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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Looks like ever since the Morgellons page got unlocked, there has been a flurry of edits which have turned this topic back to hate speech against people with a disability.
Isn't that what Morgellons-Watch is for?
How is this possibly NPOV when the majority of the discussion ignores biology and science, while fully embracing quack psychiatry.
Finally, why is this page named "morgellons"?? The CDC has chosen a different name for this disease. The current page needs to be renamed "persecution and lies against people with a real disease, intended to promote human-rights violations and medical negligence against any patient with a Morgellons diagnosis." A new page and a complete rewrite needs to be started on "unexplained dermopathy." The CDC's "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED)" would certainly not be a place for psychiatric quackery. Concurring with this, on 3/28/2007, the CDC removed the Delusional Parasitosis web page from the Division of Parasitic Diseases site. Delusional parasitosis is irrelevant to "Unexplained dermopathy" aka Morgellons.
If you feel the need to waste people's time with idiocies like "delusional parasitosis", then start a new page on that subject, adding in all the big-pharma-funded psychotropic drug pushers papers -- such as the corrupt excercises in scientific fraud perpetuated by Drs. [BLP violations and libel removed by -- Fyslee / talk 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)], etc.
Is libel appropriate for wikipedia, because that's exactly what is going on with the "morgellons" page?? Morgellons sufferers are not delusional, they have an infection. Continuously equating DOP with Morgellons does not make it true. The fact that there are some medical opinions that Morgellons is DOP doesn't make it true either. The fact that the controversy isn't even framed correctly suggests to the naive reader that all morgellons patients are nutcases and their symptoms should not be believed or investigated. That further makes this wikipedia page a source for libelous "hate speech."
This isn't just an esoteric academic debate on an abstract subject. the wikipedia page promotes an unbalanced (esp if you start with the introduction or "treatment" portions) view of "Morgellons" as a psychiatric disorder, even though there is strong evidence of a physical and infective etiology. Just the fact that there are two independent university research groups who are finding consistent evidence of (1) never-seen-before material emerging from lesions of patients whose samples were collected in a clinical setting; (2) agrobacterium; (3) Lyme disease; (4) Chlamidia Pneumoniae; (5) immune deficiency. Although most of the aforementioned can produce profound psychiatric distress, it would be completely inappropriate to chemically lobotomize a patient, while not treating their underlying illness. That is the climate of medical prejudice faced by patients today; furthermore, there's the possibility of fomenting general discrimination in society against Morgellons sufferers as "crazy" rather than "ill."
And that is exactly the kind of civil rights violation against morgellons patients that the existing Morgellons wikipedia article entails. It is hate speech pure and simple. You could just as well have a page that equates people-of-color with being lazy... backed by numerous articles and opinions on the internet backing up that very opinion. And you could discuss this issue at length even... but it would be very inappropriate for wikipedia. Just because an opinion exists, even by a professional, doesn't make it true -- "blacks are stupid... Nobel prize winner Shockley, inventor of the transistor, said it was true, so it must be!" Nielsp 04:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
o Molluscum Contagiosum; Monkeypox; Monkeypox Vaccination; Morgellons; Mosquito-borne Diseases; Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries; MRSA (Methicillin ... + http://www.cdc.gov/DiseasesConditions/az/M.html Nielsp 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am with Niels on this. The way you obviously slant your definitions in the explanation of this affliction should be a cause of great concern for everyone. It should open everyone's eyes to how media is being used to manipulate and steer perception. Tell the lie long enough, or is this 1984 revisited? I believe your site is "covert and owned" by the powers that be, that are trying to keep a tight lid on this horrid horrid affliction. You should all be ashamed - terribly ashamed for your stance taken. The many articles and images that have been accumulated on the www.rense.com site are being sequestered and if you can post morgwatch here, a powers that be sponsored debunking site to discredit us, I feel you should also list the Rense site as they are not publishing OPINIONS, as morgwatch is so blahtantly doing. Those images are real, not altered, doctored, or a delusion...... Morgellons sufferers demonstrate nanoprobes, nanoarrays, chimeric organisms, novel "fluorescent tatoos" that are in a variety of colors and patterns.....this was not "conjured" by some poor delusional person's imagination. This was manufactured and inflicted upon a very large number of the population worldwide. I am not shocked that your position is as such because you are cowards. If you weren't AFRAID of the powers that be (covert worldwide affiliations) you would allow Rense information to be viewed here....to DEBUNK the debunkers and allow a FAIR and BALANCED gathering of information pertaining to what we DO KNOW about this affliction. I will be happy to see you not so obvious in your obvious "slandering, insinuating, and misleading" remarks about this subject. How can you consider yourself and online encyclopedia that is legit and fair when you stomp on the FREEDOM of SPEECH of the actual individuals suffering from this bizarre affliction? I pray day and night without ceasing that all of you perpetrators involved or associated with this "in your face" cover-up are exposed, brought to justice, and humiliated in front of the world, as we have had to endure for years. Publish the Rense page link to Morgellons Data. Thank you,
Maggiemae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.212 ( talk • contribs) 28 August 2007
I copied the following from Thatcher's sandbox because I don't think that Ward's comments were ever addressed. The information that Herd mentions above also makes it clear that the MRF is not the only ones who believe that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease. I think that the lead should be revised to reflect this Pez1103 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions about the following text in the lead.
