![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Not sure how we can say it's a "delusional belief" when the CDC says
"But the study shouldn’t be interpreted to conclude that the problem is all in sufferers' heads" (ref.9)
The CDC refers to it as an "unexplained dermopathy". If they don't say it's 100% delusional, how can we describe it as such in the lead? The reference for the first sentence isn't the actual CDC report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkspartan1 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Disgruntled clutter |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I strongly believe and suggest that this article be removed. While this talk is erudite enough to presume at least familiarity with the condition, it is woefully absent in anything useful or research-driven. The author obviously espouses the dog-tired party line which does not account for the latest research and does not credit the thousands of anecdotal reports from those who have suffered the skin and systemic infiltration of the moving threadlike, polymer oozing, metallic black speck extruding, migrating, brain raping organisms found in cystic lesions on the skin, crawling from the eyes, the vagina, the rectum, the pores of the skin. In humans and animals. The organisms have been described as actual 'bugs', for want of a better word, visible to the naked eye and seen in great and alarming detail in electron microscope scans. It defies belief and no one, no one who has seen first-hand evidence could ever again dispute the reality of this condition. While there is no definitive lab test, and no agreed upon cure, and because it is an enigma, it still should not be lazily relegated to 'delusional parasitosis', which is a very rare condition. Compare the small number of diagnosed parasitosis victims to the millions, yes, millions of sufferers who know quite well that they are not imagining it. This article does a great disservice to those who are desperately trying to understand their alarming condition and come upon this very skewed article that could be taken on faith as a trusted scholarly work. Morgellon's victims are desperately sick, terrified, in pain and consistently denigrated, insulted, and not even examined by the medical profession, but immediately lumped into the 'delusional' box and treated as hysterics or drug abusers. I would provide references, but there are plenty of Google hits from biomedical professionals who have thoroughly researched and examined the variant species seemingly involved and they are still bewildered. Bewildered, but convinced it is no delusion. I won't begin to go into my and my husband's horrific experience, but we certainly did not imagine the obvious infestation of our cats, or their subsequent lethargy, pain, anorexia, stiff black hairs covering their bodies and extruding out of their paws. From what I have researched and what seems to me the most logical explanation is that it is a fungal mediated condition. It is not a fungus per se, and the insect like creatures, which are not always the same species, may be introduced via a fungus, identified or not, which acts as a vector. Any other disease vector can also be suspected. I hoped to not go into my husband's and my experience, but it has to be said. We were unknowingly given a bed that hosted bed bugs, a known disease vector. It was during their infestation that our symptoms escalated and diminished when they were gone. The breaches in our dermis from their bites invited opportunistic fungal organisms, as well as definite insect/worms, black, white and blue moving threads and metallic specs into our skin, ears, nose, eyes and intestines. We also had a black mold infestation which provided an ideal environment for opportunistic fungi. The spores shooting from the lesions on my arms were identified as aspergillis fungi. The other creatures were surmised to be a type of collombola and a non-typical variant of Pseudomonas, but this was not confirmed. These findings were privately conducted. Out of six doctor-submitted lab samples of organisms, skin biopsies and fecal samples, only one survived. The carcass that had shed copious black threads that was pulled from a my skin lesion was reported to be a 'never having lived polymeric substance which appears to have a tubular encapsulating form'. Basically, a plastic tube. However, these organisms have been shown to be largely polymeric. The threads were never mentioned and when asked to reexamine the threads, were told the specimen was 'lost'. Just like the other five lab submissions -- all 'lost'. I was told by a respected biochemist (whose name shall not be divulged) specializing in tropical diseases that he's seeing non-tropical regions being infested by fungal organisms through their trans-migrations into the warm, humid conditions of our homes and bodies. He said that the AMA has strongly discouraged health care workers to deny the existence of 'the thread disease'. Doctors are regularly ridiculed, threatened the loss of their license and warned not to submit or pursue laboratory investigations. As for more of the fungus connection, floods of miniscule shrimplike insects poured from our faucets and swarmed in our house. They were identified as 'fairy flies' or 'fungus flies'. These creatures were found in the cysts in my lesions. We were also invaded by intestinal parasites. Many different as well as puzzling parasites were quite visibly present and alive in our feces. While bed bugs and fungal conditions may suggest a possible source, there is nothing that can prevent or cure its resulting activity. This condition is not confined to just the obvious skin insults, but is systemic and is introduced and parasitically maintained in and from dysbiosis in the gut and the resultant compromised immune system. This is where first-line defense should begin, however, there are no guarantees. But please, 'delusional parasitosis' is now yesterday's news, rapidly losing credibility even with hard-lined nay-sayers. This article needs to be seriously revamped if not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:bc80:f030:85dc:73c4:5581:5373 ( talk • contribs) 23:36, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
|
The fact that the word "Lyme" first and only appears in one of the citations at the bottom of the page is laughable. Is Wikipedia a place for information or propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 ( talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete all uses of the term "delusional" from the article, as evidence has been found to prove that there is an underlying bacterial agent present in Morgellons disease. The primary source is believed by many research scientists to be Agrobacterium and is associated with the non-delusional spirochetal disease known as Lyme disease. Morgellons is NOT a disease based on delusional beliefs of a bug infestation, it is a poorly understood illness which is just now beginning to become understood. This wiki article does not help the media nor does it help sufferers of the disease by stating that it is simply a delusion or psychosis.
BHouse ( talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a PubMed article which includes multiple photos - please take a look when you get the chance. If needed I will gladly provide further research studies as well.
Mayne P, English JS, Kilbane EJ et al. Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis [2]
BHouse ( talk) 18:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is another article associating Morgellons syndrome with a spirochetal infection as well as bovine digital dermatitis:
Middelveen, M. J., & Stricker, R. B. (2011). Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 4, 167–177. doi:10.2147/CCID.S26183 [3]
BHouse ( talk) 19:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
..A simple answer: yes. And I have cited PubMed articles found in scientific journals as stated in WP:MEDRS, so what is the reason for your questioning of my sources? Is anyone actually reading the articles I've provided? If the responses to my evidentiary support are going to continue to be skeptical and negative, then I'll refrain from attempting to correct this Wikipedia article any further.
BHouse ( talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Morgellons is a recognized Disease now! and not a delusional disease as there is now, too much evidence to say other wise, and a lot of doctors now recognize it as being a genuine Disease caused by a number of factors, including Fungi, Arthropods and insects and Borellia Bacteria, a spirochete. I have physical photographic evidence of the mentioned parasites embedded in the epidermis of the skin. You can not let this statement of Morgellons being a psychosomatic problem continue and discredits it's suffers shamefully, and humiliates, it is real...... I can supply more evidence if needed. Regardless of what the American CCD says. The fibers present are not textile in origin, I worked professionally as A "Dye Technician & Colourist" being a member of the Australian & New Zealand Dyers & Colourist Association for over 20 years and know textiles extremely well. The fibers are of Fungal origin........a Grey white fibre(translucent & segmented), A blue/green fibre(either segmented & or monofilament), a prominent Red fibre (Segmented & or monofilament) and is the key to this disease entering the body and stopping the immune system from attack, a Black fibre (segmented & or monofilament), all three fibres are found in ALL MORGELLON SUFFERERS ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, THIS IS CONCLUSIVE AND CAN NOT BE ARGUED with............................. The fibres are the key to this disease, possible attracting other parasites via pheromones it releases as a lot of Fungi do, including the known pathogenic type which to the same thing as turning off our immune response to it. I can give more sources but be aware of there a lot of uneducated theories which makes it hard to get to the truth of it all. http://www.morgellons-research.org/ |
"but" in first para should be "while" or "when". 109.157.79.50 ( talk) 01:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
First sentence contains a redundancy. Saying something is "delusional" or that something is "a delusional belief" is exactly the same as saying, in regard to the somethings that are believed to be present, that "in reality no such things are present." Therefore a single sentence where both modifiers are used for the same noun, the noun belief, is a sentence containing redundancy. I would suggest changing the sentence either to "morgellons is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers," or to "morgellons is a condition whose sufferers have the belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present. Even with this change, the sentence is still awkward, and gives the article a non-professional tone, suggests that the authors are uneducated. Assuming that people who claim to have morgellons do not actually have the parasites they claim to have, then the opening sentences might be changed "Morgellons is a fictional illness whose fictional symptoms include skin sores and infestion of the skin by fibers. People who are apparently suffering from the delusion that they have such symptoms, and who say they have Morgellons, are actually suffering from delusional parasitosis, not from Morgellons, which is non-existant. Morgellons is neither a physical disease identified by parasitologists, nor is it a psychiatric disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. So the belief by some doctors that people who claim to suffer from morgellons, are suffering from a delusional psychiatric disorder called morgellons, is itself a delusion. The real disorder suffered by people who claim to have the fictional disorder they call morgellons, is delusional parasitosis. This is listed the DSM.
Nomenclator ( talk) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The info. here is totally misleading to the public. All research should be considered before submitting a claim that truly sick and suffering people are delusional. This false claim is criminally abusive to all those who suffer from this physical disease. Already desperate for human support and understanding, you've made that struggle much more difficult. Please refer to the research being conducted and supported by The Charles E Holman Foundation. Go to their website and see the latest research published in peer reviewed outlets. There is an infectious component to this disease. It is real. The victims need your support, not your ignorant distortion of the facts. Please, please, please educated yourselves respectively. The information presented here is wrong. Glenda95 ( talk) 01:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Curiosity piqued by the Joni Mitchell story, I came here expecting nutjobbery or, at best, false balance, only to find that WP has for once had the courage to accurately reflect the scientific consensus. Kudos to all the editors involved. 31.55.6.67 ( talk) 11:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This page on Morgellons is extremely biased, in my opinion, for the following reasons. I am not an experienced Wiki editor so someone who is will need to make the editing changes noted below.
1) This page should include reference to and comment on the following published and peer reviewed studies and books by qualified medical authors and scientists instead of all the references to magazines (Popular Mechanics) and newspaper stories (other valid but omitted studies are noted below):
Direct Link: Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010485 Collembola (Springtails) (Arthropoda: Hexapoda: Entognatha) Found in Scrapings from Individuals Diagnosed with Delusory Parasitosis Deborah Z. Altschuler, Michael Crutcher, Beth A. Cervantes, Cristina Terinte and Louis N. Sorkin Journal of the New York Entomological Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (Spring, 2004), pp. 87-95 Published by: New York Entomological Society
J. New York Entomol. Soc. 112(1):87–95, 2004 COLLEMBOLA (SPRINGTAILS) (ARTHROPODA: HEXAPODA: ENTOGNATHA) FOUND IN SCRAPINGS FROM INDIVIDUALS DIAGNOSED WITH DELUSORY PARASITOSIS DEBORAH Z. ALTSCHULER,1 MICHAEL CRUTCHER, MD, MPH, FACPM,2 NECULAI DULCEANU, DVM, PHD (DECEASED),3 BETH A. CERVANTES,1 CRISTINA TERINTE, MD, PHD4 AND LOUIS N. SORKIN, BCE5 1National Pediculosis Association, 50 Kearney Road, Needham, Massachusetts 02494; 2Commissioner of Health, Oklahoma State Department of Health, 1000 NE 10th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73117; 3Department of Parasitology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Iasi, Romania; 4Department of Pathology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania; and 5Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024-5192
Abstract.—Twenty individuals diagnosed with delusory parasitosis participated in a single site clinical study under the auspices of the National Pediculosis Association (NPA) and the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The objective of this study was to determine if there were any common factors in skin scrapings collected from this population. These individuals, whose symptoms were originally attributed to lice or scabies, were part of a larger group reporting symptoms of stinging/biting and/or crawling to the NPA. Multiple skin scrapings from each person were microscopically examined. Any and all fields of view that appeared incongruous to normal human skin were digitally photographed. When the photographic images were initially evaluated, no common factor was identified. However, more extensive scrutiny using imaging software revealed evidence of Collembola in 18 of the 20 participants.
My comment: This study is far more objective than the CDC/Kaiser Study in that none of the authors had a stakeholder interest or previously stated opinion, most of the authors had advanced training specific to parasites, between 15-30 skin scrapings were taken for each subject, it contained controls, it described all processes to avoid contamination of the samples, two samples of Collembolla were found in each participant before a positive finding was considered, and all results were photographed and reviewed by an entomologist. There was no drug testing because all other causes of DP would have to be ruled out prior to considering DP as a diagnosis. Kaiser had already diagnosed thousands of its members with DP prior to the CDC Morgellons study, and would have been open to medical malpractice law suits had anything other than their previous diagnosis been confirmed. The CDC is widely quoted as saying Morgellons is an Internet meme, however the clinical phase of this study study was conducted in 2000, which was before Mary Leito had created the name Morgellons and the Morgellons Research Foundation was on the Internet in 2002. Thus both Kaiser and the CDC were acting as judge in a study where they were also the defendants of a DP diagnosis, where in this 2004 DP study none the authors had any reputation or credibility to uphold.
The official position of the CDC is not that Morgellons is an Internet meme but that it is an Unexplained Dermopathy- even after the Kaiser Study.
2) Further, the CDC released the following comment between the time the Kaiser study was completed and the completion of the peer review process: http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/docs/external_peer_review.pd
Question #5 asks: 5. What findings can be communicated to the public, medical community, and stakeholder community?
Who is the stakeholder community referred to in #5? How could there be a stakeholder if Morgellons is considered to be delusional? Why are there some findings that can't be communicated to the public and medical community? How can the Kaiser CDC study on Morgellons be considered science when an unnamed stakeholder had editorial control over what study findings could be communicated?
3) The Kaiser CDC study on Morgellons included marijuana as a recreational drug, when in fact, California recognizes medical marijuana use for many of the medical conditions the subjects reported, and many of the subjects were probably using it under a doctor's direction. It also used hair analysis for the drug testing instead of urine analysis, when this is not an accepted drug testing method for employment and other uses. Because hair grows slowly and is easily contaminated from things put on the hair or things in the air, urine drug analysis is far more reliable. It also reports a high rate of opiates in the hair analysis, while also reporting that a significant number of the participants were taking prescription pain killers, which can contain opiates, but failed to adjust the recreational drug use percentages to exclude contamination by prescription pain killers for valid medical conditions. It talks about the high rate of prescription drug use in the study participants, but since there are no controls, we never learn that by the CDC's own estimate, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus13.pdf#fig20 in 2013, that 50% (more in the over 65 age group) of Americans take prescription drugs on a daily basis (the highest rate of prescription drug use in the world). The entire focus of the Kaiser study is emphasizing drug use and creating a case for somatic disorders. The criteria of diagnosis for somatic disorders is entirely subjective and includes things such as opposition to authority figures (like questioning doctors)- see Wikipedia Somatic Disorders. We get drug tests, IQ tests, personality tests, and psychological evaluations but no real identification on what was found in the skin. For DP to even be considered everything else needs to be ruled out first. Terms used in the study such as "probably" and "most likely" cotton and the 40+ proteins that were not named do not rule out all other possibilities. The spectra of cotton and the fiber sample were not an exact match at all, which was acknowledged in the study conclusion that further study was needed on this unexplained dermopathy. This wasn't reported on the Wikipedia page or the mainstream press when the study was released.
