Talk:Morgellons/Archive5

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

Preserving the original meaning of quoted sources

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

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

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


Regarding the use of quoted sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are reading FAR more into the edit than there was thought behind it - I had intended to place the second of the two sentences of additional text separately in the "Research and Theories" section, near the passages about fibers, and decided against it, opting to concatenate with the preceding sentence regarding patients' concerns, and insert the result in the "Background" section - I found myself with two fragments from within a much larger quote, and I simply didn't bother to fill in the intervening text, nor the line following. I can see your thought process, but your "cherry-picking" theory is NOT the explanation. It's called LAZINESS. Believe it or not, I'm perfectly happy having the entire passage quoted. It is a VERY significant and authoritative quote. Dyanega 03:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I hope you saw that I did not refer to your name in my comment. I did not intend it as a comment about you personally and if it came across that way, I apologize. I've now changed the title of this talk page section to a more neutral topic heading. --Parsifal Hello 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I also am fine with the whole text being there, I'm just a little uncertain about the usage of huge quotes on Wikipedia. Seems like this articles has a lot of them, which seems a bit unusual. What's the normal guidance here? Herd of Swine 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a good point that ideally they would be shorter and we would interweave sections of the quotes within the text of the article. The footnotes can sometimes contain longer quotes in small type for additional context if needed (especially for quoting books that are not accessible on the web).
But for now as a temporary solution I think the long-ish quotes are OK and even necessary, because of the wide POV differences we're attempting to harmonize. In the long run, yes they should be more integrated. If we try to do that by directly editing the quoted sections now, I'm concerned that many reverts and increased tension might result.
Maybe a way to integrate the quotes better would be to write those sections in advance here on the talk page before editing them on the main page. When there is consensus that we have a fair NPOV version of a paragraph regarding a particular reference, we could ask for clear approval by editors first, then move the new paragraph into place to replace the plain quotation on the main page. That could be a good way to build some bridges and help this process move from conflict to collaboration. --Parsifal Hello 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I know what you're saying, though I'm not so sure that will work; as long as the quotes are verbatim, no one can dispute them very much. It seems that much of the strong difference of opinion here is from interpretations of what the various sources are actually saying - there's too much OR going on, in effect. The less actual quote, and the more paraphrase, the more room there is to insert bias, or be accused of inserting bias (and you'll note that my response to yours did include a smiley - I understood that you were not trying to offend me, and no apology was needed). To the extent possible, it may be better - when the topic is this contentious - to let the readers look at the actual source statements, and draw their own conclusions. Dyanega 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me, l like the full quotations too in this kind of situation. I was replying to Herd's concern, and we may find that some Wikipedians look for the more prose-like style. Personally, I prefer the best accuracy and if that means some longer quotes, I don't see that as a problem. --Parsifal Hello 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias of article