"A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis[3][4] and believe any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing.[5]"
I can not find where the second word "majority" is coming from as I do not find that in cite [3] or (5), I do not have access to (4).
The text, "and believe any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing.[5]" needs to be reworded, tagged [citation needed], or deleted because as it is written it is not verifiable to the cite. The cite quotes one dermatologist Dr. Levine, "He says he has studied the fibers his patients bring in by the bag-load and they are textile in nature." Although there does seem to be a few dermatologists that say similar things in various cites, it seems a stretch to use this cite to say a majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe this.Ward20 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I found the "majority of health professionals" talk.[48] Unless reference (4)[49] says the same thing I think this source[50] should also be cited for the text above because it is the most recent.
I also found, "dermatologists say they are simply fibers from clothing, embedded in self-imposed sores."[51] which seems to be closest to the present article text.Ward20 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The word "majority" is a summary of several sources, and has been discussed before, and, I thought, agreed upon. See: [52], "Most doctors do not recognize Morgellons as a disease", [53] "Most doctors don't even believe it exists because the symptoms don’t fit anything listed in medical textbooks", [54] "most doctors don't acknowledge it as a real disease", [55],"most doctors believe the painful illness, called Morgellons Disease, is psychological", [56] "Most doctors interviewed dismiss alleged evidence that medical science has overlooked what patients are calling “Morgellons’ disease” and insist that the patients are delusional", [57] "most doctors believe Morgellons is not in the skin, but in the head." It could be changed to "most doctors", if you think that's better. The text of fibers being clothing is also a synthesis of MANY sources, with just one reference being given for clarity. I think perhaps you misunderstand the way articles are constructed. The intent is not to quote something, and then cite it. Where facts are not in dispute (i.e., there are many sources that say one thing, and no sources that say otherwise), then it's fine to simply describe what the situation is in your own words. Not the article is not saying that is IS delusions, or that it IS clothing fiber, it is simply saying what most medical professionals say about the subject. Herd of Swine 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) You're right, it was discussed before. I missed it. That was in the second post which I neglected to indent, sorry. The words "most doctors" are more accurate to the news articles you cited. The wording here is in dispute. This text is quite different than text produced by the Mayo Clinic,[58] "Some health professionals believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by another condition, often mental illness." The text used should be cited to show what source or sources are being relied upon. Readers and future editors will will then be able to easier judge the text quality. As to fibers, I can find sources that say dermatologists, or individual dermatologists say the fibers are textile or clothing. Others hypothesize the fibers are not textile or clothing.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [59][60][61] I can not find a source that says most doctors say the fibers are textile or clothing which is how I interpret the present text in the article. How about this, Most doctors, and dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.[3][4][62] Dermatologists say any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing,[63] but preliminary studies by MRF associates lead them to hypothesize fibers from Morgellons patients are not from textiles or clothing.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [64][65][66]" Or: Dermatologists say any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing,[67] but preliminary studies by MRF associates lead them to hypothesize the dermatologists are not correct.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [68][69][70]" Or: The fibers found from Morgellons patients are in dispute as to their origin.[71][Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [72][73][74] The more I work with the fibers issue, the more I think it may be too complex to put in the lead and should be left to the body to explain. Ward20 08:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
that you're attempting to hide through "morgellons-watch" style screed that has no place in wikipedia?