4) The Kaiser CDC Morgellons study notes that no clustering was apparent, however the map on the page of the Morgellons Research Foundation, http://www.morgellons.org/maps.htm, clearly shows that CA was very hard-hit and that the majority of California cases were located in the greater San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles Metropolitan areas. The CDC itself stated that Kaiser of Northern California was selected because of the high percentage of cases reported in that area. The Kaiser map may not be indicative of a neighborhood hand-to-hand infectious cluster by place of residence, but could be indicative of an aerial spraying operation, such as the CA Dept. of Forestry & Agriculture Light Brown Gypsy Moth operation, which sprayed 5 counties around the SF Bay area in CA with an unapproved pesticide, Check Mate, that contained a micro-encapsulated insect pheromone during the time frame of the Kaiser study ( http://www.cal-ehi.org/Cal-ehi.org/LBAM_files/CareyHarderLBAMTWGArticleAE2013.pdf) The EPA had no restrictions on the use of nanotech in pesticides until 2012 ( http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/nanotechnology.html), and even then it only required notice and testing when novel nano structures (nanotubes, quantum dots, fullerenes) were to be included in the pesticide. It basically grandfathered in all nano scale ingredients currently approved in pesticides at the bulk scale. So everything in Roundup can now be nanoscale, despite the fact the basis for nanotoxicology as a separate area of study is that things at the nano scale have different properties, and that even if the exact same molecule is used at the nano scale it will have a different toxicological profile due solely to the increased surface area created by the smaller size. Recent independent research in Oregon by a toxicologist who is pulling pesticides off the store shelves and testing them for nano ingredients, because the manufactures are very secretive about nano ingredients, is finding that 90% of them she has tested contain nanomaterials. ( http://modernfarmer.com/2015/01/everything-need-know-nanopesticides/).
4) The Mayo Clinic study cited on this page did, in fact, find insects and included the following statement: "Of these 80 specimens, 10 (13%) contained insects. All but one of the insects were noninfesting varieties; 1 (1%) was a pubic louse." Thus they dismissed their own findings because they were "non-infesting," (or not previously known to infest people and not supposed to be there) and never named the species that were found. The Mayo study also stated: "20 of the 80 samples (25%) were submitted for pathologic evaluation." So only 20 samples from the 108 participants were sent for evaluation by a pathologist, yet it concludes that all 108 people have DP. The statement in this article that the Mayo study did not find insects needs to be corrected.
5) Another study written by medical professionals omitted by the author of this page: http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/3/1/8243. Surely this has more credibility than a Popular Mechanics magazine story?
Case report Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series
William T Harvey1*, Robert C Bransfield2, Dana E Mercer3, Andrew J Wright4, Rebecca M Ricchi5 and Mary M Leitao6
* Corresponding author: William T Harvey idmed99@aol.com
Author Affiliations
1 Preventive Medicine, Colorado Springs, CO 80949, USA
2 Psychiatry, Red Bank, NJ, 07701, USA
3 Veterinary Medicine, Fulton, TX, 78358, USA
4 General Practitioner, Bolton BL1 4QR, UK
5 Adult Medicine, USAFA, CO, 80840, USA
6 BS (Biology), Guilderland, NY 12084, USA
For all author emails, please log on.
Journal of Medical Case Reports 2009, 3:8243 doi:10.4076/1752-1947-3-8243
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/3/1/8243
Received: 28 November 2008 Accepted: 17 March 2009 Published: 1 July 2009
© 2009 licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
concludes that:
Conclusion Proposed Characterization of Morgellons Disease
The authors conclude that Morgellons disease is a multi-systemic illness that has been presumed as a delusional phenomenon for decades as its most obvious and disconcerting manifestations resembled actual (but "unverified") parasite infestation as well as various psychopathologies. However, using recent technology and even a modicum of consistently obtained physical data supports that Morgellons manifest as a skin phenomenon, an immune deficiency state and a chronic inflammatory process. Since infectious agents can initiate and maintain chronic diseases, the behavioral and other CNS manifestations here are more likely effect than cause [18]. We suggest that the Morgellons label be considered to displace any label suggesting delusion as the primary cause of this phenomenon.
6) Another doctor (Integrative Medicine) and researcher on Morgellons, who was omitted on this page was Dr. Hildgarde Staninger ( http://1cellonelight.com/), an industrial toxicologist specializing in nanotoxicology. She has treated hundreds of patients for this, which she calls Advanced Materials syndrome (basically nanotech). There are many research papers, videos and radio interviews on her websites and on the Internet regarding her work with what this page calls Morgellons.
The possibility of reactions to nanotech shouldn't be a surprise to dermatologists, who were among the first medical specialty to prescribe drugs containing nanotech in the 1990's with Retin A creams (they contain C20, a diminutive cousin of the C60 fullerenes (see Wiki Fullerenes & http://www.drugs.com/international/tretinoin.html) designed to reduce sun and other damage on the skin. The target market for these Retin A (tretinoin topical) creams was middle-aged Caucasian women, the same group that is disproportionately represented in the Kaiser Morgellons Study. Did anyone in the Kaiser study think to ask the middle-age white women in their study, all of whom we are told had sun damaged skin, if any of them had been prescribed Retin A?
A 2007 Consumer Reports study on sunscreens ( http://www.virlab.virginia.edu/Nanoscience_class/lecture_notes/Nano_challenges_and_fears_Supporting_materials_files/Case%20Study%20-%20Nano%20sunscreen/No%20Nano%20Sunblocks%20-%20ConsumerReports.pdf), which dermatologists recommend to virtually everyone of any age, found nano scale ingredients in 4 out of 5 sunscreen products it tested that claimed not to use nanoparticles. Although dermatologists may not be aware of it, the same nano scale titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nano particles used in sunscreens are used in building trade applications as semi-conductors and photo-catalysts. The book Nanotechnology in Eco-efficent Buildings (edited by F. Pacheco, et al., Woodhead Publishing, Phil, PA, 2013) contains entire chapters on the use of nanoparticles of Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide (both common in sunscreens) as semi-conductors and photo-catlaysts, and includes in Chapter 7 a very thoughtful and well documented evaluation of these substances with respect to human and environmental health.
So, doctors at Kaiser and around the country are recommending and prescribing nanotech items on a regular basis from the Dermatology Dept to the Oncology Dept. with very little training (other than the drug company reps) or knowledge in nanotech and their pathologists also may have no training in nanotech or could be using equipment unable to detect what the doctors are prescribing.
The propensity of carbon nanotubes to agglomerate into hard particles when in a wet environment (like our bodies) and to form fibers by aligning their electrical charge when in dry environments (like on the surface of our skin) is so well known and understood that the nanotoxicology research website is actually called www.particleandfibretoxicology.com. Nobody at Kaiser, the CDC or the NIH knows nanotubes create fibers? The best description I have read of this was in The Toxicology of Carbon Nanotubes edited by Ken Donaldson, et al, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012).
The microscopic hexagons widely reported and photographed by people with Morgellons ( http://www.morgellonsexposed.com/plaques.htm, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyMhUKOzO2I) are explained in the book Semi-conducting Nanocrystal Quantum Dots edited by Andrey L. Rogach (Springer Wien, NY, 2008) as one form of MEMS, or microelectrical mechanical systems. The book includes nice photos identical to those on the Morgellons webpages noted above including isometric drawings of their stacking.
Government Depts. such as Veteran’s Affairs, have repeatedly diagnosed people with somatic disorders including soldiers exposed to nuclear blast radiation, Vietnam vets exposed to Agent Orange, and Gulf War vets and attacked them and portrayed them publicly as whiners and malingers and denied them disability and treatment other than for mental disorders. But of course with decades of hindsight we now know otherwise, Lyme disease, chronic fatigue and multichemical sensitivities were also in the mental illness bucket. The official government policy is “plausible deniability” and all the above mentioned examples are this policy in action. Basically speaking truth to power involves first being ignored, then attacked (as crazy) and then finally accepted. Morgellons is a great example of this policy in action. Right now in Europe they are discussing how to treat people disabled with electromagnetic sensitivity. Sweeden now pays disability and provides special housing to these people. Guess what they are trying to say about that: it is an Internet meme and the people are mentally ill. Sound familiar? The US government has heavily invesedt in nanotech, and even K. Eric Drexler admits that the military will be the greatest user of nanotech research and applications. (Radical Abundance, Perseus Books, NY, NY. 2013). Nano was allowed in the USA food supply as a GRAS coloring agent in 2002 by the FDA, and is not even prohibited in organics. It is in our bright white toothpaste, food, pesticides, personal care products and supplements, prescription drugs, water filtration systems and clothing, and they are being very secretive about all this. I can document all this for you, but why bother?
I have read some of the edit requests on this page and it appears a few people are blocking pretty reasonable requests for revisions on really absurd technical grounds. I know you won’t actually change the page to include my editing, but I am leaving this info here for others to read. This is the worst and most biased Wikipedia article I have ever read.
2602:304:374F:DAC0:9C1D:1ECD:9641:22F0 ( talk) 06:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Please correct the article on morgellons to include the following very important points and reference!
Astonishingly, many practicians actually read no other reference besides Wikipedia. Patients are being left without treatment because of such texts.
Everyone who is a patient or a health professional or a family member ought to read the following piece of research:
http://www.morgellonsuk.org.uk/micromyiasis.htm
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
It explains how small flies' larvae live in the skin. This is a great relief after all those supernatural explanations. Tourists catch it from sand flies on African beaches. It ought to be thought of as a returning travellers' illness with routine check ups and ivermectin injections.
It is useful to know that some balls of filaments are likely fly frass. Also that other longer filaments are most likely from clothes, transported into the skin by larvae when they enter the skin [1].
It is useful to know that freezing will not help, but that hot temperatures do help, for clothing and other materials. Regular hot sauna bathing will help as well, but infrared sauna will not.
Psychological effects of the illness are most likely due to being afraid of being contagious. Once the nature of the illness is elicited, the fear of contagion should subside a little. 188.238.143.199 ( talk) 23:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
References
And they say it's real: http://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/art-20044996 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 00:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I came to this article to find out more about Morgellon's disease after the reports about Joni Mitchell. Anyway - I was surprised to see it say definitively that this is delusional, when the news stories were says things such as
"Morgellons is a controversial condition and is not recognised by mainstream medical authorities. Sufferers say it is characterised by crawling and stinging sensations under the skin but many in the medical community believe it is a psychiatric disorder." from BBC news report: Joni Mitchell in 'intensive care' in Los Angeles hospital
It's one thing to say, as the BBC did in their report, that "Many in the medical community believe it is a psychiatric disorder." It's another thing altogether to say as the lede of this article says, that "Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present.". That is to present this view as a "fact", as a "view from nowhere".
"The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so."
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
Anyway so I did a google scholar search, to find out more, and there are several articles saying that it is possibly non delusional, in several different peer reviewed clinical journals.
I was also interested to see that the most recent in the google scholar search results, published in March 2015 12 February 2015, comes to the definite conclusion that "Our study using multiple detection methods confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Borrelia spirochetes that cause Lyme disease. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for this spirochete-associated dermopathy."
Robert Walker ( talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is the first article I found from 2010: Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology, Virginia R Savely and Raphael B Stricker, Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2010; 3: 67–78.
Amongst other points, it mentions a high level of association with Lyme disease - 97% of those reporting it had Lyme disease. It reports a far higher level of smoking than the general population (smoking reduces immune response). It confirms presence of the fibres below the skin, including in places that can't be reached by patients such as the middle of their backs. It says that they were hard subcutaneous micro-fibres, so difficult to analyse.
And it makes this point:
"The prevalence of delusional disorder in the US is estimated to be about 0.03%, and a similarly low prevalence is found in other societies. A review of the backgrounds of 3,000 self-reported cases of Morgellons disease found pre-existing delusional disorders to be no more prevalent than would be expected in the general population. Nevertheless, patients with symptoms of Morgellons disease are routinely dismissed as delusional. The present study reinforces the fact that Morgellons patients appear to be distinct from patients with delusional disorders in terms of demographics and symptomatology."
Other articles on the same topic (2006):
"Morgellons disease is a mysterious skin disorder that was first described more than 300 years ago. The disease is characterized by fiber-like strands extruding from the skin in conjunction with various dermatologic and neuropsychiatric symptoms. In this respect, Morgellons disease resembles and may be confused with delusional parasitosis. The association with Lyme disease and the apparent response to antibacterial therapy suggest that Morgellons disease may be linked to an undefined infectious process. Further clinical and molecular research is needed to unlock the mystery of Morgellons disease." The Mystery of Morgellons Disease, Virginia R. Savely, Mary M. Leitao, Dr Raphael B. Stricker, American Journal of Clinical Dermatology February 2006, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 1-5
Also (2009):
This one is based on a case study combine with a review of 251 previous citations:
"These data suggest Morgellons disease can be characterized as a physical human illness with an often-related delusional component in adults. All medical histories support that behavioral aberrancies onset only after physical symptoms. The identified abnormalities include both immune deficiency and chronic inflammatory markers that correlate strongly with immune cytokine excess. The review of 251 current NLM DP references leads us to the possibility that Morgellons disease and DP are grossly truncated labels of the same illness but with the reversal of the cause-effect order. Further, the patients’ data suggest that both illnesses have an infectious origin."
"Proposed Characterization of Morgellons Disease The authors conclude that Morgellons disease is a multisystemic illness that has been presumed as a delusional phenomenon for decades as its most obvious and disconcerting manifestations resembled actual (but “unverified”) parasite infestation as well as various psychopathologies. However, using recent technology and even a modicum of consistently obtained physical data supports that Morgellons manifest as a skin phenomenon, an immune deficiency state and a chronic inflammatory process. Since infectious agents can initiate and maintain chronic diseases, the behavioral and other CNS manifestations here are more likely effect than cause. We suggest that the Morgellons label be considered to displace any label suggesting delusion as the primary cause of this phenomenon." Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series William T Harvey, Robert C Bransfield, Dana E Mercer, Andrew J Wright, Rebecca M Ricchi, Mary M Leitao Journal of Medical Case Reports July 2009
Also (2013) - this is in F1000 research - so article submitted before review, with open process of peer review, has several "approve" reviews at the end by experts.
"Like BDD [a similar disease of cattle], MD filaments are produced by epithelial cells and stem from the stratum basale and from the root sheath of hair follicles, thus providing evidence that the filaments are cellular in origin 3, 4. Furthermore, immunohistochemical and histological staining has demonstrated that these filaments have a collagen as well as a keratin component. Like cattle with BDD, patients with MD also produce antibodies reactive to Borrelia burgdorferi antigens 18. Multisystemic symptoms resembling Lyme disease also imply a possible spirochetal etiology for MD 1– 3, 18, 19. The frequent clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease and coinfecting tick-borne pathogens in MD patients suggests a multifactorial etiology and possible vectoring by ticks" Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease Marianne J Middelveen, Divya Burugu, Akhila Poruri, Jennie Burke, Peter J Mayne, Eva Sapi, Douglas G Kahn, and Raphael B Strickera, F1000Res, 2013 Jan 28. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.2-25.v1
Also (2015):
"Our study using multiple detection methods confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Borrelia spirochetes that cause Lyme disease. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for this spirochete-associated dermopathy.".