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

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

I agree with the changes as proposed. The article was much less biased last week. It has lost its NPOV. Mrytle 13:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
— Myrtle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I strongly disagree with point 1, and mildly disagree with point 3. There were only 2 of the edits when I started reverting, and checking the CDC reference (which was not sourced at any time during the sequence of edits. I consider it disputed that what the CDC calls Morgellons is the same thing as what the MRF calls Morgellons. The MRF's "definition" seems to predominate, so the CDC definition does not belong in the lead. Some of the other changes seem acceptable, but the lead is much better as it was. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I first read this article two weeks ago. At that time, I came away with the impression that Morgellons may or may not be a new disease, that the disease is being investigated by the CDC. Reading the introduction and background section this morning, I came away with the impression that the disease in definately not new and most likely DOP. However, there are numerous cites within the article that contradict this, which creates a confusing, disjointed article. It seems like today's version is trying to persuade the reader that the disease is delusional, despite significant evidence that this is not the case. I don't understand why the article was changed in this way. Mrytle 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I disagree with your assessment of the article (and of the subject), but I can see where it's reasonable that this be your first edit. I would like to point out that the user who started this section has shown lack of understanding of some Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it does seem possible he would create what we call sock puppets to show support for his viewpoint. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The nature article quotes all belong together in the same section. You can't put the DOP quote in the background and relegate the rest to theories. (I am familiar with sock puppets and I do not know Myrtle nor am I Myrtle. Is that that hard to believe that someone would agree with me? I am a female BTW.) If someone can explain why the three statement from Nature should be split up -- they need to do so in the discussion page first. Pez1103 15:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is that hard to believe that someone would agree with you as their first edit, rather than making a comment which hadn't had any previous editorial support. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
On the whole, I've found most "first edit"s to be disagreeing with someone, rather than agreeing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can just add it to the list of accusation that have been directed at me as I've tried to make this article more neutral. Editors seem to have a hard time with anyone who doesn't agree that the idea that Morgellons is DOP. I could say that all the people who believe that it is DOP are meat puppets. Pez1103 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The finding of the Tulsa police were in the psychology today article and the primetime live special. You cannot impose a different requirement (needs to be peer reviewed) on this information that is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Casey has no affilation with the MRF, never did. Pez1103 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the Casey material could really be described as a "follow-up", but it's interesting that she seems to be describing the patients as ALL having something like "foot drop" or "sagging mouth", which is not really described anywhere else. That seems a little out of keeping with other observations, and not even mentioned by any the CDC sources - it's almost as if she describing something different. Should it be kept to show the varied observations and theories, or removed as unverifiable? Herd of Swine 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And Casey has a connection to the MRF, in that she worked directly with their then Director of Research, Randy Wymore, and is the co-signer in the MRF's letter to physicians [1]. Herd of Swine 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the Tulsa information should be included in the article. It has been important in the reporting on this matter, whether it was scientifically done or not, and thus would merit inclusion on the basis of being cited by reliable sources, in this case the national media. Exactly where and how to include it, however, is another matter. John Carter 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Rhonda Casey's online CV doesn't list any scientific publications that have appeared under her own name. This is curious; I assume she has some. I could not find any of her work in Pubmed, typing "Casey R"[Author], though I found a lot of other people named R. Casey. She is an osteopathic physician rather than a medical doctor, but you would assume she would still show up somewhere in the literature. At least, she must have written internal reports since she participates in research projects. If she has no peer-reviewed publications, or very few, then I vote to omit the Casey material from our article, especially since our article doesn't say she had the help of a medical doctor in her informal study of the Morgellons patients. EdJohnston 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the PT article says that Casey is a pediatrician. Are you implying that Casey should be excluded because she works with someone who used to be an unpaid volunteer on the MRF scientific advisory board? Regarding Casey's observations of neuro symptoms, this is consistent with the MRF defintion. It is also consistent with the CDC's RFQ which says that they will be testing subjects for neuro symptoms. Imposing the requirement that Tulsa police or Casey's observations must be peer reviewed to be included is inconsistent with the rest of the article and wiki rules as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pez1103 (talk • contribs). 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Casey is listed as the head of a pediatrics department, but she is an osteopath. (Read her CV). That is not a disqualifier but it does change her credentials somewhat. Her (indirect) connection to MRF is a large enough issue to be disclosed as a conflict of interest when submitting a paper to a medical journal. However, curiously, she does not seem to have any such papers. Wikipedia does have a provision in our policy that we sometimes accept less-formal writings by recognized experts, i.e. we can use their personal web sites as a source for certain information even though not formally published. I don't see that Casey has any recognition by her scientific peers, at least as expressed in reviewed articles, for her ability to diagnose neurological diseases. Herd of Swine has already noted above that her observations of 'foot drop' and 'sagging mouth' don't accord with the other reports of Morgellons. We seem to be just passing along anecdotes at this point, since there are no scientific papers to refer to. EdJohnston 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you please stop making false claims about Rhonda Casey's lack of involvement: Several osteopathic physicians were prominently featured in an ABC News Primetime episode, which aired on 8/9/06, as part of its Medical Mysteries series regarding the research of Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences on Morgellons Disease. ... The OSU-CHS research team includes: Rhonda Casey, DO, assistant professor of pediatrics; Stephen Eddy, DO, associate professor of family medicine; and Randy Wymore, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology.[2]. Do you dispute this? Casey works in the newly-inaugurated "Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences' Center for the Investigation of Morgellons Disease" under Wymore, who is its director. Do you dispute this? The Center receives money from the MRF. Do you dispute this? Casey, therefore, is receiving money from the MRF. Do you dispute this? Dyanega 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you stop attacking me personally and instead focus on the article? The MRF gave start up funding to OSU before August 2006. There is no proof that they gave money to OSU since then. The Center is very new. You would have to show that the MRF gave money to the Center. I know that you have no proof of that. Casey also observed fibers protruding from beneath the surface of the skin -- what kind of degree do you need for that? 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I am focused on the article. You are making and suggesting (or denying) changes to the article based on things which are demonstrably untrue. I am attacking the things you are saying, not YOU, and I am entitled to do so. There is proof - cited directly above - that Casey works with, and for, Wymore. She publishes reports for the MRF with him, as a matter of public record. There is proof that Wymore has been receiving money from the MRF and - evidently - is now generating his own funding. Even if you discount the money trail from the MRF to Casey, because you claim the Center is too new to have directly received any of the money sent from the MRF to OSU (which is a pretty minor technicality, since the money went to Wymore, who is the Center's director), she is still getting money from doing work on Morgellons, and is thus NOT an unbiased source. I would also like to point out the POV double-standard in your claiming that one does not need a degree to observe fibers, when you vigorously challenge the word of a prominent dermatologist who says he has done biopsies on Morgellons patients and NOT observed fibers. Dyanega 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually, looking back at the article history, you did not challenge Dr. Craft's statements directly - you simply juxtaposed them with Casey's, specifically worded as if Casey's findings REFUTED his. That was an earlier article version, and this juxtaposition has been removed. What you challenged directly was the opinion of the researchers at UC Davis, and their qualifications for making statements about fibers based on examination using a microscope (quoting you from above on this talk page): "I spoke to the director at the Bohart Museum today. He said that their study consisted of looking at fibers under a microscope." - that is no different from what Casey did, and as you said yourself, doesn't require a degree. You have also just contradicted yourself again; above, you wrote: "Casey has no affilation with the MRF, never did." and NOW you say "I don't know if any portion of this went to Casey". If you DON'T KNOW, then why are you here, arguing about the edits? As for what I'm suggesting, it's quite simple: editors are supposed to make note of sources that may not be reliable, especially when dealing with fringe science. People whose research funding - whether it's 300 or 30,000 dollars - is based on the premise that Morgellons is an "emerging infectious disease" are not what most people would consider objective, reliable sources as to whether or not Morgellons is an emerging infectious disease! ESPECIALLY when their "research" is not peer-reviewed. Making such things clear is part of what WP editors are responsible for, as part of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc. As for Dr. Uppal, some of the quotes attributed to that individual are certainly interesting: IT IS NOW SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT THE MORGELLONS DISEASE IS A MIXTURE OR COMBINATION OF MANY DIFFERENT PARASITES IN THE FAMILY OF CLM (Cutaneous Larval Migrans) PARASITES. This new information, along with confirmation from about 15 Infectious Disease Doctors from the Southern United States concludes that the Morgellons Disease (improperly named) is in fact, CLM. The CLM main worm infection is Strongyloides (s.ratti), a microscopic THREADWORM maggot- like worm parasite that lives in and on infected animals (mostly rodents) and now humans with poor immune systems or people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This skin parasite multiplies by the millions daily. This infection is both internal and external to not only the skin, but also the muscle tissue and body organs. This CLM Skin Parasites infection has also been linked to Lyme Disease and all other IMMUNOSUPPRESSED health disorders. It's origin has been linked to So. America, Africa, Asia and other third world countries. These STRONGYLOIDES parasites in the infection are joined with WHIPWORMS, HOOKWORMS, AND other PINWORMS, states Dr. Uppal of TAMPA, FL. I assume that you are requesting that this information be added to the article? The problem is that this is a for-profit enterprise that Dr. Uppal appears to be involved in, but maybe we could add the parasitic worm theory to the list if we can find a citation for Dr. Uppal's opinions (or the "15 Infectious Disease Doctors") outside of this commercial site. Dyanega 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
More personal attacks? As has been stated before by other editors -- why so much hostility directed at people who don't believe that Morgellons is DOP? I still don't think that Casey is affiliated with the MRF - she was never on any board. The MRF gave money to OSU research. My understanding is that the money went to Wymore's lab to cover the cost of the labwork. I think that we are just arguing semantics. Someone already mentioned her affiliation in the article so why do you keep bringing this up? I didn't juxtipose Noah with Casey -- Ward did before I started editing. I did challenge the significance of UC Davis' comments, they dismissed the fibers as textile based on a visual examination. When I spoke to them, UC Davis said that they were very interested in Tulsa's findings that Morgellons fibers are not textile at all, and they said that they would follow up. You cannot compare an entomologist comparing fibers in a bag with a doctor who is seeing the fibers coming out from beneath the skin surface or who find them underneath the skin surface. The fact that the fibers are underneath the skin is pretty darn meaningful. Casey's findings are relevant because of where she found the fibers. She didn't try to determine the composition of the fibers. She sent them to the Tulsa police who determined that they were not textile. Pez1103 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Where have I ever said that I think Morgellons is DOP? That is NOT my opinion. Herd does not believe that Morgellons is DOP, either, and you have directed hostility towards him. You have also - once AGAIN - made a statement that is contradicted: "She sent them to the Tulsa police who determined that they were not textile." According to the reports, it was Wymore who sent samples to the Tulsa Police. There is nothing anywhere to indicate that the Tulsa Police ever examined samples from Casey - or are you claiming that the samples Wymore sent to the Police were ones Casey gave him? Dyanega 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible restructuring of the article