There's no discussion about what should be the lead... it's not some idiotic historical crap about a mom and her kid ... this sounds like a fairy tale, like back when the day when george bush (imitating his idol reagan) would tell us heartwarming tales about a mom and her dog... and feels just as disingenuous. Who cares about it's origins. It is a word that has entered into the english language. End of story. Now it's time to explore the word and create a framework for what that word means, which includes properly framing the controversy, and also framing the controversy in terms of it's costs to human life and suffering -- which is basically DENIAL OF TREATMENT by the majority of medicine, even though PATIENTS HAVE A RIGHT OF CARE THAT THEY'VE PAID FOR THROUGH THEIR HMO's AND MEDICAL PROVIDERS.
The lead, plain and simple, is this -- http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ -- and any information that can be attributed to this and only this. Delusional parasitosis and all the quack psychiatry represented in OPINION PAPERS by quacks like Drs. Koo/Murase/Koblenzer/etc are just that OPINIONS that DOP is Morgellons. They are wrong. Like I said, there's opinions by Dr. Shockley that blacks are inferior genetically. Why don't you add that to an article about people of color too?? The DOP-pushing papers are OPINIONS and there's COUNTER-OPINIONS to those OPINIONS that have been published as well, such as http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/11/24-b?etoc (the difference is that the DOP pushers have never actually helped the health of a true morgellons sufferer through their psychotropic nonsense... they've chemically-lobotomized their patients past the point of caring that they had nonhealing skin lesions. Meanwhile, Robert C. Bransfield, M.D., author of the article, being a Lyme practitioner, has probalby successfully diagnosed and treated the lyme-aspect of his morgellons patients, and has noticed a clinical improvement.)
And if the CDC/Kaiser study wasn't done by a lyme-denialist organization like kaiser, they might find clinical signs of improvements across all their morgellons patients by treating for Lyme. However, Kaiser does not recognize or treat chronic lyme ( http://lyme.kaiserpapers.info ) and will only give long-term antibiotics to teenagers with acne.
What needs to be below the lead, is a full-run-down of the controversy. This includes a much more in depth discussion of the information found here: http://morgellonstreatmentsteps.com/Morgellons_Medical_informat.html
Talk about a "majority of health professionals" makes this sound like an advertisement for the latest big-pharma pushed drug... which is basically what the Morgellons=DOP viewpoint is about anyways. Have you conducted a poll of doctors, or are you going by the number of published reports by doctors that have a suprizing amount of "Zyprexa" schwag scattered all over their offices... along with a nice tan from the big-pharma funded conference they attended with their families in the carribean... There was once a majority opinion that the earth was flat too. What does a "majority" mean when there's so little medical understanding and even less clinical experience in treating Morgellons patients?
Otherwise, such "loose talk" of "majority opinion" from doctors that have never even seen or properly treated a Morgellons patient... sounds just like MorgellonsWatch, and not Wikipedia.
Nielsp 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Propose something like this, (rough draft) Currently, there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons citation needed, and medical professionals treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Most dermatologists treat with established dermatological treatment regimens including, lotions, topical medications, antipsychotics, and counseling, which is claimed to help symptoms. citation needed Some medical professionals treat with infectious disease treatment regimens including, antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy, and it is claimed symptoms subside. citation needed The efficacy of the various treatments for people who identify themselves as having Morgellons has not been documented in studies. Ward20 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | the reality is that most people with the Morgellons are not treating it with DOP meds. | ” |
The "consensus view" in this case is just a group of doctors (several of whom have a long standing policy of dismissing new illnesses as psychological) making assumptions and agreeing with one another regarding these assumptions. I think that Ward's suggestion was a nice NPOV compromise. 204.115.33.49 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | Is CDC aware that some web sites claim they have products that will treat/cure this condition? Yes. We are aware of some web sites that make these claims, including some that imply CDC support of their products. CDC can not validate the information or product claims of those web sites and does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition. |
” |
“ | Persons who believe they may suffer from this condition should contact a healthcare provider for evaluation and medical care. CDC is not a clinical facility and does not provide clinical care or consultation to patients. | ” |
No original research here.
Currently, there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons [4], and medical professionals treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Most dermatologists use established dermatological treatment regimens including emollients, anti-psychotics, and counseling. citation needed(I believe there is one out there with this treatment that speaks directly to Morgellons, but I can not find it right now). Some medical professionals use infectious disease treatment regimens including, antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy. [5] The CDC, "does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition." [6] Ward20 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Ward's suggested language is NPOV and works. What I took from the comment that Ward made is that maybe dermatologists diagnosing DP (rather than a psychiatrist) and treating Morgellons with drugs with very serious side effects is somewhat risky, even if it is what many of them attempt to do right now. Pez1103 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I will go a long way toward trying to make opposing editors happy through compromise, but I am starting to get frustrated.