..."We undertook a detailed microscopic and molecular study of North American MD patients to investigate the presence of borrelial spirochetes systemically and in dermatological specimens. Based on culture, histology, immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy and molecular testing, we present extensive evidence for spirochetal infection in MD patients. Our study confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Lyme disease. The proposed clinical classification scheme for MD should aid in the diagnosis and treatment of this complex illness." Exploring the association between Morgellons disease and Lyme disease: identification of Borrelia burgdorferi in Morgellons disease patients Marianne J Middelveen, Cheryl Bandoski, Jennie Burke, Eva Sapi, Katherine R Filush, Yean Wang, Agustin Franco, Peter J Mayne1 and Raphael B Stricker, BMC Dermatology 2015, 15:1 doi:10.1186/s12895-015-0023-0
That last is a recent article, published 12 February 2015, and comes to the definite conclusion that "Our study confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Lyme disease.".
Robert Walker ( talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As someone else said, nowadays often even doctors go to Wikipedia, and may not always be aware of the issues of WP:POV of some articles. So we have a special responsibility, I think, to be rigorously WP:NPOV, especially so in medical articles. So anyway - this is to suggest editors with a medical background might like to review this cite, and possibly update the article as needed.
About BMC Dermatology for the most recent 2015 cite:
BMC Dermatology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of skin disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
It surely satisfies all the qualifications for reliable citations in wikipedia?
Robert Walker ( talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)I can see the point, still I feel the lede is still overstating the case by saying that it "is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief" - you have to say "says who" - I don't think you could say it's been proved definitively. And there are many obviously who think that it is not originated in delusion. So, I think it has to be qualified, I'd say, by saying who it is who says they have a delusional belief. Because it is a matter of conflict, and debate, even if the controversy may be largely between mainstream medical researchers, and other researchers whose status may be less established, and the patients themselves, and various support organizations. I think that should be reflected somehow in the lede. Maybe then you'd get less of these objections on the talk page also.
After all the guidance on the lede is that it should be like a shorter version of the article itself. And later in the article it says "Most dermatologists, psychiatrists, and other medical professionals view Morgellons as a new name for a well established condition, delusional parasitosis" then "This explanation is, however, "unpopular among individuals identifying themselves as having Morgellons disease"" - that's much better than the lede because it attributes everything said to a source and shows that there is controversy here.
Also the article doesn't mention the Charles Holman Foundation. It seems quite a major organization. The thing is that wikipedia should present any significant, noteworthy POV. For instance, it presents the views of climate skeptics. It says clearly in those articles that the main stream scientific view is of climate change - but then presents the views of climate skeptics just as they understand it. So - I think it should present the views of the patients - and the researchers who agree with them, and the Holman foundation - in some form or another. Even if it is currently regarded as fringe (which I don't know if it is) - it should I think be presented in some form or other.
Even if it was views of medical researchers all on one side, and views of alternative medicine and fringe on the other side, if it is a significant widely held POV then it needs to be covered I think appropriately labelled, e.g. as fringe, or as alternative medicine if that is what it is, or as minority mainstream if that is what it is. Also - I see that the Holman foundation has an article about this very article, saying that they regard it as biased because it leaves out peer reviewed citations of views not covered in the article. See Anonymous Editing on Wikipedia Keeps Morgellons Sufferers in the Dark. It's an article from 2013. So details probably not up to date.
They hosted a conference in 2015, with many speakers on Morgellon's disease, eleven speakers on the page here: 8th Annual Medical Scientific Conference on Morgellons Disease. With a diversity of views but quite a few presenting the possiblity that infectious agents are involved in causing the disease.
Also, what you say about Saveley having in the past falsified data doesn't prevent the possibility that his more recent research he has turned a leaf and is doing good research now, and with seems quite a few other researchers following similar lines also it would seem.
Anyway - I think that the lede has to somehow present a diversity of views - that it is not just delusional as the only view. The main thing then being how to characterize the other views. Which again are surely not just patients also and not just internet self diagnosis as the article claims at present. But quite a large body of people who have this WP:POV and are academically trained and so forth. Wikipedia, if I understand the guidelines on WP:POV then this view has to be presented somehow in this article, and also given a fair bit of space, difficult though it may be to decide how to present it and I think it would need somehow to be reflected in the lede also. The big question would be whether the diversity of views should bes presented as main stream vs fringe and alternative medicine, or a diversity of views amongst medical professionals, or perhaps some of both. I don't think it is accurately presenting the current situation not to mention this diversity of WP:POV at all any more than it would be accurate to have an article on climate change that doesn't present the views of climate skeptics at all. Robert Walker ( talk) 02:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Stricker, not Savely, is co-author of the disputed paper. Mistaken attribution above (both are among many 'LLMD' practitioners.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.88.29 ( talk) 10:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"Morgellons disease (MD) is a complex skin disorder characterized by ulcerating lesions that have protruding or embedded filaments. Many clinicians refer to this condition as delusional parasitosis or delusional infestation and consider the filaments to be introduced textile fibers. In contrast, recent studies indicate that MD is a true somatic illness associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are keratin and collagen in composition and that they result from proliferation and activation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in the skin. Previously, spirochetes have been detected in the dermatological specimens from four MD patients, thus providing evidence of an infectious process."
Abstract: Morgellons disease is a controversial topic in medicine. There are two polarized views regarding Morgellons disease: one, that it is a somatic illness and that it has an infectious etiology and two, that it is a psychiatric illness. Those that maintain it has an infectious etiology argue that the lesions are primary and result from an infection. Those that believe it is psychogenic in origin argue that there are no primary lesions and that lesions are secondary to psychiatric illness, the result of self-excoriation. The evidence supporting these two hypotheses will be examined.
One other thought I had, I could do a stub article on the Morgellons Disease Foundation. It is easily notable enough to have a page on wikipedia, according to the guidelines, seems to me. Any organization that organizes an annual conference with many academic speakers, and which is linked to by universities and the likes of the Mayo clinic, seems to me, easily fulfills the Wikipedia guidelines for notability.
Then that might help defuse the situation here a bit perhaps. You could link to that page in the lede, and then because it is an article about an organization rather than a medical condition, may then be easier to present the material in a WP:NPOV way as it is no longer bound by the wikipedia guidelines on articles about medical conditions. Then I could include the material just given now, seems to me all that would be appropriate in an article about the Morgellons disease foundation, whatever your thoughts about whether to include it here. Not fork. If you feel that it is an alternative medicine group (doesn't seem to me that it is, but if you decided that it is), then still deserve an article like the way we have articles on the Bach flower remedies or Homeopathy.
There is a very short summary of the foundation here, in the press release for the 2014 conference
"The Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation, based in Austin, TX, is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization committed to advocacy and philanthropy in the battle against Morgellons Disease. The foundation was named for Charles E. Holman, a pioneer in the fight against Morgellons Disease, and is led by Director Cindy Casey-Holman, "
which could be a starting point for the new article, as well as including some of the other material here. I can try a draft over the weekend in user space first. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is my draft in user space: Morgellons Disease Foundation.
What do you all think? Shall I submit this as a new article? I've been careful to be WP:NPOV and make it clear also that they are an advocacy group. And end with the conclusion, "Note, that all this is leading edge research, and has not reached the stage where it is generally accepted by the medical profession.".
I think it would be acceptable as an article according to wikipedia guidelines. And then you could link to it in the lede and that would, I think, also defuse a lot of the hositility of some of the posts in this talk page too. It shows that wikipedia is covering the topic, is not ignoring it, which I think is the main thing of concern by many of the posters here. And by making it clear that it is leading edge research and that this is an advocacy group - is a way to bypass all the issues that you feel make it hard to cover it here. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)And just to say, I know far too little about all this to make a judgement myself, either way. I've known expert researchers to make mistakes and climate of opinion can change in medical matters, so I don't automatically assume that the established views are right. And the researchers seem genuine, at least, just now listening to Marianne J. Middelveen in the radio interview of her, I felt she came over as genuine, and what she said seemed believable and credible. And I see nothing obviously wrong with the papers, if the data is correct, and no reason to suppose the data is falsified. So, I just keep an open mind about it myself. After all, it's not so long ago that it was accepted that Helicobacter_pylori causes stomach ulcers. Before the mid 1980s the received wisdom was that bacteria can't grow in the acid conditions of the stomach, so it couldn't have a microbial cause. The discoverers got the 2005 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
So, though it does seem the received wisdom of the medical community that it is a psychosomatic disorder, I think we need to be careful about making the additional deduction, that therefore this research has to be incorrect, or deceitful, etc etc. Or to deduce that their research has to be wrong. As scientists we need to keep open minds both ways. Including the possibility of new results coming in out of left field and overturning received wisdom on the subject. Even if we think it is improbable. But it works both ways, scientific verifiability. It can end up with new results being verified that surprise everyone. Robert Walker ( talk) 01:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream. Alternatively, it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study."
Since there has been significant coverage of Mitchell's "condition" in the media, it needs short mention here. It is currently mentioned in this section of her article here.
This is obviously not covered by MEDRS, but by the normal RS rules. Here are some sources, with some of her statements:
Does anyone have any suggestions for doing this properly? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 18:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The tone of this article is almost mocking rather than serious or biased. It clearly presents one side of the argument while discounting the other without references or support. This article clearly needs to be rewritten to meet wikipedia objectivity standards. The Moody Blue (Talk) 23:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I had another thought today about the lede. It's closely related to the Lyme disease controversy after all, that the Fringe science researchers in this field (in the sense of research following the scientific method and published in peer reviewed science journals, but not mainstream) think that it is caused by the same parasite in many patients.
Also note that Lyme disease controversy, although it is as controversial as Morgellons, does not have the large number of talk page posts complaining about it and the large number of archives this one does. And it goes back to 2007 [10] so is quite an old article. With just one archive.
While this article has 11 archives now, and there is a continuing on going battle between equally well meaning wikipedia editors and readers of the article.
I think that is some indication that there is an issue of some sort with the article, something that isn't addressed in it, to have so many complaints for so long with nothing resolved. While Lyme disease controversy seems to have hit on a good solution to a similar situation.
So why not model it on that article?
"Morgellons (/mɔː(ɹ)ˈdʒɛlənz/, also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present"
That article starts with
"Chronic Lyme disease is a controversial diagnosis that encompasses post–Lyme disease syndrome, as well as "a broad array of illnesses or symptom complexes for which there is no reproducible or convincing scientific evidence of any relationship to B. burgdorferi infection".
So, I'd suggest modelling it after Lyme disease controversy and start by saying it is a controversial diagnosis.
And that article starts by saying "Most medical authorities advise against long-term antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease". So could say the same.
"Morgellons disease is a controversial diagnosis related to the Lyme disease controversy. It's advocates claim that patients are suffering from effects of B. burgdorferi infection and other spirochetes, while the general consensus of the CDC and other medical researchers is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis and that there is no reproducible or convincing scientific evidence of any relationship to B. burgdorferi infection".
Most medical authorities advise against long-term antibiotic treatment for Morgellons".
→
And later on Lyme disease controversy says
"An advocacy group called the International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society (ILADS)[15] argues the persistence of B. burgdorferi may be responsible for manifestations of late Lyme disease symptoms"
So similarly why not say, later in the article
"An advocacy group called the Charles E Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation, and previously another group the Morgellons Research Foundation, argues the persistence of B. burgdorferi and other spirochetes may be responsible for manifestations of Morgellons disease symptoms"
If it works for the Lyme disease article it could work here.
Just a suggestion. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Rothorpe ( talk) 00:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
has now appeared at Wiktionary, 'MorJELLons'. Rothorpe ( talk) 17:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)whereby the article should be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and *accurately reflect current medical knowledge*.
Secondary is simply not enough. _New_ research should be included, particularly when it is a correction to null results. In addition, the article as started draws false conclusions. The CDC article concludes that more research is needed, whereby the article writer chooses instead of *claim* that the disease is psychological.
User:lizard1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.99.106 ( talk) 05:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"Despite these limitations, our study provides a number of insights. The study was done among a well-defined and highly representative population of California, allowing generation of the first prevalence estimates of the condition and allowing us to look systematically for illness clustering. We extensively characterized the skin lesions afflicting case-patients, including systematic examination of intact and involved skin. We also performed detailed spectral and molecular analyses of fibers and other materials that have been reported as the condition's hallmark. Lastly, we assessed cognitive deficits, psychiatric co-morbidity and functional impairment among those affected."To our knowledge, this represents the most comprehensive, and the first population-based, study of persons who have symptoms consistent with the unexplained dermopathy referred to as Morgellons. We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features . We found little on biopsy that was treatable, suggesting that the diagnostic yield of skin biopsy, without other supporting clinical evidence, may be low. However, we did find among our study population co-existing conditions for which there are currently available therapies (drug use, somatization). These data should assist clinicians in tailoring their diagnostic and treatment approaches to patients who may be affected. In the absence of an established cause or treatment, patients with this unexplained dermopathy may benefit from receipt of standard therapies for co-existing medical conditions and/or those recommended for similar conditions such delusions infestation"
"To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear."
[the CDC] didn't rule out any possibility of future developments in the fieldjust because they didn't explicitly state that they ruled out such developments is a misleading interpretation of the CDC paper. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that an idea is supported when the idea hasn't been mentioned, let alone explicitly ruled out. Ca2james ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features ".
"A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."
"Why should new, inconclusive, research override previous (mainstream) conclusions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC")" Why should it be left out, not mentioned, ignored or discounted? Science does not stand still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 ( talk)
Ca2james Oh, okay I understand now. I've seen the limitations mentioned but I think only in the articles by the authors of the fringe theory itself. So probably that section will be okay if I hunt up where I found the mentions of them, and then attribute it to them instead of presenting this as unattributed. I can't remember now where I read it, read it somewhere then went to the report and it confirmed what they said. But you are right, it wasn't the CDC themselves who drew attention to this paragraph in the report or the critics of the spriochete hypothesis, and I understand your point now. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything else while I'm at it? I'll probably do the editing tomorrow. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
See User talk:Robertinventor/Hypothesis that Morgellons is linked to borellia spirochetes, and Lyme disease. Ca2james ( talk) 17:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The fact that many patients with morgellons have improved with antibiotic use gives tremendous support to the theory that they do not in fact have morgellons but rather, the multi systemic bacterial parasitic infection of Lyme Disease which has either infected the central nervous system or neuro pathways of the brain causing damage to the myelin sheath of the nerves and giving the sensations of itching, crawling, and even in some cases, electric shocks throughout the body. Garyden1982 ( talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC) References |
If this is just delusional parasitosis, why isn't the Morgelleon's article just a redirect to DP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said, if you do a simple search at least on pubmed, you'll find many studies done of the subject of a possible organic cause of Morguellons, I think that whether it turns to be organic or not, this view and the efforts done to corroborate it should no doubt me mentioned. Eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879673— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.41.133 ( talk) 16:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
If Wikipedia truly wants to present a "neutral" stance, it would do well to remove the term "delusional" as if this were indeed fact. By all appearances, the condition is still being researched and the CDC study does not close the case as a final answer. Perhaps Wikipedia could borrow phrasing from the Mayo Clinic [11] and describe the Morgellons as "mysterious and controversial" or better yet "still being researched". Keep in mind that mainstream science was skeptical of Helicobacter pylori for some 30 years until dedicated scientists and medical research technology could prove its existence (and validate sufferers worldwide that it wasn't "just" their diet/neurosis/self-inflicted). 70.185.250.4 ( talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The whole artcle has to now be rewritten to include new published research on Feb. 12, 2015. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-5945/15/1 WildAppleLeaf ( talk) 06:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Anybody can search online and find so much evidence including horrifying and vivid photographs - how can you say that morgellons is a delusion of the sufferer? I don't have it myself, but I have compassion for those who do. With this article, Wikipedia proves itself to be under the control of those who don't want us to know the truth. I will no longer use Wikipedia. Very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellenrhoads ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This article shows that wikipedia unable to treat topics in a neutral and unbiased manner. This article suggests this condition is psychological, when it is a type of skin legion.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/s12895-015-0023-0-1.jpg
This is a person with skin lesions and sores on their back, with visible fibers within the skin lesion. This is a picture from a peer reviewed study from a doctor studying the condition. This is what is being studied by doctors when they refer to Morgellons. According to wikipedia, these skin lesions are psychosomatic in origin and are created by the victim's thoughts and beliefs. According to wikipedia, delusions absorbed by the internet create skin lesions and fibers under the skin, like the above.
