication is Psychobabble!
The the case definition as provided by the MRF was inserted in the body, but has been paraphrased and cherry picked in order to present the symptoms with a mental illness bias. (I am getting tired of that tactic.)
Ward20 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you say the MRF has a conflict of interest, I would think that you might agree that the CDC text might be more NPOV. "Should the CDC's word on Morgellons always be given weight over the MRF in all situations?" Probably no, but CDC is second source and very recent. As such I would think it deserves the utmost respect.
Ward20 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive quotes

I fear this article is devolving into a mess of cherry-picked quotes that are aimed at simply bolstering the positions of the various authors. Wikipedia articles are a synthesis of sources in an encyclopedic style, intended to give the best current understanding of a subject from a neutral point of view. For Morgellons, this should a description of what Morgellons is (a condition defined by a list of symptoms), background (the history of the Morgellons Research Foundation), current state of research (CDC planning to do something & OSU having Randy Wymore) and a description of the controversy (dermatologists say it is nothing new, just re-labeling of existing conditions, patients and a few doctors disagree). This should all be do-able without quotes, and simply referencing things. It can only be done, however, if we stick to a neutral point of view.

The idea is not to fight, trying to present one side or another. This is not the place to debate if Morgellons has a distinct cause or not. Here we should simply describe the agreed-upon facts, which includes describing the controversy. This requires some clean-up of the article, removing needless quotes, and paraphrasing them if they contain relevant information.

Regarding the lead section, I think the CDC page describes Morgellons very well, but that's not the entire scope of the article, and while a short paraphrasing of the CDC page would be appropiate, the history, research and controversy need to be included. Herd of Swine 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading your first sentence I assume you do believe the CDC and Mayo Clinic quotes were biased. The referenced quotes you removed were NPOV and covered more of the scope of the article than the non-referenced and biased material you replaced it with. The referenced quotes should be the starting point.
Ward20 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the CDC page is very reasonable, and could be used as a basis for a description of the current understanding of Morgellons. The Mayo page also contains some very reasonable points, but also repeats a lot of MRF information that is unfounded. The problem is if you pick and choose quotes from either you could tilt the article when you should be reporting the subject as a whole, not arguing for one position or another. The point is that quotes are not the way you report something. You need to synthesize a new article, in your own words, from the referenced sources.
Herd of Swine 06:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are quotes throughout the article. The quotes from the CDC and the Mayo clinic should be added back to the intro.

I'm saying there are too many quotes. There are lots of quotes that need removing, and their material incorporating into the article. Herd of Swine 16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The unsigned paragraph above was not mine to make things clear. I believe the excessive amount of quotes are coming from the fact that weasel words and non factual information seem to be finding their way into paragraphs that are cited. I am using quotes to keep original information from having bias inserted and out of context text used. I ask you again, please explain how following second source information from the CDC and Mayo Clinic tilts the article as you allege above. Color what your think is biased below in red if you will. Then maybe we can work on that to get a consensus NPOV.
The CDC calls the conditon an unexplained dermopathy and, "Persons who suffer from this unexplained skin condition report a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision.
The etiology of this condition is unknown, and the medical community has insufficient information to determine whether persons who identify themselves as having this condition have a common cause for their symptoms or share common risk factors.
To assist in learning more about this condition, CDC plans to conduct an epidemiologic investigation and has convened a multidisciplinary working group to provide guidance on the design of the investigation. The goals of the investigation are to better characterize the clinical and epidemiologic features of this condition and to generate hypotheses about factors that may cause or contribute to sufferers’ symptoms."[1]


The Mayo Clinic states: "Morgellons disease isn't widely recognized as a medical diagnosis." And, "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."[2]'
Ward20 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons moved to "Delusions of Parasitosis and psychiatric quackery"

The "morgellons" article is no longer about a multisystemic disease with marked dermal manifestations. It has become a place for badly vetted, quack psychiatric ideas to metastasize. The entire article needs a complete rewrite, starting with all the current information that is known about the disease. The psychiatric quackery discussion should occur in a page called "Morgellons Controversy" just like the opposing ILADS vs. IDSA viewpoints are featured in a "Lyme Controversy" page.

Please note that the CDC's effort to study Morgellons occurs within the CDC's "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases" NOT the "center for delusional parasitosis and quack psychiatry"

http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/

The above site was created 6/12/2007. Perhaps the people that keep defacing the wiki with a bunch of psychiatric quackery need to take a look at the current state of affairs in the Morgellons world. Here is an excerpt from the aforementioned CDC page:

............

Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")

Introduction

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received an increased number of inquiries regarding an unexplained skin condition that some refer to as “Morgellons.” Persons who suffer from this unexplained skin condition report a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision.