First, Ward argues that we can not say that antipsychotics are the standard treatment for Morgellons because the doctors who use them are treating DP and there are no studies on antipyschotics specifically for Morgellons. Of course this is silly because doctors don't treat diseases, they treat patients, and if doctors believe that a person who presents with self-diagnosed Morgellons actually has DP, then treatment for DP will be medically appropriate.
Then Ward argues that the CDC does not endorse any treatment. This is true, but it ignores the context offered on the very same page of the CDC website. First, the CDC is not a consulting service and does not provide patient counseling on any course of treatment, and second the CDC is specifically disclaiming certain web sites that claim CDC endorsement. The CDC is not saying there is no treatment, they are saying talk to your doctor.
Now Ward has decided that it is ok to talk about treating Morgellons as DP because he has found a negative reference to treatment of DP with antipsychotic drugs. Yes, Dr. Hillert and colleagues think a 54% success rate is optomistic, and prefer risperidone and olanzapine to pimozide. But Hillert never says DP should not be treated with antipsychotics, and obviously if he thinks 54% is optomistic then someone else must have published that 54% is attainable. (here it is; PMID 10900563) Checking through reports of case series I see a range for remission or significant improvement from 25% to 75%. PMID 8559947 is an analysis of 1223 cases with 50% success rate in the post-psychopharmacologic era.
I believe that Ward20's editing is driven by a desire to downplay and dismiss the use of antipsychotics. That agenda does not fit with Wikipedia's core principles of Neutral point of view, avoiding undue weight for minority opinion, and verifiability. Dr. Hillert's comments on psychopharmacology for DP would be appropriate maybe for the article delusional parasitosis, as long as it is balanced by other more optimistic views. But a long discussion of how psychopharmacology does not always work for DP is inappropriate for the Morgellons article because it is impossible to have a similarly detailed discussion of other therapies, because the people practicing those therapies have not disclosed any details. In PMID 10900563 the author reports on 52 consecutive cases he saw in his practice, gives details of treatment method and success rate. No similar details are forthcoming from Savely's practice. How many patients has she treated with antibiotics? How many with antifungals and herbal supplments? How many showed improvement? Does she treat all patients or only a subset meeting other diagnostic criteria? We know nothing. We do not even know which antibiotics, antifungals and herbals she uses!! How many patients has Dr. Harvey treated, and what was the outcome? How many patients have been treated at OSU? What drugs, what doses, what regimens? We know nothing. We are told nothing except "It works."
You are lucky to get any coverage of antibiotic treatment at all under these conditions. Entering into a discussion about how some patients treated with antipsychotics improve and some do not; and some patients treated with the Savely cocktail (whatever it is) improve and some do not; implies that the evidence for the two treatments is equal in quality and that the outcomes are roughly equal. We know the evidence is by no means equal and we are ignorant of the outcomes of alternative methods. Thatcher131 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Herd of Swine said, :"But since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing.", and "but they are both treating the same symptoms." That is your opinion, not verifiable, is original research, and still does not mean Morgellons Patients and DP patients have the same illness, because "the cause of Morgellons is unknown", [5] and "further research will be needed to help resolve the validity of Morgellons disease. Until then, whether Morgellons disease is another name for delusional parasitosis or a real disease entity with a biologic or physiologic basis will remain up in the air." [3],. Herd of Swine also said, "thousands of dermatologists see patients with similar symptoms all the time," is verifiable, and still does not mean Morgellons Patients and DP patients have the same illness. [5] [3] Your other arguments are based on your hypothesis that, "since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing," which research (such as it is) refutes, and CDC, and Atlas of Human Parasitology says is not proven. Ward20 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
NPOV "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." [16]
The present wording of the treatment section does not comply with this guideline. The statement, "conventional medical treatment for Morgellons is the same as that for delusional parasitosis." is an opinion, and the wording "Conventional medical treatment" infers a bias of correctness to DP treatment of Morgellons. "Alternative medical treatments" (this particular wording has a negative bias in itself) associated with infectious process treatment infers a bias of inferiority.