The article should reflect the fact that Morgellons is a cluster of symptoms, involving skin legions, whose origin is in dispute. This article attempts to redefine Morgellons into an internet hoax and shared delusion, when it is actually a dermatological skin condition.
Go to the acne article and tell people that their condition exists in their head and that "Scientific Consensus" says it does not exist and that belief in acne is transmitted by the internet and is a psychological delusion. There is an absolute Orwellian absurdity to this article and the level of censorship and misrepresentation.
Wikipedia is making me lose faith in humanity. There is no evidence that it is a psychological condition and there is no peer-reviewed studies or primary sources claiming that it is psychological in origin and therefore there is no valid claim to "consensus". When confronted with this, trolls respond "only secondary sources count" and when confronted with secondary sources they say "they are not valid because I dont agree with them".
Secondary sources and what some random person said in a newspaper is not science. Science requires systematic study, theories, evidence and data. An opinion piece by a doctor is not science. A statement by a doctor in a secondary source is not science.
This is not something mysterious or fictional. It is literally a very specific type of skin rash, which wikipedia editors are attempting to redefine as a psychological condition. This article needs to be split into two conditions, the psychological condition (psychosomatic) and the skin rash (dermatological).
This article is a pseudo scientific piece of biased and one sided propaganda which completely misrepresents the CDC findings as a conclusive positive finding, which the actual report was inconclusive and clearly stated that it could not come to a positive finding about causation. In other words, the article misrepresents and then lies about the content of a single study and then represents a position the study did not come to, as representing a strong "consensus" when the study itself disavows the existence of any such positive finding or consensus.
In defending these lies and misrepresentation wikipedia's editors disavow any intent at an unbias, neutral or true treatment and claim that wikipedia only reflects secondary sources that confirm their biases (neutrality be damned) and willfully states everything else should be ignored or censored from consideration.
First and foremost Morgellons is a dermatological condition (not a psychological condition). The article should clearly state that and have pictures of the condition. Then the article may speculate about the cause and nature of the dermatological condition and whether it is psychological in origin. 23.243.162.38 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
IMO we should strive to use boring neutral languages. So we should state "people with the condition" rather than "sufferers of the condition". The later language is not encyclopedic IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have redirected Hypothesis that Morgellons is linked to Lyme disease, with common cause of Borellia spirochetes, created by Robertinventor to here. It relied on two primary sources to create a POV fork. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
"Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review."
If you are stating that this article should mention the Morgellons/Lyme hypothesis, then perhaps if secondary sources cover that fringe theory, we should, too. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
"In 2008 the Washington Post Magazine reported that Internet discussions about Morgellons include many conspiracy theories about the cause, including biological warfare, nanotechnology, chemtrails and extraterrestrial life. [1]"
References
Second, if you think the article you created was not a POV fork based on two primary sources, and you believe instead that it is a notable topic, that is determined at WP:AFD. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that would survive AFD, and I believe if you were to revert the redirect, the article would be submitted instantly to AFD, and it would be removed.
On the other hand, since we surely have secondary reviews debunking/discussing/covering the Lyme hypothesis, I don't know why that isn't covered in this article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think we would use primary sources anywhere for medical content? See WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. And I think you're misunderstanding Mayo.
Perhaps the fastest way to solve this discussion is to restore the article and send it to AFD (no problem if anyone wants to revert me and do that-- just seems a longer course that will end up at the same place). I suggest that a more productive approach would be to cite from secondary sources the text you want to see included here on Lyme. The article you created claimed to source the Lyme controversy to secondary reviews, which means it's not fringe, and which means you should be able to cite that text here. But then you advanced the "fringe" section of the article on primary sources; so which is it? Two primary studies advancing a hypothesis for research, and reported on in the press, don't make a "fringe" theory; it's how science works.
Further, your article went way off-topic into territory unrelated to the medical issue, and please, consider article naming conventions; that name was unmanageable. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added a Lyme blurb: [12]. I'm sure it can be improved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sandy - I've now manually archived that section to its proper place. I did sign it but the signature was in a second very short subsection which was then followed by a long discussion which was within that subsection. The archiving bot archived the second subsection and the entire thread but left the lede and first subsection on this page. I've now archived it all to its proper place.
See Archive 12#Is this article WP:NPOV? and then | You forgot the part....
At the time it was part of a very long and extensive talk page with many editors contributing because that was soon after the news story about Joni Mitchell broke. I came here along with many other editors to find out more about her condition and then was surprised to see no mention at all of the Lyme disease connection which I'd read about in a google search for information about her condition.
The way I understand this is in terms of fringe science in the first sense. See the Wikipedia article on Fringe science:
"There are differing definitions of fringe science. Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream. Alternatively, it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study. In any case, it is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from the mainstream theory in that field."
So - it has articles in peer reviewed journals. It follows the scientific method. But it is generally just ignored by mainstream scientists. I understand it in the first sense on that page, as valid science that is not considered mainstream.
The situation as I understand it is that mainstream scientists accept the CDC conclusions. They are not prepared to discuss any other scientific theories at present and have stopped research into the topic which was quite active before the CDC review. However a few researchers didn't accept the CDC's conclusions as final. They continued to research into the topic area and continue to publish their researches.
I searched carefully to try to find other studies that either contradict their conclusions or debunk them. The only thing I did find was one comment on a FL100 article by a reviewer - and a reply to it by the researchers leading to a short discussion thread. But in that case, both the article itself, and this discussion thread I felt were not notable enough to cite in wikipedia. I found nothing else.
Then as well as that there is a patients advocacy organization, the Morgellons Disease Foundation - and they raise funds as a 501 c(3) charity, which is mainly spent on an annual conference which has about a dozen contributers every year which reports the latest researches of this small group of researchers.
The nearest I know to this is the case of the Viking Labelled release, which Gilbert Levin to this day thinks discovered evidence of life on Mars. There's an even smaller group of researchers in that case, mainly Levin himself, and recently a few more researchers, who regularly publish research on this topic in peer reviewed journals, which is largely ignored by the rest of the scientific community. It is treated in wikipedia like this: Labelled Release which might perhaps give ideas about how to deal with the situation.
I think that it is good that the article now mentions it, but that - in my view - the theory itself should also be mentioned, in enough detail so the reader knows what the researchers hypothesis is.
Their hypothesis is that spirochetes related to those that cause Lyme disease infect keratinocytes and fibroblasts cells. They hypothesize that this infection alters their expression so that they proliferate and create micro-fibres of keratin / collagen beneath the surface of the skin. And they hypothesize that it is these micro-fibres that lead to the itching and painful sensations reported by sufferers. In support of this hypothesis they present research in which they analyse the micro-fibres and found that they are made of keratin and collagen. They also found spirochetes in all the Morgellons patients in their sample, using tests which they say are more sensitive than the ones used by the CDC. They also suggest a connection with Bovine Digital dermatitis which has similar symptoms of subcutaneous microfilaments of keratin and collagen. They accept that the CDC study found cotton fibres but they say that the microfilaments they study are a different phenomenon which you need a microscope to see, which wasn't investigated by the study.
I think that hypothesis should be mentioned somewhere in wikipedia. Whether as a separate article or as part of this one I don't care. And if it is a separate article I don't care whether or not this article links to it. It is something of interest to readers like myself to know that there is such a hypothesis being investigated as a fringe science theory.
BTW I'm a science blogger. And it is my plan to write this up as a science blog post after all this is over, as I think it is an interesting topic. There's an MSc thesis about it also, but it wasn't considered notable enough to mention it in the article - an earlier draft of it did mention it. At times I find it difficult to adapt to the way topics of this nature are treated in wikipedia - but am doing my best to follow the guidelines here. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
In good faith, after walls of text and trying to decipher archives and a messy talk, one is supposed to now spend another half hour sorting out a long post-- a good deal of which is not focused on article improvement-- and explaining policy and guideline to you. I am going to be traveling and unable to follow up on this, but as you indicate that you are still learning (yet your talk page doesn't indicate you are a new editor), I am wondering if you are ready yet to contribute to a discussion on a difficult and controversial medical topic. As I suggested on your talk, it might be helpful for you to strengthen your knowledge of Wikipedia policy, guideline, and protocols in a less controversial arena. I have to pack, so must leave it to others to attempt to address the confusion in your post above (if we all followed the logic you use for FRINGE, we would have a separate article on every primary source marginal hypothesis ever published). I would also suggest that you leave talk page archiving to others. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I see this article already has a {{ recruiting}} template, so this is just an additional heads up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a Soap box
|
---|
More research being done to prove Morgellons is very real and not delusional (Cornicom Institute) Please note all this information is written by myself with permission from Cornicom Institute as they are doing ongoing studies that involve the public. The purpose is to get to the truth behind this horrible ailment. With thousands upon thousands afflicted worldwide it is becomming very difficult for government health organizations to deny the fact that this many people are NOT DELUSIONAL. Morgellons is very real and very devastating not only to the human population but animals as well. I urge the reader to research the many studies done by Clifford Cornicom at the institute. http://www.cornicominstitute.org Independent study being done at Independent Morgellons Study https://carnicominstitute.website/wp/mrpstatus/
Morgellons Truth Network ( talk) 18:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Since the first case of "Morgellons" was brought to the world, there has been a stigma placed on it of "Delusional Parasitosis) This stigma has been in place since day one, however, there is more and more scientific proof that this is by no means a delusional disease. There is great controversy about the CDC's study and since the CDC study has been published, there has been numerous other studies that totally contradict the CDC study. The most notable study being done is by Clifford Cornicom with the Cornicom Institue which can be seen here: https://carnicominstitute.website/legacysite/articles/announcement_files/JourneyIntoTheUnkown.pdf Morgellons, or Unexplained Dermopathy (which ever name you choose) is in fact, a debilitating ailment in which it produces lesions on the skin that can take literally years to heal. There is strange fibers that are deep within the lesion and these vary in size and color. It would seen there are many factors involved with the infection or active phase of the ailment. There is a feeling of crawling sensation over the skin along with stinging. There's also black specs that can be found on skin a clothing. There are many signs and symptoms that are involved with this such as; Morgellons Disease is systemic; affecting all body systems, once an infection is fully established. Initial symptoms often present as skin related, as if afflicted with mites, lice, fleas and 'dandruff' and dry skin - but unresolved after medical treatment. Integumentary system: Itchy scalp and skin Sensation of crawling on/under skin (formication) and in ears (especially nocturnally or after consuming sugar) Insect-like 'bites' and stinging sensations on skin Skin rash, including red areas on cheeks Small ‘blood spots' on skin Burning sensation on skin or feeling of very small pin pricks White flakes, 'spores', 'eggs', granules and 'glitter' from skin pores and hair Fibres coming from skin pores and lesions, of different lengths and colours: (blue, white, transparent, black, red) Fibre balls/bundles coming out of skin pores Black specs coming out of skin pores Skin lesions, sores, pimples or spots - that heal slowly (eg. red spots or scabs on nose & checks) Healed lesions causing scarring or hypopigmentation Mole 'like' spots appearing, raised on skin (Micro-angiomas 0.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter) Skin thinning (shins, back of hands) and unexplained bruising Cellulitis (above major muscle groups) Dark circles under eyes Hair loss on scalp, eye brows, eye lashes Growth of soft, white villous hairs on face and arms Ingrowing hairs and black roots on infected hairs Scalp hair irritating skin when wet and highly static when dry Pitting on nails and fungal infections Cardiovascular system: Irregular/fast heart beat and sudden pain without exertion Circulation & temperature regulation problems (low core temperature) Poor capillary refill, Reynaud's syndrome Endocrinal system: Thyroid dysfunction Hypercalcaemia Weight loss/gain Digestive system Irritable bowel Distended abdomen Malabsorption Colo-rectal discomfort Constipation or loose bowels Rumbling stomach Musculoskeletal system: Stiff neck upon movement and aching shoulders Pain at base of spine around sacrum (pelvis) and coccyx (anus) Inflammed, aching and stiff joints (fingers, elbows, hips, knees) Weakness in wrists Lymphatic & Immune system: Inflamed lymph nodes (eg. under jaw line, arm pits, groin) Immune system disruption Central Nervous system: Numb fingers and/or toes (peripheral neuropathy) Short-term memory loss Racing thoughts Insomnia Brain fog - (eg. problems with finding words) Fatigue and lack of concentration Pressure headaches Urinary system: Kidney ache (can manifest as lower back pain) Bladder weakness Urinary tract infections Eyes, ears, nose and throat: Declining sight, grit feeling, white particles in tear ducts and eye inflammation Declining hearing Loss of balance Heavy staining on teeth/gum interface Gum disease and pain in gums Furrows in tongue Increased saliva Psychological: Depression Increased irritability and decreasing patience Bipolar ADD
Morgellons sufferers have thread-like filaments appearing from skin sores and/or unbroken skin, which can be the cause of much discomfort and itching. Unfortunately, Morgellons patients are often given a clinical misdiagnosis of delusional parasitosis or obsessive-compulsive disorder. This is largely due to a lack of detailed observation, and correlation of patient cases. It is thought that a trauma or overload of stress can increase or kick off these symptoms. Indeed, Morgellons seems to progress in a body that has a compromised immune system or state. Many sufferers report an association with being bitten, handling soil, being in close contact with sick humans or animals. The Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), in the United States initially had over 15,000 registered families. They had found that often more than one family member was affected by Morgellons Disease. They also reported that nurses and teachers were the occupational groups affected the most. Their work and funding has been transferred to the Charles E. Holman Foundation, with research being led by Randy Wymore (Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Physiology, Oklahoma State University). The page below includes the MRF's case definition, giving more details on symptoms and signs. It also provides details on laboratory tests that can show abnormalities in Morgellons patients: http://www.morgellonsuk.org.uk/support_medical.htm [1] Denise Epke |
Why is this section here? It's a primary source. I can see how/why it is needed here (because of the misconception and publicity and misunderstanding about exactly where Mayo stands), but we've got a problem when one editor wants to add primary sources about Lyme-- which we reject per MEDRS-- at the same time that we include a Mayo primary study.