The etiology of this condition is unknown, and the medical community has insufficient information to determine whether persons who identify themselves as having this condition have a common cause for their symptoms or share common risk factors.

To assist in learning more about this condition, CDC plans to conduct an epidemiologic investigation and has convened a multidisciplinary working group to provide guidance on the design of the investigation. The goals of the investigation are to better characterize the clinical and epidemiologic features of this condition and to generate hypotheses about factors that may cause or contribute to sufferers’ symptoms.

............

It is my understanding that the CDC task force is now headed by a veterinarian. When's the last time you took your pet to a veterinarian concerned about parasites and came back with a diagnosis "your dog is delusional"?? Actually, if the psychiatric quacks had their way, they'd want the vet to accuse the pet owner of "munchhausens by proxy"

People bandying around psychiatric terms should actually know something about psychiatry. What would the entomologist that keeps defiling this wiki know about psychiatry?

NielsMayer 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NielsMayer, you move was highly inappropriate, and has been reverted. We welcome constructive edits and discussions regardless of your own point of view, so long as the edits conform to the neutral point of view. I hope you can contribute to the article in a way that fits with Wikipedia policy, since you obviously know quite a lot about Morgellons. Herd of Swine 17:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
the center is headed by a vet72.231.181.60 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My disagreement with "speedy removal" of move from Morgellons->Delusions of Parasitosis and Psychiatric Quackery

The "Morgellons" page is complete garbage and needs a rewrite. The current contents of "Morgellons" best fits under the rubric of "Delusional Parasitosis and quack psychiatry." The page is a completely one-sided piling on of half-baked psychiatric nonsense in an attempt to distract people from a real disease... this is reminiscent of the decades of accusations against Gulf War Veterans suffering from "Gulf War Syndrome" as malingerers and headcases, which prevented or delayed treatment in hundreds of thousands of people from getting proper treatment for a mycoplasma infection.

Is wikipedia really the place to promote misinformation that leads to non-treatment or treatment delays in people suffering from a real disease?

Howcome the bogus psychiatric viewpoints are presented as medical facts, rather than the opinions of doctors and psychiatrists who receive big-pharma kickbacks for needlessly addicting patients to expensive, non-generic psychotropics like Zyprexa and Risperdal. Meanwhile, opposing viewpoints from within the psychiatric community are censored on ths wiki: e.g., http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/11/24-b

Please note that the CDC's effort to study Morgellons occurs within the CDC's "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases" NOT the "center for delusional parasitosis and quack psychiatry"

http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/

The above site was created 6/12/2007. Perhaps the people that keep defacing the wiki with a bunch of psychiatric quackery need to take a look at the current state of affairs in the Morgellons world. Here is an excerpt from the aforementioned CDC page:

Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")

Introduction

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received an increased number of inquiries regarding an unexplained skin condition that some refer to as “Morgellons.” Persons who suffer from this unexplained skin condition report a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision.

The etiology of this condition is unknown, and the medical community has insufficient information to determine whether persons who identify themselves as having this condition have a common cause for their symptoms or share common risk factors.

To assist in learning more about this condition, CDC plans to conduct an epidemiologic investigation and has convened a multidisciplinary working group to provide guidance on the design of the investigation. The goals of the investigation are to better characterize the clinical and epidemiologic features of this condition and to generate hypotheses about factors that may cause or contribute to sufferers’ symptoms.

It is my understanding that the CDC task force is now headed by a veterinarian. When's the last time you took your pet to a veterinarian concerned about parasites and came back with a diagnosis "your dog is delusional"?? Actually, if the psychiatric quacks had their way, they'd want the vet to accuse the pet owner of "munchhausens by proxy"

People bandying around psychiatric terms should actually know something about psychiatry. What would the entomologist that keeps defiling this wiki know about psychiatry?"

NielsMayer 17:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NielsMayer, cutting and pasting the same large block of text (above) is not a very useful response. The CDC group is not headed by a veterinarian, they say "The working group consists of experts in chronic diseases, dermatology, environmental health, epidemiology, infectious diseases, mental health, and pathology". I think you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and I recommend you read Wikipedia:NPOV before proceeding. Herd of Swine 18:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem with symptoms section

The symptoms and diagnosis section was recently replaced by ward20 (talk · contribs) with the entire text from http://morgellons.org/case.htm, morgellons.org clear states "No part of this website may be reproduced without expressed written permission from the Morgellons Research Foundation."[25]. It seems copying an entire page is a breach of copyright, and not what Wikipedia is about. I reverted that section. I don't think that the entire list of symptoms needs to be there anyway. Really all that is needed are the key symptoms, (itching, lesions, fibers in the skin and malaise) Herd of Swine 16:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressed the issue.
Ward20 20:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose putting section on Delusional parasitosis below section on Morgellons theories and research

This should be subordinate to theories and research because it is one of the theories. I wanted to get discussion because it is a large change.