It should be enough to say, "Most dermatologists treat Morgellons as if it is a form of delusional parasitosis"..... Etc. Literature supports that most dermatologists treat Morgellons but not most medical professionals. Dermatologists are the doctors most Morgellons patients consult due to the skin condition. [17]"Because skin symptoms are often the most visible aspect of this disease, dermatologists are usually the first to be consulted. Most have no doubt that what they're seeing is delusional parasitosis."
Then, "Some medical professionals treat Morgellons as if there is an underlying infectious process..... Etc.
Most dermatologists treat verses Some medical professionals treat is the NPOV comparison that should be presented. The bias injected by "Conventional medical treatment" and "Alternative medical treatments is not an acceptable NPOV". Ward20 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read this again more carefully, it is more than advocacy, it goes to the heart of the matter as to why morgellons was so rapidy declared "DOP" on the basis of doctors who don't even do a proper medical exam on their patients before misdiagnosing... Mainstream medicine is doing everything it can to not find any answers on this, and perpetuate a barbaric status quo that misdiagnoses and mistreats ALL morgellons patients. The bottom line here is that the Morgellons=DOP is the same camp that also says Chronic-Lyme=psychosomatic/post-lyme-syndrome ... and this is a longstanding schism in the medical community -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease_controversy , morgellons being a new arrival to the long list of disease first ridiculed, then grudgingly accepted by mainstream medicine.
ISN'T WIKIPEDIA ABOUT PRESENTING THE TRUTH?? -- this isn't an opinion poll. These are supposed to be enclyclopedic facts, true for all time. If there's a controversy, then all sides need to be presented, this even includes the nano-chemtrails-tinfoil hat crew... The diversity of opinion has you all cowering instead of searching. Why aren't you people even willing to talk specifics, as I am... waving your arms around and going "DOP" isn't convincing when you can run the tests I and others outline, and see anomalous results in a majority of morgellons patients given these specific and not oft-given tests. Oh, and a majority of Lyme doctors believe Morgellons is not DOP... listening to "regular doctors" for opinions on the cutting edge of a specialty -- lyme disease -- is as foolhardy as getting treatment diagnosis and treatment advice on cancer from a general practitioner. Nielsp 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You've got a real epistemological connundrum on your hands there, pal. Might want to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 ( talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Th psychology today article states: "Craft says that he, unlike many doctors, always examines these patients." I think that the current language which implies that derms always perform a thorough examination is inaccurate so I am changing this. According to Craft, this is not the norm Pez1103 12:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the article that was cited. "Meanwhile, she says she is plagued by tiny dark specks and fibers that infest her house. She's paid for exterminators, taken antidepressants, bathed in Borax and spent hundreds on vitamins, garlic pills and other potential remedies." This doesn't support the existing language that sufferers "often" resort to dangerous remedies. There are many, many websites offering advice on morgellons treatment -- many are very safe and non toxic. I think that the existing language is not NPOV.
The other medical treatment section should be written to follow the DP section above it. Other medical practitioners treat Morgellons as an infectious disease.... The part about Morgellons sufferers not believing they are DP was already stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The history section wastes significant space and diverts attention from reality by providing undue coverage to the ongoing government coverup and denial to Morgellons/Lyme:
"That same day the Los Angeles County Department of Health services issued a statement saying, "No credible medical or public health association has verified the existence or diagnosis of "Morgellons Disease", and "at this time there is no reason for individuals to panic over unsubstantiated reports of this disease".[13]"
In contrast, recent articles on Morgellons state the CDC's position as follows: http://www.ktvu.com/health/13810037/detail.html
UPDATED: 10:22 am PDT August 4, 2007
OAKLAND -- KTVU Channel 2 has learned the federal Centers for Disease Control has asked Kaiser Permanente to begin the nation’s first epidemiologic study of "Morgellons Disease," a mysterious ailment that the government terms an "unexplained and debilitating condition that has emerged as a public health concern."
...
The CDC for the first time publicly says Morgellons is "an emerging public health problem."
But of course, it would violate the egregious bias already presented in this wikipedia article to actually report fairly on the current understanding of the disease... why do that when there's at least a hundred years of psychological quackery that satisfy wikipedia's ridiculous (as practiced here) notions of verifiability, citability and credibility. Let's just ignore the fact that medicine and psychology/psychiatry have completely different standards, to the point where people call psychology and psychiatry "pseudo science". Let's just completely muddle the two and hope nobody notices, right?