I do not have access to all the journal articles; is the Mayo study not covered in a secondary review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What the Mayo clinic actually says about Morgellons is quite the opposite of Wikipedia's version. [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.15.157 ( talk) 06:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Not sure how we can say it's a "delusional belief" when the CDC says
"But the study shouldn’t be interpreted to conclude that the problem is all in sufferers' heads" (ref.9)
The CDC refers to it as an "unexplained dermopathy". If they don't say it's 100% delusional, how can we describe it as such in the lead? The reference for the first sentence isn't the actual CDC report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkspartan1 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Disgruntled clutter |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I strongly believe and suggest that this article be removed. While this talk is erudite enough to presume at least familiarity with the condition, it is woefully absent in anything useful or research-driven. The author obviously espouses the dog-tired party line which does not account for the latest research and does not credit the thousands of anecdotal reports from those who have suffered the skin and systemic infiltration of the moving threadlike, polymer oozing, metallic black speck extruding, migrating, brain raping organisms found in cystic lesions on the skin, crawling from the eyes, the vagina, the rectum, the pores of the skin. In humans and animals. The organisms have been described as actual 'bugs', for want of a better word, visible to the naked eye and seen in great and alarming detail in electron microscope scans. It defies belief and no one, no one who has seen first-hand evidence could ever again dispute the reality of this condition. While there is no definitive lab test, and no agreed upon cure, and because it is an enigma, it still should not be lazily relegated to 'delusional parasitosis', which is a very rare condition. Compare the small number of diagnosed parasitosis victims to the millions, yes, millions of sufferers who know quite well that they are not imagining it. This article does a great disservice to those who are desperately trying to understand their alarming condition and come upon this very skewed article that could be taken on faith as a trusted scholarly work. Morgellon's victims are desperately sick, terrified, in pain and consistently denigrated, insulted, and not even examined by the medical profession, but immediately lumped into the 'delusional' box and treated as hysterics or drug abusers. I would provide references, but there are plenty of Google hits from biomedical professionals who have thoroughly researched and examined the variant species seemingly involved and they are still bewildered. Bewildered, but convinced it is no delusion. I won't begin to go into my and my husband's horrific experience, but we certainly did not imagine the obvious infestation of our cats, or their subsequent lethargy, pain, anorexia, stiff black hairs covering their bodies and extruding out of their paws. From what I have researched and what seems to me the most logical explanation is that it is a fungal mediated condition. It is not a fungus per se, and the insect like creatures, which are not always the same species, may be introduced via a fungus, identified or not, which acts as a vector. Any other disease vector can also be suspected. I hoped to not go into my husband's and my experience, but it has to be said. We were unknowingly given a bed that hosted bed bugs, a known disease vector. It was during their infestation that our symptoms escalated and diminished when they were gone. The breaches in our dermis from their bites invited opportunistic fungal organisms, as well as definite insect/worms, black, white and blue moving threads and metallic specs into our skin, ears, nose, eyes and intestines. We also had a black mold infestation which provided an ideal environment for opportunistic fungi. The spores shooting from the lesions on my arms were identified as aspergillis fungi. The other creatures were surmised to be a type of collombola and a non-typical variant of Pseudomonas, but this was not confirmed. These findings were privately conducted. Out of six doctor-submitted lab samples of organisms, skin biopsies and fecal samples, only one survived. The carcass that had shed copious black threads that was pulled from a my skin lesion was reported to be a 'never having lived polymeric substance which appears to have a tubular encapsulating form'. Basically, a plastic tube. However, these organisms have been shown to be largely polymeric. The threads were never mentioned and when asked to reexamine the threads, were told the specimen was 'lost'. Just like the other five lab submissions -- all 'lost'. I was told by a respected biochemist (whose name shall not be divulged) specializing in tropical diseases that he's seeing non-tropical regions being infested by fungal organisms through their trans-migrations into the warm, humid conditions of our homes and bodies. He said that the AMA has strongly discouraged health care workers to deny the existence of 'the thread disease'. Doctors are regularly ridiculed, threatened the loss of their license and warned not to submit or pursue laboratory investigations. As for more of the fungus connection, floods of miniscule shrimplike insects poured from our faucets and swarmed in our house. They were identified as 'fairy flies' or 'fungus flies'. These creatures were found in the cysts in my lesions. We were also invaded by intestinal parasites. Many different as well as puzzling parasites were quite visibly present and alive in our feces. While bed bugs and fungal conditions may suggest a possible source, there is nothing that can prevent or cure its resulting activity. This condition is not confined to just the obvious skin insults, but is systemic and is introduced and parasitically maintained in and from dysbiosis in the gut and the resultant compromised immune system. This is where first-line defense should begin, however, there are no guarantees. But please, 'delusional parasitosis' is now yesterday's news, rapidly losing credibility even with hard-lined nay-sayers. This article needs to be seriously revamped if not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:bc80:f030:85dc:73c4:5581:5373 ( talk • contribs) 23:36, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
|
The fact that the word "Lyme" first and only appears in one of the citations at the bottom of the page is laughable. Is Wikipedia a place for information or propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 ( talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete all uses of the term "delusional" from the article, as evidence has been found to prove that there is an underlying bacterial agent present in Morgellons disease. The primary source is believed by many research scientists to be Agrobacterium and is associated with the non-delusional spirochetal disease known as Lyme disease. Morgellons is NOT a disease based on delusional beliefs of a bug infestation, it is a poorly understood illness which is just now beginning to become understood. This wiki article does not help the media nor does it help sufferers of the disease by stating that it is simply a delusion or psychosis.
BHouse ( talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a PubMed article which includes multiple photos - please take a look when you get the chance. If needed I will gladly provide further research studies as well.
Mayne P, English JS, Kilbane EJ et al. Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis [2]
BHouse ( talk) 18:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is another article associating Morgellons syndrome with a spirochetal infection as well as bovine digital dermatitis:
Middelveen, M. J., & Stricker, R. B. (2011). Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 4, 167–177. doi:10.2147/CCID.S26183 [3]
BHouse ( talk) 19:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
..A simple answer: yes. And I have cited PubMed articles found in scientific journals as stated in WP:MEDRS, so what is the reason for your questioning of my sources? Is anyone actually reading the articles I've provided? If the responses to my evidentiary support are going to continue to be skeptical and negative, then I'll refrain from attempting to correct this Wikipedia article any further.
BHouse ( talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Morgellons is a recognized Disease now! and not a delusional disease as there is now, too much evidence to say other wise, and a lot of doctors now recognize it as being a genuine Disease caused by a number of factors, including Fungi, Arthropods and insects and Borellia Bacteria, a spirochete. I have physical photographic evidence of the mentioned parasites embedded in the epidermis of the skin. You can not let this statement of Morgellons being a psychosomatic problem continue and discredits it's suffers shamefully, and humiliates, it is real...... I can supply more evidence if needed. Regardless of what the American CCD says. The fibers present are not textile in origin, I worked professionally as A "Dye Technician & Colourist" being a member of the Australian & New Zealand Dyers & Colourist Association for over 20 years and know textiles extremely well. The fibers are of Fungal origin........a Grey white fibre(translucent & segmented), A blue/green fibre(either segmented & or monofilament), a prominent Red fibre (Segmented & or monofilament) and is the key to this disease entering the body and stopping the immune system from attack, a Black fibre (segmented & or monofilament), all three fibres are found in ALL MORGELLON SUFFERERS ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, THIS IS CONCLUSIVE AND CAN NOT BE ARGUED with............................. The fibres are the key to this disease, possible attracting other parasites via pheromones it releases as a lot of Fungi do, including the known pathogenic type which to the same thing as turning off our immune response to it. I can give more sources but be aware of there a lot of uneducated theories which makes it hard to get to the truth of it all. http://www.morgellons-research.org/ |
"but" in first para should be "while" or "when". 109.157.79.50 ( talk) 01:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
First sentence contains a redundancy. Saying something is "delusional" or that something is "a delusional belief" is exactly the same as saying, in regard to the somethings that are believed to be present, that "in reality no such things are present." Therefore a single sentence where both modifiers are used for the same noun, the noun belief, is a sentence containing redundancy. I would suggest changing the sentence either to "morgellons is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers," or to "morgellons is a condition whose sufferers have the belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present. Even with this change, the sentence is still awkward, and gives the article a non-professional tone, suggests that the authors are uneducated. Assuming that people who claim to have morgellons do not actually have the parasites they claim to have, then the opening sentences might be changed "Morgellons is a fictional illness whose fictional symptoms include skin sores and infestion of the skin by fibers. People who are apparently suffering from the delusion that they have such symptoms, and who say they have Morgellons, are actually suffering from delusional parasitosis, not from Morgellons, which is non-existant. Morgellons is neither a physical disease identified by parasitologists, nor is it a psychiatric disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. So the belief by some doctors that people who claim to suffer from morgellons, are suffering from a delusional psychiatric disorder called morgellons, is itself a delusion. The real disorder suffered by people who claim to have the fictional disorder they call morgellons, is delusional parasitosis. This is listed the DSM.
Nomenclator ( talk) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The info. here is totally misleading to the public. All research should be considered before submitting a claim that truly sick and suffering people are delusional. This false claim is criminally abusive to all those who suffer from this physical disease. Already desperate for human support and understanding, you've made that struggle much more difficult. Please refer to the research being conducted and supported by The Charles E Holman Foundation. Go to their website and see the latest research published in peer reviewed outlets. There is an infectious component to this disease. It is real. The victims need your support, not your ignorant distortion of the facts. Please, please, please educated yourselves respectively. The information presented here is wrong. Glenda95 ( talk) 01:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Curiosity piqued by the Joni Mitchell story, I came here expecting nutjobbery or, at best, false balance, only to find that WP has for once had the courage to accurately reflect the scientific consensus. Kudos to all the editors involved. 31.55.6.67 ( talk) 11:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This page on Morgellons is extremely biased, in my opinion, for the following reasons. I am not an experienced Wiki editor so someone who is will need to make the editing changes noted below.
1) This page should include reference to and comment on the following published and peer reviewed studies and books by qualified medical authors and scientists instead of all the references to magazines (Popular Mechanics) and newspaper stories (other valid but omitted studies are noted below):
Direct Link: Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010485 Collembola (Springtails) (Arthropoda: Hexapoda: Entognatha) Found in Scrapings from Individuals Diagnosed with Delusory Parasitosis Deborah Z. Altschuler, Michael Crutcher, Beth A. Cervantes, Cristina Terinte and Louis N. Sorkin Journal of the New York Entomological Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (Spring, 2004), pp. 87-95 Published by: New York Entomological Society
J. New York Entomol. Soc. 112(1):87–95, 2004 COLLEMBOLA (SPRINGTAILS) (ARTHROPODA: HEXAPODA: ENTOGNATHA) FOUND IN SCRAPINGS FROM INDIVIDUALS DIAGNOSED WITH DELUSORY PARASITOSIS DEBORAH Z. ALTSCHULER,1 MICHAEL CRUTCHER, MD, MPH, FACPM,2 NECULAI DULCEANU, DVM, PHD (DECEASED),3 BETH A. CERVANTES,1 CRISTINA TERINTE, MD, PHD4 AND LOUIS N. SORKIN, BCE5 1National Pediculosis Association, 50 Kearney Road, Needham, Massachusetts 02494; 2Commissioner of Health, Oklahoma State Department of Health, 1000 NE 10th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73117; 3Department of Parasitology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Iasi, Romania; 4Department of Pathology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania; and 5Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024-5192
Abstract.—Twenty individuals diagnosed with delusory parasitosis participated in a single site clinical study under the auspices of the National Pediculosis Association (NPA) and the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The objective of this study was to determine if there were any common factors in skin scrapings collected from this population. These individuals, whose symptoms were originally attributed to lice or scabies, were part of a larger group reporting symptoms of stinging/biting and/or crawling to the NPA. Multiple skin scrapings from each person were microscopically examined. Any and all fields of view that appeared incongruous to normal human skin were digitally photographed. When the photographic images were initially evaluated, no common factor was identified. However, more extensive scrutiny using imaging software revealed evidence of Collembola in 18 of the 20 participants.
My comment: This study is far more objective than the CDC/Kaiser Study in that none of the authors had a stakeholder interest or previously stated opinion, most of the authors had advanced training specific to parasites, between 15-30 skin scrapings were taken for each subject, it contained controls, it described all processes to avoid contamination of the samples, two samples of Collembolla were found in each participant before a positive finding was considered, and all results were photographed and reviewed by an entomologist. There was no drug testing because all other causes of DP would have to be ruled out prior to considering DP as a diagnosis. Kaiser had already diagnosed thousands of its members with DP prior to the CDC Morgellons study, and would have been open to medical malpractice law suits had anything other than their previous diagnosis been confirmed. The CDC is widely quoted as saying Morgellons is an Internet meme, however the clinical phase of this study study was conducted in 2000, which was before Mary Leito had created the name Morgellons and the Morgellons Research Foundation was on the Internet in 2002. Thus both Kaiser and the CDC were acting as judge in a study where they were also the defendants of a DP diagnosis, where in this 2004 DP study none the authors had any reputation or credibility to uphold.
The official position of the CDC is not that Morgellons is an Internet meme but that it is an Unexplained Dermopathy- even after the Kaiser Study.
2) Further, the CDC released the following comment between the time the Kaiser study was completed and the completion of the peer review process: http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/docs/external_peer_review.pd
Question #5 asks: 5. What findings can be communicated to the public, medical community, and stakeholder community?
Who is the stakeholder community referred to in #5? How could there be a stakeholder if Morgellons is considered to be delusional? Why are there some findings that can't be communicated to the public and medical community? How can the Kaiser CDC study on Morgellons be considered science when an unnamed stakeholder had editorial control over what study findings could be communicated?
3) The Kaiser CDC study on Morgellons included marijuana as a recreational drug, when in fact, California recognizes medical marijuana use for many of the medical conditions the subjects reported, and many of the subjects were probably using it under a doctor's direction. It also used hair analysis for the drug testing instead of urine analysis, when this is not an accepted drug testing method for employment and other uses. Because hair grows slowly and is easily contaminated from things put on the hair or things in the air, urine drug analysis is far more reliable. It also reports a high rate of opiates in the hair analysis, while also reporting that a significant number of the participants were taking prescription pain killers, which can contain opiates, but failed to adjust the recreational drug use percentages to exclude contamination by prescription pain killers for valid medical conditions. It talks about the high rate of prescription drug use in the study participants, but since there are no controls, we never learn that by the CDC's own estimate, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus13.pdf#fig20 in 2013, that 50% (more in the over 65 age group) of Americans take prescription drugs on a daily basis (the highest rate of prescription drug use in the world). The entire focus of the Kaiser study is emphasizing drug use and creating a case for somatic disorders. The criteria of diagnosis for somatic disorders is entirely subjective and includes things such as opposition to authority figures (like questioning doctors)- see Wikipedia Somatic Disorders. We get drug tests, IQ tests, personality tests, and psychological evaluations but no real identification on what was found in the skin. For DP to even be considered everything else needs to be ruled out first. Terms used in the study such as "probably" and "most likely" cotton and the 40+ proteins that were not named do not rule out all other possibilities. The spectra of cotton and the fiber sample were not an exact match at all, which was acknowledged in the study conclusion that further study was needed on this unexplained dermopathy. This wasn't reported on the Wikipedia page or the mainstream press when the study was released.