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

I would certainly welcome a restructuring of the article -- something completely unbiased and SHORT -- this is how the CDC defines morgellons, it isn't recognized disease, the cdc is investigating, the mayo quote regarding the three prevailing opinions about the disease (infectious;mental illness;reserving judgement) -- done. that's it, and lock the article until the cdc investigation is over.
A glance at the discussion page clearly demonstrates that there has been a long history of editing wars in the article, weasel words, accusations, bias, bullying. The constant battle regarding what position is the majority position, what is fringe. This has to stop. It's an enormous waste of time for all the editors involved. I would like a completely unbiased editor to hear all the facts from both sides and come up with an article and lock it to prevent additional editing wars. Is this possible?
The fact that there are pro DOP and anti DOP articles, some doctors think it's real, some don't, and all the rest is just meaningless. We need scientific proof to either prove the disease is real or prove it is not, the rest is just speculation. Pez1103 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not meaningless in the context of the article. In fact, that's the focus of the article, because it's the focus of EVERY article on Morgellons. Every single one of the mentions that most doctors think it's something like DOP. The Wikipedia article simply reflects this, attempting a NPOV.
Regarding restructuring, I think this differs from Morphic field in that there has been a significant degree of advocacy and media campaigning on the part of the MRF, which is in itself a big part of the story. Herd of Swine 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You have just created what is known as a straw man. Those are not the three prevailing opinions. There are two prevailing opinions: (1) new ailment (2) known ailment(s). "Reserving judgment" is not an opinion - it is the ABSENCE of an opinion. Dyanega 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


In what way is the following peer-reviewed statement NOT "scientific"?: However it is certainly true that in fact many expert parasitologists, medical entomologists and other microbiologists have in fact carefully examined fibers and other materials expressed or extracted from such patients and found that biological organisms are not present. Negative data points still qualify as science. If you want the article "SHORT", as you say, how about simply limiting the citations to those from peer-reviewed publications? Dyanega 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The Mayo quote does give the position the disease may be psychological. It is enough. Over and over editors have stated that the article has to cram the idea that Morgellons is DOP down the reader’s throat in order for the article to be NPOV. I disagree. I don’t believe that the prevailing opinion is that Morgellons is DOP at all. If it were, the CDC would not be calling it an emerging public health concern, they would not mentioning reports of systemic symptoms (incompatible with DOP), they would not have been receiving calls from health care practitioners and public health departments, they would not have been invited into California by their health department last year to conduct an investigation. You want to dismiss that all as the MRF’s doing. The MRF is not that powerful. There are only 10,000 registrant families and most are too ill to speak up for themselves and have no money left to fund research. I want an unbiased article. Why not just say the truth? No one knows anything for sure. We need research. The derms who say it is DOP are making a psychiatric diagnosis – which is inappropriate in an of itself. The fact that parasitogists and entomologists haven’t found anything yet is pretty meaningless, but put it in there if you want. What if this is bacterial or fungal or viral? It doesn’t mean the disease is DOP.Pez1103 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've asked before that people not insert comments in the middle of my comments. I am asking for this courtesy again. I moved the comments accordingly Pez1103 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Pez1103, your previous comment is on the verge of making sense to me. If you are willing, I suggest you might try to rephrase what you said in a less argumentative way. Perhaps you could leave out the comment about cram the idea that Morgellons is DOP down the reader's throat because that seems incivil. I sense that there could be some bona fide annoyance among the patients who feel that they have been casually dismissed by dermatologists. Your argument that it is inappropriate for dermatologists to make a psychiatric diagnosis might be included in some way in the article. EdJohnston 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Pez, PLEASE stop using the straw man argument: "I don’t believe that the prevailing opinion is that Morgellons is DOP at all." It is a blatant misrepresentation of the prevailing opinion. The prevailing opinion, cited MULTIPLE times, is that Morgellons is a number of known medical conditions, both physical and psychological, and ONE of the psychological conditions in that list is DOP. There is a tremendous and CRUCIAL difference between that, which is the reality of the situation, and your false claim that people are saying "Morgellons is DOP". Does the term false dichotomy mean anything to you? Dyanega 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Dyanega, can you clarify your comment? Do dermatologists actually follow a diagnosis tree in which one of the possible results is DOP? Would they actually say to a patient that they have Delusional Parasitosis? Apologies if these questions have been answered previously. EdJohnston 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
A DOP diagnosis is a very difficult thing both for the patient and the doctor. Typically patients are VERY resistant to any kind of kind of psychological involvement in their disease. So doctors often dance around the subject, phrasing things differently, with the goal of getting the patient on psychotropic medication. Let's face it, telling someone "you are crazy, take this", when the patient does not think they are crazy, is generally not going to be productive. Here is an example of a doctor trying treat a Morgellons patient with empathy: [3]. "After taking cultures and a biopsy, I reassured her that there were no bacterial, fungal, or parasitic infections. I emphasized that I did not doubt the authenticity of the sensations she was experiencing, and I empathized with how disconcerting it must be to feel bugs crawling and stinging her skin. I explained that sometimes medications that psychiatrists use to calm nerve signals help patients with Morgellons disease." Herd of Swine 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Then replace the statement that the prevailing opinion is not that Morgellons is DOP with the prevailing opinion is not that Morgellons is not a new disease. Pez1103 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you rephrase that? Herd of Swine 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
More to the point, it is yet ANOTHER false dichotomy. The prevailing opinion is that Morgellons is a number of known AILMENTS - you use the word "disease" when it is not justified. I don't think anyone would ever characterize folliculitis, dermatitis, or autism as "diseases". Dyanega 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask a dermatologist who edits WP to contribute here, though I doubt there is a "national standard" regarding how to arrive at a DP diagnosis. I suspect that each doctor decides, in his or her own judgment, whether or not to inform the patient of the diagnosis. In terms of citations, about all we have to go on regarding how dermatologists treat the diagnosis issue on a personal/professional level is a series of opinion pieces published together recently in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Volume 55)[1][2][3], which Pez has repeatedly claimed cannot be cited because they were not peer-reviewed, and which recommend that dermatologists confronted with patients suffering from DP might try using the term "Morgellons" with these patients to establish rapport, and facilitate treatment. Those articles might shed some light on this question. There also used to be a citation in the article in which the reporter stated: "Dermatologists are afraid to see these patients," says Dr. Peter Lynch, professor emeritus of dermatology at the University of California, Davis. He says he has examined about 75 people with Morgellons-like symptoms in the past 35 years and believes they suffer from delusional parasitosis--literally, delusions of parasites in the skin. It's a diagnosis people don't like. One patient, threatening malpractice, convinced the state medical board to investigate Lynch. Another warned he had a pistol in the glove compartment of his truck, Lynch says. "He told me, 'I'm going to shoot the next doctor who tells me it's in my head.'"[4] Given that, I suspect many dermatologists would NOT tell a patient that they have DP. Dyanega 22:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with this matter?