Why not have a medical discussion based on proper evidence based medicine? Because of the incredible confusion you can bring to any subject, through handwaving such as "DOP" "delusional" and insisting on descriptions like "bug like crawling/biting" when very few morgellons patients even talk about bugs, and if they do, it's because of language limitations in discussing hard-to-describe symptoms, and not a delusion or hallucination...
This wikipedia article is biased. It embraces a cop-out of the medical mainstream that has proven its contribution to the morbidity and suffering for many patients, by increasing profits and denying coverage to patients who have a guaranteed right to medical treatment that they've paid for. By "psychologizing" and ignoring every new emerging condition, medical coverage can be avoided, through ongoing scientific and medical fraud. Even trivial medical issues today -- ulcers caused by helicobacter pylori -- were long thought to be caused by "stress" and not treated appropriately.
The existing "History" section is like explaining the Iraq war by showing the "bush mission accomplished" photo. Years later, the reality on the ground is clearly much different, and the current state of this wikipedia article will be as risible as that photo-op. But instead of actually paying attention to the voices crying that Morgellons is a real disease, you people are too busy counting how many DOP angels can dance on the head of a pin. You can find lots of reputably published articles that fit into the angel-pin-dancing that you're doing here with respect to citations and verifiability. Similarly you can find reputable, verifiable citable documents stating that thalidomide is good for unborn babies, that DES is good for unborn babies, that silicone breast implants are safe, that artificial transfats are "good" while natural fats are "bad", that AIDS is caused by drug abuse and the "gay lifestyle" and not by a virus, etc. It's just a matter of how foolish you intend to look in the future, as to your positions on morgellons today...
Nielsp 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been some odd changes today to the case definition [24] and the FAQ [25] at the Morgellons Research Foundation's web site [26]. Basically they now strongly suggests that Morgellons is caused by an infestation of horse worms (Onchocerca cervicalis) and various other similar "zoonotic filaria" and also other worm type parasites such as Onchocerciasis. They also say the fibers are manifestations of Actinomycosis. They claim to have unequivocable clinical evidence of this, based on "11,400 patient parameters" and "400 data points per patient" (which I'm thinking translates to 29 patients). They claim they will publish soon in a peer reviewed journal. They also see to suggest that CFS may have similar causes (see section 6 of the case definition). I'm thinking this should at least justify a new section under Proposed causes? My worry is: is it notable now? The sudden and unusual nature of the edits at the MRF site seem very out of keeping with the previous drift of the MRF members, who all seem to have proposed a Lyme based cause. It's frankly quite bizarre that they suddenly switched to parasitic horse worms. Maybe we should just wait a few days until things settle down? Pez and Ward - you both are associated with the MRF, can you throw any light on the subject? Herd of Swine 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgellons/Nielsp (4) According to Dr. George Schwartz, author of "Lisa's Disease, Fiber Disease, Also known as Morgellon's disease: Origins, staging, clinical course, treatment, case histories, decontamination of house--much more" -- testing for microfiliaria should be done via microscopic examination of a peripheral blood smear. . My own research indicates that "ONCHOCERCA VOLVULUS" and it's Blackfly vector may be present in areas considered Morgellons endemic and may be a significant aspect of morgellons etiology. In Florida, this is backed up by Trish Springstead, RN, who appeared on a recent Florida News segment on "Body Bugs" ( http://www1.wsvn.com/features/articles/investigations/MI46364 ). In California, Morgellons endemic areas such as Los Angeles county have had longstanding problems with blackfly: http://www.lawestvector.org/black_flies.htm . Although it is repeatedly claimed that onchocerca volvulus is not found in the USA, there are scattered reports in the medical literature indicating otherwise. Furthermore, the presence of Morgellons in Blackfly endemic areas of the United States, indicates that these claims need to be updated for the 21st century. . Thus in addition to standard peripheral blood smears for microfiliaria, blood collection should occur through a "bloodless skin snip" as suggested by http://www.mssushi.com/stuff/medschool/notes/micro/other/GKHelminths.doc . That document also suggests "microfiliaria migrate through dermal lesions" therefore the skin snip and blood collection should probably occur from a morgellons lesion and not uninfected skin. . There is also a Lyme connection to Microfiliaria. After all Dr. Burgdorfer discovered borrelia by accident while investigating microfiliaria in ticks: . > A microfilaria of exceptional size from the ixodid tick, Ixodes dammini, from > Shelter Island, New York Beaver, P. C.; Burgdorfer, W. 1984 > > Journal of Parasitology 70(6): 963-966 > > Thirty or more microfilariae 0.70-1.32 mm in length were recovered from the > haemocoel of an unengorged adult tick, Ixodes dammini, that was collected from > vegetation on Shelter Island, New York, USA. Among approximately 500 I. dammini > collected from the same area only one other was similarly infected. Outstanding > features, in addition to size, were absence of a cephalic space and the presence > of nuclei in 2 or 3 irregular rows extending to the end of a bluntly rounded > tail. The microfilariae apparently were ingested in a blood meal that was taken > when the ticks were larvae or nymphs, and had persisted alive without > development. . For more info, see http://lymebusters.proboards39.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=rash&thread=1186564783 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsp ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed: Delusional Parasitosis | CDC Division of Parasitic Diseases www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/delusionalparasitosis/default.htm - 10k
how much more of a kick in the head do you need before you wake up??? Why would the CDC spend a bunch of taxpayer's money launching an investigation over a delusion? Such blatant bias in the face of reality is present among the majority of authors active here... Nielsp 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not read all the letters on the topic of Morgellons on this page.