4) The Kaiser CDC Morgellons study notes that no clustering was apparent, however the map on the page of the Morgellons Research Foundation, http://www.morgellons.org/maps.htm, clearly shows that CA was very hard-hit and that the majority of California cases were located in the greater San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles Metropolitan areas. The CDC itself stated that Kaiser of Northern California was selected because of the high percentage of cases reported in that area. The Kaiser map may not be indicative of a neighborhood hand-to-hand infectious cluster by place of residence, but could be indicative of an aerial spraying operation, such as the CA Dept. of Forestry & Agriculture Light Brown Gypsy Moth operation, which sprayed 5 counties around the SF Bay area in CA with an unapproved pesticide, Check Mate, that contained a micro-encapsulated insect pheromone during the time frame of the Kaiser study ( http://www.cal-ehi.org/Cal-ehi.org/LBAM_files/CareyHarderLBAMTWGArticleAE2013.pdf) The EPA had no restrictions on the use of nanotech in pesticides until 2012 ( http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/nanotechnology.html), and even then it only required notice and testing when novel nano structures (nanotubes, quantum dots, fullerenes) were to be included in the pesticide. It basically grandfathered in all nano scale ingredients currently approved in pesticides at the bulk scale. So everything in Roundup can now be nanoscale, despite the fact the basis for nanotoxicology as a separate area of study is that things at the nano scale have different properties, and that even if the exact same molecule is used at the nano scale it will have a different toxicological profile due solely to the increased surface area created by the smaller size. Recent independent research in Oregon by a toxicologist who is pulling pesticides off the store shelves and testing them for nano ingredients, because the manufactures are very secretive about nano ingredients, is finding that 90% of them she has tested contain nanomaterials. ( http://modernfarmer.com/2015/01/everything-need-know-nanopesticides/).
4) The Mayo Clinic study cited on this page did, in fact, find insects and included the following statement: "Of these 80 specimens, 10 (13%) contained insects. All but one of the insects were noninfesting varieties; 1 (1%) was a pubic louse." Thus they dismissed their own findings because they were "non-infesting," (or not previously known to infest people and not supposed to be there) and never named the species that were found. The Mayo study also stated: "20 of the 80 samples (25%) were submitted for pathologic evaluation." So only 20 samples from the 108 participants were sent for evaluation by a pathologist, yet it concludes that all 108 people have DP. The statement in this article that the Mayo study did not find insects needs to be corrected.
5) Another study written by medical professionals omitted by the author of this page: http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/3/1/8243. Surely this has more credibility than a Popular Mechanics magazine story?
Case report Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series
William T Harvey1*, Robert C Bransfield2, Dana E Mercer3, Andrew J Wright4, Rebecca M Ricchi5 and Mary M Leitao6
* Corresponding author: William T Harvey idmed99@aol.com
Author Affiliations
1 Preventive Medicine, Colorado Springs, CO 80949, USA
2 Psychiatry, Red Bank, NJ, 07701, USA
3 Veterinary Medicine, Fulton, TX, 78358, USA
4 General Practitioner, Bolton BL1 4QR, UK
5 Adult Medicine, USAFA, CO, 80840, USA
6 BS (Biology), Guilderland, NY 12084, USA
For all author emails, please log on.
Journal of Medical Case Reports 2009, 3:8243 doi:10.4076/1752-1947-3-8243
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/3/1/8243
Received: 28 November 2008 Accepted: 17 March 2009 Published: 1 July 2009
© 2009 licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
concludes that:
Conclusion Proposed Characterization of Morgellons Disease
The authors conclude that Morgellons disease is a multi-systemic illness that has been presumed as a delusional phenomenon for decades as its most obvious and disconcerting manifestations resembled actual (but "unverified") parasite infestation as well as various psychopathologies. However, using recent technology and even a modicum of consistently obtained physical data supports that Morgellons manifest as a skin phenomenon, an immune deficiency state and a chronic inflammatory process. Since infectious agents can initiate and maintain chronic diseases, the behavioral and other CNS manifestations here are more likely effect than cause [18]. We suggest that the Morgellons label be considered to displace any label suggesting delusion as the primary cause of this phenomenon.
6) Another doctor (Integrative Medicine) and researcher on Morgellons, who was omitted on this page was Dr. Hildgarde Staninger ( http://1cellonelight.com/), an industrial toxicologist specializing in nanotoxicology. She has treated hundreds of patients for this, which she calls Advanced Materials syndrome (basically nanotech). There are many research papers, videos and radio interviews on her websites and on the Internet regarding her work with what this page calls Morgellons.
The possibility of reactions to nanotech shouldn't be a surprise to dermatologists, who were among the first medical specialty to prescribe drugs containing nanotech in the 1990's with Retin A creams (they contain C20, a diminutive cousin of the C60 fullerenes (see Wiki Fullerenes & http://www.drugs.com/international/tretinoin.html) designed to reduce sun and other damage on the skin. The target market for these Retin A (tretinoin topical) creams was middle-aged Caucasian women, the same group that is disproportionately represented in the Kaiser Morgellons Study. Did anyone in the Kaiser study think to ask the middle-age white women in their study, all of whom we are told had sun damaged skin, if any of them had been prescribed Retin A?
A 2007 Consumer Reports study on sunscreens ( http://www.virlab.virginia.edu/Nanoscience_class/lecture_notes/Nano_challenges_and_fears_Supporting_materials_files/Case%20Study%20-%20Nano%20sunscreen/No%20Nano%20Sunblocks%20-%20ConsumerReports.pdf), which dermatologists recommend to virtually everyone of any age, found nano scale ingredients in 4 out of 5 sunscreen products it tested that claimed not to use nanoparticles. Although dermatologists may not be aware of it, the same nano scale titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nano particles used in sunscreens are used in building trade applications as semi-conductors and photo-catalysts. The book Nanotechnology in Eco-efficent Buildings (edited by F. Pacheco, et al., Woodhead Publishing, Phil, PA, 2013) contains entire chapters on the use of nanoparticles of Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide (both common in sunscreens) as semi-conductors and photo-catlaysts, and includes in Chapter 7 a very thoughtful and well documented evaluation of these substances with respect to human and environmental health.
So, doctors at Kaiser and around the country are recommending and prescribing nanotech items on a regular basis from the Dermatology Dept to the Oncology Dept. with very little training (other than the drug company reps) or knowledge in nanotech and their pathologists also may have no training in nanotech or could be using equipment unable to detect what the doctors are prescribing.
The propensity of carbon nanotubes to agglomerate into hard particles when in a wet environment (like our bodies) and to form fibers by aligning their electrical charge when in dry environments (like on the surface of our skin) is so well known and understood that the nanotoxicology research website is actually called www.particleandfibretoxicology.com. Nobody at Kaiser, the CDC or the NIH knows nanotubes create fibers? The best description I have read of this was in The Toxicology of Carbon Nanotubes edited by Ken Donaldson, et al, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012).
The microscopic hexagons widely reported and photographed by people with Morgellons ( http://www.morgellonsexposed.com/plaques.htm, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyMhUKOzO2I) are explained in the book Semi-conducting Nanocrystal Quantum Dots edited by Andrey L. Rogach (Springer Wien, NY, 2008) as one form of MEMS, or microelectrical mechanical systems. The book includes nice photos identical to those on the Morgellons webpages noted above including isometric drawings of their stacking.
Government Depts. such as Veteran’s Affairs, have repeatedly diagnosed people with somatic disorders including soldiers exposed to nuclear blast radiation, Vietnam vets exposed to Agent Orange, and Gulf War vets and attacked them and portrayed them publicly as whiners and malingers and denied them disability and treatment other than for mental disorders. But of course with decades of hindsight we now know otherwise, Lyme disease, chronic fatigue and multichemical sensitivities were also in the mental illness bucket. The official government policy is “plausible deniability” and all the above mentioned examples are this policy in action. Basically speaking truth to power involves first being ignored, then attacked (as crazy) and then finally accepted. Morgellons is a great example of this policy in action. Right now in Europe they are discussing how to treat people disabled with electromagnetic sensitivity. Sweeden now pays disability and provides special housing to these people. Guess what they are trying to say about that: it is an Internet meme and the people are mentally ill. Sound familiar? The US government has heavily invesedt in nanotech, and even K. Eric Drexler admits that the military will be the greatest user of nanotech research and applications. (Radical Abundance, Perseus Books, NY, NY. 2013). Nano was allowed in the USA food supply as a GRAS coloring agent in 2002 by the FDA, and is not even prohibited in organics. It is in our bright white toothpaste, food, pesticides, personal care products and supplements, prescription drugs, water filtration systems and clothing, and they are being very secretive about all this. I can document all this for you, but why bother?
I have read some of the edit requests on this page and it appears a few people are blocking pretty reasonable requests for revisions on really absurd technical grounds. I know you won’t actually change the page to include my editing, but I am leaving this info here for others to read. This is the worst and most biased Wikipedia article I have ever read.
2602:304:374F:DAC0:9C1D:1ECD:9641:22F0 ( talk) 06:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Please correct the article on morgellons to include the following very important points and reference!
Astonishingly, many practicians actually read no other reference besides Wikipedia. Patients are being left without treatment because of such texts.
Everyone who is a patient or a health professional or a family member ought to read the following piece of research:
http://www.morgellonsuk.org.uk/micromyiasis.htm
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
It explains how small flies' larvae live in the skin. This is a great relief after all those supernatural explanations. Tourists catch it from sand flies on African beaches. It ought to be thought of as a returning travellers' illness with routine check ups and ivermectin injections.
It is useful to know that some balls of filaments are likely fly frass. Also that other longer filaments are most likely from clothes, transported into the skin by larvae when they enter the skin [1].
It is useful to know that freezing will not help, but that hot temperatures do help, for clothing and other materials. Regular hot sauna bathing will help as well, but infrared sauna will not.
Psychological effects of the illness are most likely due to being afraid of being contagious. Once the nature of the illness is elicited, the fear of contagion should subside a little. 188.238.143.199 ( talk) 23:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
References
And they say it's real: http://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/art-20044996 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 00:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I came to this article to find out more about Morgellon's disease after the reports about Joni Mitchell. Anyway - I was surprised to see it say definitively that this is delusional, when the news stories were says things such as
"Morgellons is a controversial condition and is not recognised by mainstream medical authorities. Sufferers say it is characterised by crawling and stinging sensations under the skin but many in the medical community believe it is a psychiatric disorder." from BBC news report: Joni Mitchell in 'intensive care' in Los Angeles hospital
It's one thing to say, as the BBC did in their report, that "Many in the medical community believe it is a psychiatric disorder." It's another thing altogether to say as the lede of this article says, that "Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present.". That is to present this view as a "fact", as a "view from nowhere".
"The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so."
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
Anyway so I did a google scholar search, to find out more, and there are several articles saying that it is possibly non delusional, in several different peer reviewed clinical journals.
I was also interested to see that the most recent in the google scholar search results, published in March 2015 12 February 2015, comes to the definite conclusion that "Our study using multiple detection methods confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Borrelia spirochetes that cause Lyme disease. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for this spirochete-associated dermopathy."
Robert Walker ( talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is the first article I found from 2010: Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology, Virginia R Savely and Raphael B Stricker, Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2010; 3: 67–78.
Amongst other points, it mentions a high level of association with Lyme disease - 97% of those reporting it had Lyme disease. It reports a far higher level of smoking than the general population (smoking reduces immune response). It confirms presence of the fibres below the skin, including in places that can't be reached by patients such as the middle of their backs. It says that they were hard subcutaneous micro-fibres, so difficult to analyse.
And it makes this point:
"The prevalence of delusional disorder in the US is estimated to be about 0.03%, and a similarly low prevalence is found in other societies. A review of the backgrounds of 3,000 self-reported cases of Morgellons disease found pre-existing delusional disorders to be no more prevalent than would be expected in the general population. Nevertheless, patients with symptoms of Morgellons disease are routinely dismissed as delusional. The present study reinforces the fact that Morgellons patients appear to be distinct from patients with delusional disorders in terms of demographics and symptomatology."
Other articles on the same topic (2006):
"Morgellons disease is a mysterious skin disorder that was first described more than 300 years ago. The disease is characterized by fiber-like strands extruding from the skin in conjunction with various dermatologic and neuropsychiatric symptoms. In this respect, Morgellons disease resembles and may be confused with delusional parasitosis. The association with Lyme disease and the apparent response to antibacterial therapy suggest that Morgellons disease may be linked to an undefined infectious process. Further clinical and molecular research is needed to unlock the mystery of Morgellons disease." The Mystery of Morgellons Disease, Virginia R. Savely, Mary M. Leitao, Dr Raphael B. Stricker, American Journal of Clinical Dermatology February 2006, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 1-5
Also (2009):
This one is based on a case study combine with a review of 251 previous citations:
"These data suggest Morgellons disease can be characterized as a physical human illness with an often-related delusional component in adults. All medical histories support that behavioral aberrancies onset only after physical symptoms. The identified abnormalities include both immune deficiency and chronic inflammatory markers that correlate strongly with immune cytokine excess. The review of 251 current NLM DP references leads us to the possibility that Morgellons disease and DP are grossly truncated labels of the same illness but with the reversal of the cause-effect order. Further, the patients’ data suggest that both illnesses have an infectious origin."
"Proposed Characterization of Morgellons Disease The authors conclude that Morgellons disease is a multisystemic illness that has been presumed as a delusional phenomenon for decades as its most obvious and disconcerting manifestations resembled actual (but “unverified”) parasite infestation as well as various psychopathologies. However, using recent technology and even a modicum of consistently obtained physical data supports that Morgellons manifest as a skin phenomenon, an immune deficiency state and a chronic inflammatory process. Since infectious agents can initiate and maintain chronic diseases, the behavioral and other CNS manifestations here are more likely effect than cause. We suggest that the Morgellons label be considered to displace any label suggesting delusion as the primary cause of this phenomenon." Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series William T Harvey, Robert C Bransfield, Dana E Mercer, Andrew J Wright, Rebecca M Ricchi, Mary M Leitao Journal of Medical Case Reports July 2009
Also (2013) - this is in F1000 research - so article submitted before review, with open process of peer review, has several "approve" reviews at the end by experts.
"Like BDD [a similar disease of cattle], MD filaments are produced by epithelial cells and stem from the stratum basale and from the root sheath of hair follicles, thus providing evidence that the filaments are cellular in origin 3, 4. Furthermore, immunohistochemical and histological staining has demonstrated that these filaments have a collagen as well as a keratin component. Like cattle with BDD, patients with MD also produce antibodies reactive to Borrelia burgdorferi antigens 18. Multisystemic symptoms resembling Lyme disease also imply a possible spirochetal etiology for MD 1– 3, 18, 19. The frequent clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease and coinfecting tick-borne pathogens in MD patients suggests a multifactorial etiology and possible vectoring by ticks" Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease Marianne J Middelveen, Divya Burugu, Akhila Poruri, Jennie Burke, Peter J Mayne, Eva Sapi, Douglas G Kahn, and Raphael B Strickera, F1000Res, 2013 Jan 28. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.2-25.v1
Also (2015):
"Our study using multiple detection methods confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Borrelia spirochetes that cause Lyme disease. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for this spirochete-associated dermopathy.".