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

I vote that the article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over.
(There have been no formal studies, BTW.) The harm that can be done by this article the way it is now far exceeds any benefit. Pez1103 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it qualifies for deletion, unfortunately. It would have to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and I don't think it does. John Carter 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Pez, you work as a volunteer for the MRF, an advocacy organization which is a major topic of the article; not only do your edits violate WP:COI and WP:SOAP, but - because of this - your request for deletion is (as I see Fyslee has noted) also a violation of WP:OWN policy. Dyanega 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

My edits don't violate any rules. I've just tried to make the article more neutral and I have used cites to back up anything I've added. It is hardly my own article or about me. It shouldn't even be about the MRF. It should be about a disease -- is it a newly emerging disease, or is it an existing disease or some combination thereof? What no one will acknowledge is how much harm a biased article can do. If what the MRF believes is true, if what the reports that the CDC has received are accurate, Morgellons patients have a newly emerging serious, systemic, disfiguring and disabling disease, which is not only infectious, it may be contagious. It affects thousands of children. No one knows what causes it or how to treat it. It affects entire families. Try to imagine what it would be like to have a disease like that. Try to imagine what it would be like to be Mary Letao. Imagine what it would be like to have three children come down with a horrifying disease -- to watch them get sicker and not only not be able to get any help for them, be ridiculed for trying. A biased article increases the suffering of everyone who has the disease -- by making it harder for them to get the help that they desperately need. And this is a biased article, filled with cherry picking and weasel words. What if the MRF is wrong and this is all mass hysteria? The wiki article, by its very existance, supports the idea that it is real and prepetuates the "delusion." Either way, people lose, people suffer. Mary never asked for this article, she never wanted to be a public figure -- she is just trying to get help for her children. (That is the closest I will come to a soapbox.) You can hide behind your wiki rules and cite me for everything you can think of and accuse me of whatever. The only way to prevent this article from continuing to be destructive is to either get rid of it entirely or have an unbiased editor make it completely neutral and lock it until the CDC investigation is over. I think that you cannot compare this article with pet ideas or favorite singers. There have been constant editing battles. All of it needs to stop. This isn't a game -- it's people's lives. Pez1103 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because you say you aren't violating rules does not mean that you are not. You have been asked repeatedly to familiarize yourself with the rules - it is evident that you have not done so. The passage above violates several. From WP:FRINGE: Ideas which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. If you cannot or will not accept the rules of editing, then please do not continue editing the article. Dyanega 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't loose sight of the highly unusual fibers. Morgellons is not simply the theory that a particular set of symptoms denotes a new disease. It is the theory that colored fibers are found embedded in the skin, and these fibers are one symptom of a new disease. This is not something trivial. It is something new to science, and decidedly non-mainstream. As such I think it qualifies as a fringe theory and those guidelines should be followed. Herd of Swine 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The don't agree that the idea that morgellons is a newly emerging disease is FRINGE. Pez1103 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict response)As someone who is not really involved one way or another, I would think that, at this point, it might (depending on circumstances) make sense to stress initially the fact that the CDC is soliciting for research on the subject in the intro, and then go into the various arguments for and against. I say this on two possibly faulty thoughts:
  • (1) I'm not sure about CDC actions, but do they generally solicit for such research on "fringe theories"? If the answer is no, then I'm not sure that it would qualify as such. It is of course understood that I don't actually know anything about CDC behavior one way or another.
  • (2) Also, at this point, I have qualms about maybe, maybe, mistakenly labelling something as a "fringe theory" when there is, myabe, evidence to indicate that, perhaps sometime soon (how long does the CDC take to do things once it starts them? I dunno) be proven wrong. That would hurt the credibility of wikipedia I think worse than most anything else. On that basis, and I admit my own ignorance of the subject here, I'm thinking maybe that it could be formatted like,
"Morgellons is a theory.
It states this.
This evidence supports it.
This evidence doesn't.
It has been mentioned here.
It is (or has been) investigated here.
Outside results are expected sometime soon."
Such an approach would be neutral. I do acknowledge however that I don't necessarily know all the protocols involved in scientific fringe theories, or exactly how something qualifies as one. John Carter 00:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The CDC's involvement is very interesting, as this seems to be the first time they have initiated an investigation without scientific evidence to back it up. See: [5]
The debate has grown so heated that, recently, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention got involved, and not because they wanted to. They were inundated with calls from irate people who say they have this disorder and want answers. "More typically we get a very credible indication of an emerging problem from an official source," says Dan Rutz, spokesperson for the CDC. "This was driven by lay people and some clinicians who are frustrated and not sure what to do with these folks."
So yes, normally the involvement of the CDC would lend great weight to the seriousness of a situation - but in this case it seems mostly driven by political means. The CDC don not want to investigate Morgellons, they are doing it because they have to.
I disagree with your proposed restructuring. Simply stating a theory and giving evidence for and against it ignores the majority medical opinion. And the major problem is that there actually is no evidence. Just a few anecdotes in newspaper stories. Herd of Swine 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Wikipedia does not exist to mirror articles from the Mayo clinic. That's just one source. It's a lot more complex than that.
Where did you get: "According to the CDC they have received more inquiries regarding Morgellons disease than any disease in the history of the agency" ?
Herd of Swine 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see where you got it. It used to be in the letter that you were sending to senators. That language was removed from the most recent letter [6] (which I thought you wrote?). I assume the language was removed because it was a mistake. I seem to remember the CDC saying they got about 20 calls a day. Herd of Swine 00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