Actually there are only two mainstream theories at this point, I think I may work on that point in lead and background.

Ward20 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there are many different conditions that medical professionals believe have been called "Morgellons" - DP is just ONE of the diagnoses, and the most common. It would be completely misleading to claim that there are ONLY two possible diagnoses, when there are so many. Where it is placed right now is quite important, because it directly compares the symptoms described for Morgellons with the symptoms of other conditions that Morgellons is believed to be confused with, and focuses on the most important symptoms, those associated with DP. Dyanega 07:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I did state mainstream theories not diagnoses. I believe the most important symptoms you are talking about boil down to two basic theories. Do the skin manifestations and fibers fall into the category of DP, or is a new emerging disease generating the skin manifestations and fibers?
If that's what you mean then no, that's not the "mainstream theory" - the theory is that MOST cases of Morgellons are DP, but that there are a long list of other conditions that people are also calling Morgellons, ALL of which are known medical conditions. The only inexplicable twist is the claims of fibers. But have you read the quotes from the various CDC people? After more than 5 years, they have yet to receive a single fiber sample from someone OTHER than a patient - in other words, no fibers that have been removed from a patient by a doctor not affiliated with the MRF. Since the only symptom that would make Morgellons qualify as a new disease is the fibers, it does seem rather significant that no one has ever proven they exist - and we're talking about dermatologists who say they've seen up to 75 such patients. It's sort of hard to support a theory when there is no tangible evidence after 5 years searching. You do realize that all the people at the MRF would have to do is bring in ONE patient with fibers in their flesh, for examination by independent medical professionals, in order to vindicate their claims? Dyanega 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I said theories (plural). Like it or not, more and more people and medical professionals believe Morgellons may be unlike anything known before. Even Stephen Stone says "But admittedly, there are some that did not. I guess you have to keep an open mind to the possibility that something is going on." If I follow your argument correctly, you have stated all Morgellons patients have either DP or a known medical condition. I don't understand how that statement can be supported logically. You can not know what is under a rock until you lift it up and look. Even then the evidence you seek might not be seen.
The text in this 2005 article, "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,...But we need a clinically appropriate sample. So far, she says, they've only received samples sent in by patients.", speaks volumes. The CDC deems samples sent in by patients worthless to examine, (and from her statement they didn't, not even out of curiosity), even if it might be a fiber that is unique. Even more telling is that after more than a year after announcing a study would be conducted, the CDC has yet to send even one investigator to watch any Morgellons medical practitioner (that believes Morgellons is a new emerging disease) to examine the skin of even one patient. I would also like to see a letter or instruction from the CDC in response to an inquiry by a medical professional on exactly how a clinically appropriate Morgellons sample can be submitted to the "available CDC laboratories". I can easily believe that after a number of years the CDC has not gotten around to looking at a fibers if there is no practical way to submit them.
If you state who the independent medical professional is that has the stature to vindicate the Morgellons reserchers claims, and will examine the skin of a Morgellons patient with 30 X magnification, and does not believe Morgellons patients are delusional before they see them, the Morgellons reseachers could probably arrange to have ten patents to their office within a week.
Ward20 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
But I do understand your point about contrasting the diagnoses. It is a complex symptomatology and there could be many diagnoses, either alone or in combination. When a person has AIDS or diabetes for example, many different diagnoses can be involved. It is rare a serious illness has a single diagnosis.
Ward20 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ward20 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifying an absence

I think the point about there not being any published records of analysis of Morgellons fibers is quite verifiable - in exactly the same way that one can verify that no one has published a chemical profile of the blood of Bigfoot, or published an analysis of the bones of the Loch Ness Monster; there are such a limited number of references to the topic, that one can easily examine all of them, and see what is and is not present in the source material. The only claim ever made regarding testing of Morgellons fibers was that the Tulsa Police supposedly compared them to fibers in their database, but no actual results were published - and Savely herself has stated "There is preliminary information that the fibers are made of cellulose, but this information has neither been formally studied, nor confirmed." I would cosider that an adequate citation to the lack of chemical analysis, wouldn't you? In fact, I'll go ahead and add the quote now. Dyanega 07:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong on both counts. See Burden of evidence[26]
The Savely quote does not prove your point. She said, "this information has neither been formally studied, nor confirmed", and was talking about "preliminary information that the fibers are made of cellulose", and only that information. It was not a global statement.
Ward20 05:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.