..."We undertook a detailed microscopic and molecular study of North American MD patients to investigate the presence of borrelial spirochetes systemically and in dermatological specimens. Based on culture, histology, immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy and molecular testing, we present extensive evidence for spirochetal infection in MD patients. Our study confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Lyme disease. The proposed clinical classification scheme for MD should aid in the diagnosis and treatment of this complex illness." Exploring the association between Morgellons disease and Lyme disease: identification of Borrelia burgdorferi in Morgellons disease patients Marianne J Middelveen, Cheryl Bandoski, Jennie Burke, Eva Sapi, Katherine R Filush, Yean Wang, Agustin Franco, Peter J Mayne1 and Raphael B Stricker, BMC Dermatology 2015, 15:1 doi:10.1186/s12895-015-0023-0
That last is a recent article, published 12 February 2015, and comes to the definite conclusion that "Our study confirms that MD is a true somatic illness associated with Lyme disease.".
Robert Walker ( talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As someone else said, nowadays often even doctors go to Wikipedia, and may not always be aware of the issues of WP:POV of some articles. So we have a special responsibility, I think, to be rigorously WP:NPOV, especially so in medical articles. So anyway - this is to suggest editors with a medical background might like to review this cite, and possibly update the article as needed.
About BMC Dermatology for the most recent 2015 cite:
BMC Dermatology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of skin disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
It surely satisfies all the qualifications for reliable citations in wikipedia?
Robert Walker ( talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)I can see the point, still I feel the lede is still overstating the case by saying that it "is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief" - you have to say "says who" - I don't think you could say it's been proved definitively. And there are many obviously who think that it is not originated in delusion. So, I think it has to be qualified, I'd say, by saying who it is who says they have a delusional belief. Because it is a matter of conflict, and debate, even if the controversy may be largely between mainstream medical researchers, and other researchers whose status may be less established, and the patients themselves, and various support organizations. I think that should be reflected somehow in the lede. Maybe then you'd get less of these objections on the talk page also.
After all the guidance on the lede is that it should be like a shorter version of the article itself. And later in the article it says "Most dermatologists, psychiatrists, and other medical professionals view Morgellons as a new name for a well established condition, delusional parasitosis" then "This explanation is, however, "unpopular among individuals identifying themselves as having Morgellons disease"" - that's much better than the lede because it attributes everything said to a source and shows that there is controversy here.
Also the article doesn't mention the Charles Holman Foundation. It seems quite a major organization. The thing is that wikipedia should present any significant, noteworthy POV. For instance, it presents the views of climate skeptics. It says clearly in those articles that the main stream scientific view is of climate change - but then presents the views of climate skeptics just as they understand it. So - I think it should present the views of the patients - and the researchers who agree with them, and the Holman foundation - in some form or another. Even if it is currently regarded as fringe (which I don't know if it is) - it should I think be presented in some form or other.
Even if it was views of medical researchers all on one side, and views of alternative medicine and fringe on the other side, if it is a significant widely held POV then it needs to be covered I think appropriately labelled, e.g. as fringe, or as alternative medicine if that is what it is, or as minority mainstream if that is what it is. Also - I see that the Holman foundation has an article about this very article, saying that they regard it as biased because it leaves out peer reviewed citations of views not covered in the article. See Anonymous Editing on Wikipedia Keeps Morgellons Sufferers in the Dark. It's an article from 2013. So details probably not up to date.
They hosted a conference in 2015, with many speakers on Morgellon's disease, eleven speakers on the page here: 8th Annual Medical Scientific Conference on Morgellons Disease. With a diversity of views but quite a few presenting the possiblity that infectious agents are involved in causing the disease.
Also, what you say about Saveley having in the past falsified data doesn't prevent the possibility that his more recent research he has turned a leaf and is doing good research now, and with seems quite a few other researchers following similar lines also it would seem.
Anyway - I think that the lede has to somehow present a diversity of views - that it is not just delusional as the only view. The main thing then being how to characterize the other views. Which again are surely not just patients also and not just internet self diagnosis as the article claims at present. But quite a large body of people who have this WP:POV and are academically trained and so forth. Wikipedia, if I understand the guidelines on WP:POV then this view has to be presented somehow in this article, and also given a fair bit of space, difficult though it may be to decide how to present it and I think it would need somehow to be reflected in the lede also. The big question would be whether the diversity of views should bes presented as main stream vs fringe and alternative medicine, or a diversity of views amongst medical professionals, or perhaps some of both. I don't think it is accurately presenting the current situation not to mention this diversity of WP:POV at all any more than it would be accurate to have an article on climate change that doesn't present the views of climate skeptics at all. Robert Walker ( talk) 02:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Stricker, not Savely, is co-author of the disputed paper. Mistaken attribution above (both are among many 'LLMD' practitioners.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.88.29 ( talk) 10:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"Morgellons disease (MD) is a complex skin disorder characterized by ulcerating lesions that have protruding or embedded filaments. Many clinicians refer to this condition as delusional parasitosis or delusional infestation and consider the filaments to be introduced textile fibers. In contrast, recent studies indicate that MD is a true somatic illness associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are keratin and collagen in composition and that they result from proliferation and activation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in the skin. Previously, spirochetes have been detected in the dermatological specimens from four MD patients, thus providing evidence of an infectious process."
Abstract: Morgellons disease is a controversial topic in medicine. There are two polarized views regarding Morgellons disease: one, that it is a somatic illness and that it has an infectious etiology and two, that it is a psychiatric illness. Those that maintain it has an infectious etiology argue that the lesions are primary and result from an infection. Those that believe it is psychogenic in origin argue that there are no primary lesions and that lesions are secondary to psychiatric illness, the result of self-excoriation. The evidence supporting these two hypotheses will be examined.
One other thought I had, I could do a stub article on the Morgellons Disease Foundation. It is easily notable enough to have a page on wikipedia, according to the guidelines, seems to me. Any organization that organizes an annual conference with many academic speakers, and which is linked to by universities and the likes of the Mayo clinic, seems to me, easily fulfills the Wikipedia guidelines for notability.
Then that might help defuse the situation here a bit perhaps. You could link to that page in the lede, and then because it is an article about an organization rather than a medical condition, may then be easier to present the material in a WP:NPOV way as it is no longer bound by the wikipedia guidelines on articles about medical conditions. Then I could include the material just given now, seems to me all that would be appropriate in an article about the Morgellons disease foundation, whatever your thoughts about whether to include it here. Not fork. If you feel that it is an alternative medicine group (doesn't seem to me that it is, but if you decided that it is), then still deserve an article like the way we have articles on the Bach flower remedies or Homeopathy.
There is a very short summary of the foundation here, in the press release for the 2014 conference
"The Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation, based in Austin, TX, is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization committed to advocacy and philanthropy in the battle against Morgellons Disease. The foundation was named for Charles E. Holman, a pioneer in the fight against Morgellons Disease, and is led by Director Cindy Casey-Holman, "
which could be a starting point for the new article, as well as including some of the other material here. I can try a draft over the weekend in user space first. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is my draft in user space: Morgellons Disease Foundation.
What do you all think? Shall I submit this as a new article? I've been careful to be WP:NPOV and make it clear also that they are an advocacy group. And end with the conclusion, "Note, that all this is leading edge research, and has not reached the stage where it is generally accepted by the medical profession.".
I think it would be acceptable as an article according to wikipedia guidelines. And then you could link to it in the lede and that would, I think, also defuse a lot of the hositility of some of the posts in this talk page too. It shows that wikipedia is covering the topic, is not ignoring it, which I think is the main thing of concern by many of the posters here. And by making it clear that it is leading edge research and that this is an advocacy group - is a way to bypass all the issues that you feel make it hard to cover it here. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)And just to say, I know far too little about all this to make a judgement myself, either way. I've known expert researchers to make mistakes and climate of opinion can change in medical matters, so I don't automatically assume that the established views are right. And the researchers seem genuine, at least, just now listening to Marianne J. Middelveen in the radio interview of her, I felt she came over as genuine, and what she said seemed believable and credible. And I see nothing obviously wrong with the papers, if the data is correct, and no reason to suppose the data is falsified. So, I just keep an open mind about it myself. After all, it's not so long ago that it was accepted that Helicobacter_pylori causes stomach ulcers. Before the mid 1980s the received wisdom was that bacteria can't grow in the acid conditions of the stomach, so it couldn't have a microbial cause. The discoverers got the 2005 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
So, though it does seem the received wisdom of the medical community that it is a psychosomatic disorder, I think we need to be careful about making the additional deduction, that therefore this research has to be incorrect, or deceitful, etc etc. Or to deduce that their research has to be wrong. As scientists we need to keep open minds both ways. Including the possibility of new results coming in out of left field and overturning received wisdom on the subject. Even if we think it is improbable. But it works both ways, scientific verifiability. It can end up with new results being verified that surprise everyone. Robert Walker ( talk) 01:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream. Alternatively, it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study."
Since there has been significant coverage of Mitchell's "condition" in the media, it needs short mention here. It is currently mentioned in this section of her article here.
This is obviously not covered by MEDRS, but by the normal RS rules. Here are some sources, with some of her statements:
Does anyone have any suggestions for doing this properly? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 18:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The tone of this article is almost mocking rather than serious or biased. It clearly presents one side of the argument while discounting the other without references or support. This article clearly needs to be rewritten to meet wikipedia objectivity standards. The Moody Blue (Talk) 23:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I had another thought today about the lede. It's closely related to the Lyme disease controversy after all, that the Fringe science researchers in this field (in the sense of research following the scientific method and published in peer reviewed science journals, but not mainstream) think that it is caused by the same parasite in many patients.
Also note that Lyme disease controversy, although it is as controversial as Morgellons, does not have the large number of talk page posts complaining about it and the large number of archives this one does. And it goes back to 2007 [10] so is quite an old article. With just one archive.
While this article has 11 archives now, and there is a continuing on going battle between equally well meaning wikipedia editors and readers of the article.
I think that is some indication that there is an issue of some sort with the article, something that isn't addressed in it, to have so many complaints for so long with nothing resolved. While Lyme disease controversy seems to have hit on a good solution to a similar situation.
So why not model it on that article?
"Morgellons (/mɔː(ɹ)ˈdʒɛlənz/, also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, while in reality no such things are present"
That article starts with
"Chronic Lyme disease is a controversial diagnosis that encompasses post–Lyme disease syndrome, as well as "a broad array of illnesses or symptom complexes for which there is no reproducible or convincing scientific evidence of any relationship to B. burgdorferi infection".
So, I'd suggest modelling it after Lyme disease controversy and start by saying it is a controversial diagnosis.
And that article starts by saying "Most medical authorities advise against long-term antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease". So could say the same.
"Morgellons disease is a controversial diagnosis related to the Lyme disease controversy. It's advocates claim that patients are suffering from effects of B. burgdorferi infection and other spirochetes, while the general consensus of the CDC and other medical researchers is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis and that there is no reproducible or convincing scientific evidence of any relationship to B. burgdorferi infection".
Most medical authorities advise against long-term antibiotic treatment for Morgellons".
→
And later on Lyme disease controversy says
"An advocacy group called the International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society (ILADS)[15] argues the persistence of B. burgdorferi may be responsible for manifestations of late Lyme disease symptoms"
So similarly why not say, later in the article
"An advocacy group called the Charles E Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation, and previously another group the Morgellons Research Foundation, argues the persistence of B. burgdorferi and other spirochetes may be responsible for manifestations of Morgellons disease symptoms"
If it works for the Lyme disease article it could work here.
Just a suggestion. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Rothorpe ( talk) 00:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
has now appeared at Wiktionary, 'MorJELLons'. Rothorpe ( talk) 17:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)whereby the article should be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and *accurately reflect current medical knowledge*.
Secondary is simply not enough. _New_ research should be included, particularly when it is a correction to null results. In addition, the article as started draws false conclusions. The CDC article concludes that more research is needed, whereby the article writer chooses instead of *claim* that the disease is psychological.
User:lizard1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.99.106 ( talk) 05:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"Despite these limitations, our study provides a number of insights. The study was done among a well-defined and highly representative population of California, allowing generation of the first prevalence estimates of the condition and allowing us to look systematically for illness clustering. We extensively characterized the skin lesions afflicting case-patients, including systematic examination of intact and involved skin. We also performed detailed spectral and molecular analyses of fibers and other materials that have been reported as the condition's hallmark. Lastly, we assessed cognitive deficits, psychiatric co-morbidity and functional impairment among those affected."To our knowledge, this represents the most comprehensive, and the first population-based, study of persons who have symptoms consistent with the unexplained dermopathy referred to as Morgellons. We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features . We found little on biopsy that was treatable, suggesting that the diagnostic yield of skin biopsy, without other supporting clinical evidence, may be low. However, we did find among our study population co-existing conditions for which there are currently available therapies (drug use, somatization). These data should assist clinicians in tailoring their diagnostic and treatment approaches to patients who may be affected. In the absence of an established cause or treatment, patients with this unexplained dermopathy may benefit from receipt of standard therapies for co-existing medical conditions and/or those recommended for similar conditions such delusions infestation"
"To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear."
[the CDC] didn't rule out any possibility of future developments in the fieldjust because they didn't explicitly state that they ruled out such developments is a misleading interpretation of the CDC paper. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that an idea is supported when the idea hasn't been mentioned, let alone explicitly ruled out. Ca2james ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features ".
"A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."
"Why should new, inconclusive, research override previous (mainstream) conclusions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC")" Why should it be left out, not mentioned, ignored or discounted? Science does not stand still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 ( talk)
Ca2james Oh, okay I understand now. I've seen the limitations mentioned but I think only in the articles by the authors of the fringe theory itself. So probably that section will be okay if I hunt up where I found the mentions of them, and then attribute it to them instead of presenting this as unattributed. I can't remember now where I read it, read it somewhere then went to the report and it confirmed what they said. But you are right, it wasn't the CDC themselves who drew attention to this paragraph in the report or the critics of the spriochete hypothesis, and I understand your point now. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything else while I'm at it? I'll probably do the editing tomorrow. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
See User talk:Robertinventor/Hypothesis that Morgellons is linked to borellia spirochetes, and Lyme disease. Ca2james ( talk) 17:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The fact that many patients with morgellons have improved with antibiotic use gives tremendous support to the theory that they do not in fact have morgellons but rather, the multi systemic bacterial parasitic infection of Lyme Disease which has either infected the central nervous system or neuro pathways of the brain causing damage to the myelin sheath of the nerves and giving the sensations of itching, crawling, and even in some cases, electric shocks throughout the body. Garyden1982 ( talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC) References |
If this is just delusional parasitosis, why isn't the Morgelleon's article just a redirect to DP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said, if you do a simple search at least on pubmed, you'll find many studies done of the subject of a possible organic cause of Morguellons, I think that whether it turns to be organic or not, this view and the efforts done to corroborate it should no doubt me mentioned. Eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879673— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.41.133 ( talk) 16:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
If Wikipedia truly wants to present a "neutral" stance, it would do well to remove the term "delusional" as if this were indeed fact. By all appearances, the condition is still being researched and the CDC study does not close the case as a final answer. Perhaps Wikipedia could borrow phrasing from the Mayo Clinic [11] and describe the Morgellons as "mysterious and controversial" or better yet "still being researched". Keep in mind that mainstream science was skeptical of Helicobacter pylori for some 30 years until dedicated scientists and medical research technology could prove its existence (and validate sufferers worldwide that it wasn't "just" their diet/neurosis/self-inflicted). 70.185.250.4 ( talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The whole artcle has to now be rewritten to include new published research on Feb. 12, 2015. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-5945/15/1 WildAppleLeaf ( talk) 06:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Anybody can search online and find so much evidence including horrifying and vivid photographs - how can you say that morgellons is a delusion of the sufferer? I don't have it myself, but I have compassion for those who do. With this article, Wikipedia proves itself to be under the control of those who don't want us to know the truth. I will no longer use Wikipedia. Very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellenrhoads ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This article shows that wikipedia unable to treat topics in a neutral and unbiased manner. This article suggests this condition is psychological, when it is a type of skin legion.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/s12895-015-0023-0-1.jpg
This is a person with skin lesions and sores on their back, with visible fibers within the skin lesion. This is a picture from a peer reviewed study from a doctor studying the condition. This is what is being studied by doctors when they refer to Morgellons. According to wikipedia, these skin lesions are psychosomatic in origin and are created by the victim's thoughts and beliefs. According to wikipedia, delusions absorbed by the internet create skin lesions and fibers under the skin, like the above.