See [7] "The CDC has been receiving as many as 20 calls a day from self-diagnosed Morgellons patients. " Herd of Swine 00:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The Mayo clinic quote covers your position that the disease may not be new and may be mental illness. The CDC told the MRF that they had gotten more calls regarding Morgellons than any disease in the history of the agency. Pez1103 00:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The latter is not usable unless it's on a source controlled by the CDC; the MRF web site is clearly not reliable in this instance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not using it in the article. Why is the article being blocked from new editors? Pez1103 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not about using it in the article. You are giving incorrect facts, (like, "People are dying of this disease", "It affects thousands of children" and "more calls regarding Morgellons than any disease in the history of the agency"), and this may unduly influence other editors. Please try to ensure your facts are correct before posting them, even on the talk page. If you are not 100%, then please state your uncertainty, and the source of your facts. Herd of Swine 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have mentioned before that I am a volunteer for the MRF. As such, I recieve many, many emails from people with this disease. I have seen statistics which were taken from the registration database. If I cannot share this information, fine, I will not. I didn't realize that it was prohibited from the talk page. I thought it just wasn't allowed in the article.Pez1103 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I really don't know why. I (and the bot) were just reporting the fact is was restricted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
To find this information, go to the article main page, click the history tab, then click the link just below the page title where it says "View logs for this page". --Parsifal Hello 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If it is determined that the idea that Morgellons disease is a new disease is fringe, by definition, the article should be deleted. Pez1103 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Herd. I receive emails from people who say that they believe that they are dying from the disease, that they are having seizures, etc, or that their friends or relatives died from the disease, or committed suicide, but I have no proof. I don't ask them to prove it to me. I just take their word for it. Pez1103 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

current event tag lol

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

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

Full protection

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

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

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

Someone has protected the page. Wonder who asked for that?:)Merkinsmum 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. Probably Pez1103, considering m:The wrong version. LOL. In any case, it was the same Admin who semiprotected it, so it may not have been requested at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You mean m:The Wrong Version? (not going to delete anything, as I'm not sure). Herd of Swine 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Close enough. I thought there was a shortcut to it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

The lead section

The start of the lead devolved today from:

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

To

Morgellons (also called Morgellons syndrome) is a name given by biologist Mary Leitao to a mysterious condition characterized by a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. [4] There is controversy regarding the nature of this condition. Dermatologists largely regard Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis

The long list of symptoms serves to take focus away from the fibers, which are by far and away the most discussed aspect of the disease [8]. I can see removing the reference to chronic fatigue syndrome (which only has about 90% of the secondary symptoms of Morgellons), but surely "other physical and neurological symptoms" would suffice? A long list of symptoms clutters up the lead, and is included later in much more detail.

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

I see your point but I think the mention of dermatologists makes it more clear and specific. Morgellons is said to be a skin problem, so the reaction of dermatologists would be important to know. Also I wish something could be done about the word 'mysterious' in the opening sentence, because the question is 'mysterious to whom?' There may not actually be a specific disease process (not an actual parasite, bacterium etc.) in common to the people who believe they have Morgellons. So the question is, is there a neutral way of referring to an 'alleged disease' that hasn't yet been recognized? I hope this isn't revisiting an issue you have discussed many times before. EdJohnston 03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
An aside regarding the term "mysterious": I see your point, but then again... the term is used by many of the references. Using my browser search on the article page, I count 10 uses of the word "mysterious", not including the initial lead, and if I add "mystery" as well, the total is 15, not including the lead. Those are all in the referenced quotes or the titles of the references - not in the Wiki article text itself. The condition may turn out to be psychological, or it may turn out to have an organic cause,... but either way, it does appear to be "mysterious" at least for now until science figures it out. Considering that term is used by so many sources, it seems appropriate to include it in the description in the intro (even though it sounds a bit strange). --Parsifal Hello 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Multiple chemical sensitivity is probably the closest subject on Wikipedia to Morgellons. It is subject to the same problems, advocates editing to advocate a position backed by no evidence, and rejected by the medical establishment. The article is not too bad though, and the lead works reasonably well. Note the usual long list of symptoms, the majority of which are shared with Morgellons (and CFS). Herd of Swine 04:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Another subject with similar problems is Aspartame controversy. It too is an alleged condition fueled by the efforts of one single woman who is a super activist. (She worked in a doctor's office at one time, which seems to have made her a medical expert - in her own mind.) She has thus gotten thousands of people to believe in her delusional theories (don't ever get on her mailing list or try to discuss with her, you'll regret it!). Such ideas are contagious within a certain subset of the population who are already susceptible to conspiracy theories. Their activism can then place such a burden on the health care system and on politicians that politically motivated actions akin to the current CDC investigation are necessitated. Never underestimate the power of one deluded activist. -- Fyslee/talk 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
These two articles do give some ideas for revising the lead. Multiple chemical sensitivity avoids the word 'mysterious' completely but uses the passive voice, saying '..is described as..' Aspartame controversy is the most neutral of all, saying "Aspartame has been the subject of a vigorous public controversy..." which I think is a very good style. At least this way of saying it doesn't go forward and define a syndrome, which is basically just a list of symptoms that someone made, regardless of any actual disease process that caused them. It's cheering that aspartame is so far just the 'subject of a controversy' and not even a syndrome. EdJohnston 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a good point Ed, but then again, those articles don't even have one reference using that word (I checked). Yet this article has 15 references that call it either "mysterious" or a "mystery." Do you see something inherently non-neutral about the word "mysterious"? I'm not taking a position on whether it's a physical disease or psychological,... but it does appear to be a mystery that 10,000 people perceive fibers in their skin and science has not been able yet to confirm or disprove it. I don't know about those other articles, but in this one, the mysteriousness of the condition is one of the core factors of the article. What I mean by that is: we're not deciding if it's a disease or a delusion, we're writing about what others have said about it, and lots of sources - including topmost respected source American Journal of Psychiatry used that word to describe the condition. I don't mean to make a big deal of this, but likewise, I don't see why it's a problem to include that word. --Parsifal Hello 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

I believe (and I could be wrong since I can no longer access this article) that this article in the American Journal of Psychiatry relies on two letters to the editor of a dermatology journal as a basis for this assertion. These letters were already determined not to be appropriate for inclusion in the Morgellons article. Pez1103 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Historically, with almost every single new disease, doctors have dismissed the idea that there was a new disease -- this happened with lyme, lupus, MS, AIDS, etc. Doctors diagnose known diseases. I think trying to dismiss Morgellons based on this is shortsighted. Pez1103 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. I remembered incorrectly what the article had said. It did mention "dermatology literature", not "medical literature". In addition, though, I am not trying to dismiss Morgellons. I was just trying to report that people have said that medical literature (now, dermatology literature) largely regards Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis. Saying what other reliable sources have said about the subject is exactly what Wikipedia should do (in a balanced way, of course). This doesn't dismiss the condition. It leaves it up to people to decide what they want to think about Morgellons. Sancho 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

-- or --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 6, 2007

To Whom it May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation.

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

Pez1103 13:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As others have said, the MRF don't own this article, it exists because the subject is widely discussed/controversial. It is not even entitled 'Mary Leitao' so she has no claims over it like she would if it was about her personally. This article was probably started by a morgellons believer to promulgate the beliefs of the MRF, then it has left the agenda of the believers and become more NPOV. That's the nature of wikipedia- don't start a subject unless you with it to be edited mercillessly and anything controversial about it to be mentioned. In a case of an article named after a person who has borderline noteability, that sometimes can be deleted at their request. But not an article which in the MRFs own words, tens of thousands of people are said to be effected. That's hardly just about her and her son, and she has no right to 'control' discussion of what has become a public interest issue, especially as omg! it may be a deadly infectious disease! the CDC are investigating it!----even though they're still investigating, the debate/publicity around morgellons is still noteable before their investigation is complete. That's why the CDC are investigating it. Just google the word and see how many mentions it gets- not just her and her son unfortunately.Merkinsmum 14:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
" as omg! it may be a deadly infectious disease! the CDC are investigating it!" -- I hope that this comment was not intended to mock people who believe that this is a serious disease. Pez1103 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is unsourced negative information about Mary, herself, or about the Foundation, she can petition that information to be removed, per WP:BLP. (In fact, she can do so here, either directly, or through a proxy, such as Pez1103, and it should be considered, even with the article protected.) However, the CDC RFQ makes the subject notable, so deletion of the article is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I can't find anything in wikipedia policy regarding removing sourced material of any sort one way or another, which proposal #2 seems to deal with, barring undue weight, which, given the lack of info available, I don't think can be cited here. Anyone with any more experience about that sort of thing have any ideas? John Carter 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
John - I thought that you had suggested a new approach to the article. I was trying to come up with something that would be very neutral, very concise, that could end the editing wars. I didn't know that the article could not be shortened in that way. 15:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Deciding how long an article should be and what information it should include is a matter of editorial judgement. For example, if Abe Lincoln cited every historian who has ever written about him, it would be a thousand pages long. Thatcher131 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleting the article, or locking it until the CDC investigation is over, are both contrary to Wikipedia's core philosophy, and the idea that Wikipedia would simply ignore this topic is silly. I think the current version of the article probably overquotes MRF-associated doctors. It is also overlong and not well organized, I think. Sometimes advocates want to cram in every anecdote and detail; sometimes skeptics want to counter every favorable comment with two unfavorable comments. While I think the medical consensus at this point is that Morgellons is actually a number of other skin conditions (including DP) I also found Koblenzer's editorial in the Nov 2006 JAAD to be incredibly condescending. (Unfortunately, Dr. Harvey's response in Apr 2007 was short on science and long on soapbox.)
  • If the agrobacterium abstract on the MRF web site which is currently an unreliable source (it is an abstract not published in a peer-reviewed journal and it is hosted on a partisan web site) ever makes it to press in a real journal, the situation with morgellons could change over night. Similarly, I would like to see a peer-reviewed double-blind trial of the antibiotic therapy noted by Dr. Harvery in his letter to the JAAD. In the mean time, wikipedia has an obligation to be fair to both sides. Thatcher131 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we must be fair to each side. But we must also consider Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, particularly: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Being fair does not mean presenting each side of the argument as being equally valid. Here we have on the one hand, the MRF, with five or six board members and ex-board-members (Stricker, Leitao, Savely, Harvey, Bransfield and Wymore), who are responsible for all of the literature suggesting the Morgellons is an unknown infectious disease that has fibers come out of the skin, and it is not psychological in origin, and on the other hand you have, as reported, "most doctors" and "most dermatologists", who suggest there is often a strong psychological component in addition to other known disease, and the fibers are just environment contamination. While the literature is divided, it is divided between the MRF and the medical establishment in a highly uneven manner.
Theories should be given appropriate weight. For example, there is a third theory, Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome [10] which suggests that this set of symptoms is caused by opportunistic parasitic infections caused by leaking amalgam dental fillings. There are two references in PubMed in favor of this theory (search for "amin neurocutaneous"). Should this theory be be discussed on par with the MRFs theories? Can we be "fair to both sides"? Not in their eyes - so we need an essentially impartial judge, being the acceptance of the ideas in the wider relevant academic community. Herd of Swine 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There are more than just three theories - others have been included on this page, earlier in its history, such as those of George Schwartz, but Pez objected, as follows: "And why in the world is Schwartz cited? What criteria does that meet? He's obviously off his rocker -- it's only there to mock the disease. Pez1103 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)". There are also theories linking Morgellons to nanotech and chemtrails, each of them with numerous cites from sources that are, objectively, just as reliable - in the WP sense - as the MRF (i.e., self-published websites). I'd suggest that other editors didn't fight to keep them included because of the relative lack of notability, NOT relative lack of reliability. To be completely objective about it, it is not that the MRF is the ONLY organization promoting Morgellons as an infectious disease, it is simply the most notable of the various organizations (even including National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) sponsorship!). Morgellons is fringe theory, as WP defines it (fewer than 20 medical/scientific professionals, none of them dermatologists, who claim that it is a novel dermatological condition, with no peer-reviewed clinical or lab studies to support the claim, and in direct conflict with numerous mainstream sources that say otherwise), and the MRF does not hold exclusive rights to the theory, even though (in effect) they coined the name and have proclaimed themselves the definitive authority on the subject. The appropriate weight that should be given to the MRF's definition and interpretation of Morgellons is minimal, yet it presently comprises almost the entirety of the article, largely through the effort of two dedicated editors (editors whose SOLE participation in WP is restricted to the Morgellons article), one of whom works for the MRF and has declared above that she spends 12 hours a day editing the article (which I contend is a clear violation of WP:COI; the admin who locked this article removed the COI notice from the noticeboard without resolving the COI issue). Certainly, if the CDC produces a study which supports the novelty of Morgellons, or if Citovsky proves that Morgellons is a skin disease caused by Agrobacterium, the considerations would change, but (following WP:NOT) WP is not a crystal ball - at PRESENT, there is no reason to classify it as other than fringe theory. Pez has objected to this classification, repeatedly, but I don't believe she recognizes that the classification does not - I repeat - does NOT imply that the MRF's theory is false; it simply indicates that it is a theory which has few adherents in the relevant community of experts, many opponents, and no objectively-assessed and reliably sourced supporting evidence. Dyanega 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary Leitao - Personal attacks?