The article should reflect the fact that Morgellons is a cluster of symptoms, involving skin legions, whose origin is in dispute. This article attempts to redefine Morgellons into an internet hoax and shared delusion, when it is actually a dermatological skin condition.
Go to the acne article and tell people that their condition exists in their head and that "Scientific Consensus" says it does not exist and that belief in acne is transmitted by the internet and is a psychological delusion. There is an absolute Orwellian absurdity to this article and the level of censorship and misrepresentation.
Wikipedia is making me lose faith in humanity. There is no evidence that it is a psychological condition and there is no peer-reviewed studies or primary sources claiming that it is psychological in origin and therefore there is no valid claim to "consensus". When confronted with this, trolls respond "only secondary sources count" and when confronted with secondary sources they say "they are not valid because I dont agree with them".
Secondary sources and what some random person said in a newspaper is not science. Science requires systematic study, theories, evidence and data. An opinion piece by a doctor is not science. A statement by a doctor in a secondary source is not science.
This is not something mysterious or fictional. It is literally a very specific type of skin rash, which wikipedia editors are attempting to redefine as a psychological condition. This article needs to be split into two conditions, the psychological condition (psychosomatic) and the skin rash (dermatological).
This article is a pseudo scientific piece of biased and one sided propaganda which completely misrepresents the CDC findings as a conclusive positive finding, which the actual report was inconclusive and clearly stated that it could not come to a positive finding about causation. In other words, the article misrepresents and then lies about the content of a single study and then represents a position the study did not come to, as representing a strong "consensus" when the study itself disavows the existence of any such positive finding or consensus.
In defending these lies and misrepresentation wikipedia's editors disavow any intent at an unbias, neutral or true treatment and claim that wikipedia only reflects secondary sources that confirm their biases (neutrality be damned) and willfully states everything else should be ignored or censored from consideration.
First and foremost Morgellons is a dermatological condition (not a psychological condition). The article should clearly state that and have pictures of the condition. Then the article may speculate about the cause and nature of the dermatological condition and whether it is psychological in origin. 23.243.162.38 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
IMO we should strive to use boring neutral languages. So we should state "people with the condition" rather than "sufferers of the condition". The later language is not encyclopedic IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have redirected Hypothesis that Morgellons is linked to Lyme disease, with common cause of Borellia spirochetes, created by Robertinventor to here. It relied on two primary sources to create a POV fork. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
"Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review."
If you are stating that this article should mention the Morgellons/Lyme hypothesis, then perhaps if secondary sources cover that fringe theory, we should, too. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
"In 2008 the Washington Post Magazine reported that Internet discussions about Morgellons include many conspiracy theories about the cause, including biological warfare, nanotechnology, chemtrails and extraterrestrial life. [1]"
References
Second, if you think the article you created was not a POV fork based on two primary sources, and you believe instead that it is a notable topic, that is determined at WP:AFD. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that would survive AFD, and I believe if you were to revert the redirect, the article would be submitted instantly to AFD, and it would be removed.
On the other hand, since we surely have secondary reviews debunking/discussing/covering the Lyme hypothesis, I don't know why that isn't covered in this article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think we would use primary sources anywhere for medical content? See WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. And I think you're misunderstanding Mayo.
Perhaps the fastest way to solve this discussion is to restore the article and send it to AFD (no problem if anyone wants to revert me and do that-- just seems a longer course that will end up at the same place). I suggest that a more productive approach would be to cite from secondary sources the text you want to see included here on Lyme. The article you created claimed to source the Lyme controversy to secondary reviews, which means it's not fringe, and which means you should be able to cite that text here. But then you advanced the "fringe" section of the article on primary sources; so which is it? Two primary studies advancing a hypothesis for research, and reported on in the press, don't make a "fringe" theory; it's how science works.
Further, your article went way off-topic into territory unrelated to the medical issue, and please, consider article naming conventions; that name was unmanageable. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added a Lyme blurb: [12]. I'm sure it can be improved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sandy - I've now manually archived that section to its proper place. I did sign it but the signature was in a second very short subsection which was then followed by a long discussion which was within that subsection. The archiving bot archived the second subsection and the entire thread but left the lede and first subsection on this page. I've now archived it all to its proper place.
See Archive 12#Is this article WP:NPOV? and then | You forgot the part....
At the time it was part of a very long and extensive talk page with many editors contributing because that was soon after the news story about Joni Mitchell broke. I came here along with many other editors to find out more about her condition and then was surprised to see no mention at all of the Lyme disease connection which I'd read about in a google search for information about her condition.
The way I understand this is in terms of fringe science in the first sense. See the Wikipedia article on Fringe science:
"There are differing definitions of fringe science. Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream. Alternatively, it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study. In any case, it is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from the mainstream theory in that field."
So - it has articles in peer reviewed journals. It follows the scientific method. But it is generally just ignored by mainstream scientists. I understand it in the first sense on that page, as valid science that is not considered mainstream.
The situation as I understand it is that mainstream scientists accept the CDC conclusions. They are not prepared to discuss any other scientific theories at present and have stopped research into the topic which was quite active before the CDC review. However a few researchers didn't accept the CDC's conclusions as final. They continued to research into the topic area and continue to publish their researches.
I searched carefully to try to find other studies that either contradict their conclusions or debunk them. The only thing I did find was one comment on a FL100 article by a reviewer - and a reply to it by the researchers leading to a short discussion thread. But in that case, both the article itself, and this discussion thread I felt were not notable enough to cite in wikipedia. I found nothing else.
Then as well as that there is a patients advocacy organization, the Morgellons Disease Foundation - and they raise funds as a 501 c(3) charity, which is mainly spent on an annual conference which has about a dozen contributers every year which reports the latest researches of this small group of researchers.
The nearest I know to this is the case of the Viking Labelled release, which Gilbert Levin to this day thinks discovered evidence of life on Mars. There's an even smaller group of researchers in that case, mainly Levin himself, and recently a few more researchers, who regularly publish research on this topic in peer reviewed journals, which is largely ignored by the rest of the scientific community. It is treated in wikipedia like this: Labelled Release which might perhaps give ideas about how to deal with the situation.
I think that it is good that the article now mentions it, but that - in my view - the theory itself should also be mentioned, in enough detail so the reader knows what the researchers hypothesis is.
Their hypothesis is that spirochetes related to those that cause Lyme disease infect keratinocytes and fibroblasts cells. They hypothesize that this infection alters their expression so that they proliferate and create micro-fibres of keratin / collagen beneath the surface of the skin. And they hypothesize that it is these micro-fibres that lead to the itching and painful sensations reported by sufferers. In support of this hypothesis they present research in which they analyse the micro-fibres and found that they are made of keratin and collagen. They also found spirochetes in all the Morgellons patients in their sample, using tests which they say are more sensitive than the ones used by the CDC. They also suggest a connection with Bovine Digital dermatitis which has similar symptoms of subcutaneous microfilaments of keratin and collagen. They accept that the CDC study found cotton fibres but they say that the microfilaments they study are a different phenomenon which you need a microscope to see, which wasn't investigated by the study.
I think that hypothesis should be mentioned somewhere in wikipedia. Whether as a separate article or as part of this one I don't care. And if it is a separate article I don't care whether or not this article links to it. It is something of interest to readers like myself to know that there is such a hypothesis being investigated as a fringe science theory.
BTW I'm a science blogger. And it is my plan to write this up as a science blog post after all this is over, as I think it is an interesting topic. There's an MSc thesis about it also, but it wasn't considered notable enough to mention it in the article - an earlier draft of it did mention it. At times I find it difficult to adapt to the way topics of this nature are treated in wikipedia - but am doing my best to follow the guidelines here. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
In good faith, after walls of text and trying to decipher archives and a messy talk, one is supposed to now spend another half hour sorting out a long post-- a good deal of which is not focused on article improvement-- and explaining policy and guideline to you. I am going to be traveling and unable to follow up on this, but as you indicate that you are still learning (yet your talk page doesn't indicate you are a new editor), I am wondering if you are ready yet to contribute to a discussion on a difficult and controversial medical topic. As I suggested on your talk, it might be helpful for you to strengthen your knowledge of Wikipedia policy, guideline, and protocols in a less controversial arena. I have to pack, so must leave it to others to attempt to address the confusion in your post above (if we all followed the logic you use for FRINGE, we would have a separate article on every primary source marginal hypothesis ever published). I would also suggest that you leave talk page archiving to others. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I see this article already has a {{ recruiting}} template, so this is just an additional heads up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a Soap box
|
---|
More research being done to prove Morgellons is very real and not delusional (Cornicom Institute) Please note all this information is written by myself with permission from Cornicom Institute as they are doing ongoing studies that involve the public. The purpose is to get to the truth behind this horrible ailment. With thousands upon thousands afflicted worldwide it is becomming very difficult for government health organizations to deny the fact that this many people are NOT DELUSIONAL. Morgellons is very real and very devastating not only to the human population but animals as well. I urge the reader to research the many studies done by Clifford Cornicom at the institute. http://www.cornicominstitute.org Independent study being done at Independent Morgellons Study https://carnicominstitute.website/wp/mrpstatus/
Morgellons Truth Network ( talk) 18:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Since the first case of "Morgellons" was brought to the world, there has been a stigma placed on it of "Delusional Parasitosis) This stigma has been in place since day one, however, there is more and more scientific proof that this is by no means a delusional disease. There is great controversy about the CDC's study and since the CDC study has been published, there has been numerous other studies that totally contradict the CDC study. The most notable study being done is by Clifford Cornicom with the Cornicom Institue which can be seen here: https://carnicominstitute.website/legacysite/articles/announcement_files/JourneyIntoTheUnkown.pdf Morgellons, or Unexplained Dermopathy (which ever name you choose) is in fact, a debilitating ailment in which it produces lesions on the skin that can take literally years to heal. There is strange fibers that are deep within the lesion and these vary in size and color. It would seen there are many factors involved with the infection or active phase of the ailment. There is a feeling of crawling sensation over the skin along with stinging. There's also black specs that can be found on skin a clothing. There are many signs and symptoms that are involved with this such as; Morgellons Disease is systemic; affecting all body systems, once an infection is fully established. Initial symptoms often present as skin related, as if afflicted with mites, lice, fleas and 'dandruff' and dry skin - but unresolved after medical treatment. Integumentary system: Itchy scalp and skin Sensation of crawling on/under skin (formication) and in ears (especially nocturnally or after consuming sugar) Insect-like 'bites' and stinging sensations on skin Skin rash, including red areas on cheeks Small ‘blood spots' on skin Burning sensation on skin or feeling of very small pin pricks White flakes, 'spores', 'eggs', granules and 'glitter' from skin pores and hair Fibres coming from skin pores and lesions, of different lengths and colours: (blue, white, transparent, black, red) Fibre balls/bundles coming out of skin pores Black specs coming out of skin pores Skin lesions, sores, pimples or spots - that heal slowly (eg. red spots or scabs on nose & checks) Healed lesions causing scarring or hypopigmentation Mole 'like' spots appearing, raised on skin (Micro-angiomas 0.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter) Skin thinning (shins, back of hands) and unexplained bruising Cellulitis (above major muscle groups) Dark circles under eyes Hair loss on scalp, eye brows, eye lashes Growth of soft, white villous hairs on face and arms Ingrowing hairs and black roots on infected hairs Scalp hair irritating skin when wet and highly static when dry Pitting on nails and fungal infections Cardiovascular system: Irregular/fast heart beat and sudden pain without exertion Circulation & temperature regulation problems (low core temperature) Poor capillary refill, Reynaud's syndrome Endocrinal system: Thyroid dysfunction Hypercalcaemia Weight loss/gain Digestive system Irritable bowel Distended abdomen Malabsorption Colo-rectal discomfort Constipation or loose bowels Rumbling stomach Musculoskeletal system: Stiff neck upon movement and aching shoulders Pain at base of spine around sacrum (pelvis) and coccyx (anus) Inflammed, aching and stiff joints (fingers, elbows, hips, knees) Weakness in wrists Lymphatic & Immune system: Inflamed lymph nodes (eg. under jaw line, arm pits, groin) Immune system disruption Central Nervous system: Numb fingers and/or toes (peripheral neuropathy) Short-term memory loss Racing thoughts Insomnia Brain fog - (eg. problems with finding words) Fatigue and lack of concentration Pressure headaches Urinary system: Kidney ache (can manifest as lower back pain) Bladder weakness Urinary tract infections Eyes, ears, nose and throat: Declining sight, grit feeling, white particles in tear ducts and eye inflammation Declining hearing Loss of balance Heavy staining on teeth/gum interface Gum disease and pain in gums Furrows in tongue Increased saliva Psychological: Depression Increased irritability and decreasing patience Bipolar ADD
Morgellons sufferers have thread-like filaments appearing from skin sores and/or unbroken skin, which can be the cause of much discomfort and itching. Unfortunately, Morgellons patients are often given a clinical misdiagnosis of delusional parasitosis or obsessive-compulsive disorder. This is largely due to a lack of detailed observation, and correlation of patient cases. It is thought that a trauma or overload of stress can increase or kick off these symptoms. Indeed, Morgellons seems to progress in a body that has a compromised immune system or state. Many sufferers report an association with being bitten, handling soil, being in close contact with sick humans or animals. The Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), in the United States initially had over 15,000 registered families. They had found that often more than one family member was affected by Morgellons Disease. They also reported that nurses and teachers were the occupational groups affected the most. Their work and funding has been transferred to the Charles E. Holman Foundation, with research being led by Randy Wymore (Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Physiology, Oklahoma State University). The page below includes the MRF's case definition, giving more details on symptoms and signs. It also provides details on laboratory tests that can show abnormalities in Morgellons patients: http://www.morgellonsuk.org.uk/support_medical.htm [1] Denise Epke |
Why is this section here? It's a primary source. I can see how/why it is needed here (because of the misconception and publicity and misunderstanding about exactly where Mayo stands), but we've got a problem when one editor wants to add primary sources about Lyme-- which we reject per MEDRS-- at the same time that we include a Mayo primary study.
I do not have access to all the journal articles; is the Mayo study not covered in a secondary review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What the Mayo clinic actually says about Morgellons is quite the opposite of Wikipedia's version. [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.15.157 ( talk) 06:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)