Mary Leitao said, above,

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

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

In 2002, Mary Leitao's 2-year-old son developed sores under his lip and began to complain of "bugs". Leitao examined the sores and discovered "bundles of fibers" of various colors. After taking her son to at least eight different doctors, Leitao's concerns regarding fibers were dismissed, and it was suggested Leitao herself may be suffering from Munchausen's by proxy. [11] In 2004, Leitao created a web site devoted to what she now believes is a new disease, which she called Morgellons after an obscure condition described in 1674

Were this unsourced speculation, it would probably constitute a personal attack. However it is simply a recounting of the history of Morgellons that has been told many times in the media. I suggested that this material be added here: Talk:Morgellons#Suggestions_for_background_section. Two other editors strongly concurred the material was relevant, so I added it on 4 August 2007, [12], and it remained (as far as know) basically unedited since then. That indicates some consensus, especially as it is the first paragraph after the lead section, and hence very visible.

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

Nevertheless, it should probably be removed. Thatcher131 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Based on what policy? -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Since it is sourced, it could be included, but I don't believe it is all that germane. It raises the emotional level within the article and doesn't give much help in deciding whether Morgellons is a real disease. If Leitao chooses to include that info in her own presentations, she is free to do that, but I don't see how it improves our article to include it here. (She may be using it to show that dermatologists lack understanding and empathy, but any claim that dermatologists lack understanding ought to be referenced to research findings). EdJohnston 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Good points. I would also like to see the MRF section moved to its own article. Things like resignations over disputes could have the effect of lowering its credibility, whether or not that the is actual intent. Thatcher131 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Let the readers decide about their credibility. It is not our job to censor certain information and thus deny them the ability to make that judgment. That is a violation of NPOV by using editorial censorship to color (or fail to color) the information that is provided. -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this an article solely describing the condition that people associate with the word Morgellons? If so, then the above descriptions of the reasons dermatologists didn't see Mary's son and her Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy would be irrelevant. However, if the subject of this article is the history of the word, the development of the foundation, and the controversy surrounding the nature of the condition, then the above material is relevant. We should decide what the scope of this article is since Morgellons as a title doesn't explicitly prescribe a scope. Sancho 16:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Right now, it looks like the article covers the entire subject. Is that the way the rest of you think it should be set up or not? John Carter 16:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it should cover the whole subject, since that can be done within the confines of this article. -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Every single one of the hundreds of article on Morgellons discuss the controversy. There is considerable debate about the nature of the condition, or even if it qualifies as a condition at all. It is impossibly to describe what Morgellons "is" without covering the controversy, and I think the background material is very relevant to an understanding of the controversy. The formation and actions of the MRF are very recent events which still impact the subject. Herd of Swine 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. An idea promoted by an activist group cannot be understood in isolation from the actions of that group. -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and forked off the MRF to Morgellons Research Foundation. This should be an article about a disease or syndrome. Any discussion of the organizational problems of the Foundation would tend to distract from that. For example, criticism of the Muscular Dystrophy Association does not belong in the article for the disease Muscular dystrophy. In this article it may be appropriate to say that doctors are often skeptical of claims of Morgellons but to name a specific person as alleged of a specific medical condition (which may also be an allegation of a crime) is a bad idea. In the MRF article it may be appropriate to discuss the founding of the Foundation in the context of Mrs. Leitao's frustrations. Thatcher131 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Muscular dystrophy is a recognized disease without any controversy regarding the diagnosis or a situation where the originator of the diagnosis attempts to control all information regarding that diagnosis and which direction it goes. There is no comparison. Morgellons is a different animal entirely. -- Fyslee/talk 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict- response to pez and the other's BLP thoughts)-::::I believe there was an MRF article but it was deleted as non-noteable as this article already existed. They are only known due to their work with morguellons so only need to be mentioned here. Mary Leito is the one who brought her diagnosis of Munchausens by Proxy to public awareness so it's not something claimed by her opposers as an attack. If she mentions it herself as part of the Morguellons history, then it's certainly germane to the article. There's no BLP issues against her on here- considering her role in this she personally is barely mentioned- only about a couple of mentions. The other mentions is MRF which is a public org, not a person. Course she can mail wikipedia directly about any BLP issues she perceives. To Pez- in my other comments I was mocking the hyping up of morguellons as crucially dangerous and critical- which is not as is obvious by the CDC taking over a year to even consider any company's quotes to investigate it. This is about your suggestion about the article, as it would be wrong to delete it when such claims that it's a grave danger to the public health are made about it. The public needs to know the facts as morguellons supporters themself have said.Merkinsmum 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no previous article at Morgellons Research Foundation. If this is going to be a serious article about a disease, the MRF should be in a separate article, especially since the disease is no longer dependent on the MRF. (i.e. if the MRF disappeared tomorrow, do you think the CDC would retract its investigation?) Thatcher131 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. I did not think the MRF infighting was relevant. But I do think that context needs to be established. This is not "a disease", this is an alleged disease, alleged only by the MRF. It needs to be noted where the various claims come from, and the history of the development of those claims. Herd of Swine 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
To the extent of saying that Mary L. created the definition and founded the Foundation in response to her frustration, yes, and I think that is already there. To the extent of detailing the Foundation's problems in a way that tends to diminish the credibility of the people involved (whether that was the intent or not), that belongs elsewhere. Thatcher131 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Thatcher's moving MRF to a separate article, for all the reasons he mentioned. I was planning to suggest that today and when I signed on was pleased to see it had already been done. --Parsifal Hello 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am rather shocked by this turn of events in violation of Wikipedia OWN and BLP policies. Mary Leitao's concerns have no bearing on this matter as the information was properly sourced (therefore not violating BLP) and not OR, therefore she has no right to get it deleted, and in fact it should not be deleted precisely because she tried to get it deleted! She should not be allowed to control the content of the article, and that's just what has happened. I am indeed shocked! While I respect Thatcher has a highly qualified admin, this acquiescing to her demands is against policy.
This particular subject is like any other subject involving a conspiracy theory started by one person or a neologism started by one person - it cannot be understood aside from including information about that person, their actions, ideas, credibility, etc.. While a separate article for the MRF might be a good idea (but I haven't yet seen a legitimate argument based on policy), it makes no sense to separate the current information regarding the role of Leitao in naming the condition and in creating the MRF to promote the idea. We're dealing with an activist, and as the prime mover behind the very concept, she and the MRF must not be left out of this article. -- Fyslee/talk 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, first of all, Mary L was never diagnosed with MBP, it was reported that a doctor suspected it. I invite you to ask Durova or Fred or any other admin or inquire at the BLP noticeboard whether this allegation (of possible child abuse) should be included. I think it is possible to cover Morgellons as a possibly real, possibly imaginary disease without stating that the main proponent might be a child abuser--the only purpose of which is to further deprecate the disease itself as a form of guilt-by-association. Unlike BDORT for example, Morgellons is being taken seriously enough to prompt a serious independent investigation, and we can find doctors to discuss it who are not within the MRF's orbit. Thatcher131 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Leitao never complained about the MBP, in fact she is the one who keeps bringing it up [13], as an example of how badly treated she was (Quote from ABC: Medical Mysteries show: "[doctors said said] that my son will need Vaseline for his lips and that his mother, me, needed a thorough psychiatric evaluation."). She instead asked that the entire article be deleted. Since this is material she herself has promoted, why should it be removed? Herd of Swine 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It may be more relevant to the history of the MRF, that this suggestion so angered her that she formed the foundation, for example. To be blunt, my concern here is not wanting to unfairly bias the reader against Morgellons by implying that the inventor of the disease was nuts. There is already plenty of factual information against the existence of the disease. Thatcher131 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see that if her advocacy was about something else unrelated to mental illness. But her argument is "I am not nuts", so evidence that she is "nuts" is part of the story. Sorry to be blunt there but Morgellons is about a bunch of people who are trying to convince their doctors that they are not mentally ill. Perhaps they are not, but why would we exclude anything that indicates that they are? That seems to prejudice the entire argument. That MBP suggestion was essentially an initial assessment of her claims by a doctor. She was (and still is) claiming that she was not mentally ill, and hence this was a new disease. The doctor suggested she was mentally ill. She herself confirmed the doctor said this, and has never denied it. It's not prejudicing a separate argument, it IS the argument: Morgellons the new disease vs. Morgellons the existing diseases with possible mental illness.
Perhaps there are other opinions here? Anyone? Herd of Swine 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
For sure. I hesitated to give my opinion as things seem to be steamrollering in this direction at the mo anyway. But why are we making this org sound good/removing the truth of what they're like and what doctors have said about the founder by her own admission? What ex-prominent members fell out with them about? I do think there's a danger of this org looking adorable in this main 'morgellons' article and the reader getting a whitewashed, favourable, NPOV account of their role and thus of morguellons as a whole. And as for mary leitao, if she draws attention to herself in the media, no-one is doing that for her, she did it all herself. And there's a phrase for what she's been doing, and it can backfire on those who do it, as their words are so much in print and can be quoted. But now I expect to be flamed lol:)Merkinsmum 00:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Section break for convenience

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

I agree with that Thatcher's statement. Whether or not the material on Mary's story should end up in an ideal version of this article, developing this material now would only polarize the discussion. Sancho 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of moving on and out of respect for Thatcher's good intentions, I'll go along with that. -- Fyslee/talk 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)