I have been researching the symptoms of Morgellons and certain "Auto immune" diseases because of the devastation to mine and others health here in Hawaii, of the sores, pain, fatique.
Three years ago I made up my mind that I was going to find out, before I died, what was the cause.
I had no agenda, religious or political, I just wanted to know what was killing me and my friends here and elsewhere.
What at one point seemed like a "No Brainer", lead me into an environmental disaster beyond my comprehension and a very deliberate action to misled the American public, allowing 100,000's to suffer and die a slow and excrutiating death.
There HAS been a major break-through with Morgellon patients, they have been found to have a GMO-Pharmicutical (Monsanto) patented material in their bodies, when their sores have been biopsied, Agrobacterium, has been used by the BioPharmicutical companies for 25-50 yrs. Look it up!
Monsanto has been raising corn and other crops here on Maui for 10+yrs. in secret, open field experiments, non-contained, supposedly creating Pharmicuticals. I think we have found the "Smoking Gun" OTC Now 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been getting a lot of sources within the fringe matters/conspiracy theory circle claiming that this is caused by nanobots, and that analysis of the fibres and so on have given evidence toward this argument. Despite the unpopularity of this viewpoint I think it should at least be noted on the main page, because at the moment I can't find anything about it. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Question, are you talking about herbal supplements, and light therapy treatment, or am not seeing something else? Thanks. Ward20 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with any of the changes Dyanega made (without any discussion on this page). There was no basis to take out "medical" before practitioner -- only medical practitioners can prescribe the meds outlined in the paragraph. This is disparaging of people with the disease and there is no basis for some of the comments. "Patients say that they have an infection" - I have spoken to hundreds of morgellons patients, I've never heard one say "I have an infection." Some say that they have lyme disease and seek treatment for their lyme disease -- is that what this is trying to say? Almost every single new disease was dismissed as psychological. If you had lupus 30 years ago, and you saw a doctor and he said that you were imagining your symptoms, what would you do? Would you say that you had an infection and seek out a practitioner who would treat your symptoms as product of an infectious process and specify what drugs that you wanted? Or would you just know that your symptoms weren't delusional and seek help. Some doctors are treating Morgellons with antifungals, antiparasitics and antibiotics. It is the doctors prescribing the meds -- yes, the patient may ignore the advice which says that the disease is delusional if they do not believe that they are delusional, but to go further and say that the patient says that it is an infectious process and to imply that the patient is determining the treatment is inaccurate and unsupported. Patients are seeking help for their symptoms, not specific drugs. The existing language is not NPOV.
I suggest this: People who believe they have Morgellons will frequently reject the diagnosis of delusional parasitosis[36] and, "report that their symptoms are not taken seriously."[2] Some medical practitioners will treat morgellons symptoms as a product of an infectious process, including the use of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications, herbal supplements, and light therapy. Physicians associated with the Morgellons Research Foundation have reported that some Morgellons patients who test positive for Lyme disease obtain symptom relief using aggressive, long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease. However, if the treatment is discontinued the symptoms return.[18][2][19] There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments. 72.231.188.136 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The text "There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments", has a few problems. It is not sourced, it is technically wrong, because peer reviewed studies of long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease have been done. There may be a study in a book or a foreign language for Morgellons symptoms by another name that has not been discovered for all anyone knows. This appears to to a statement from an editor that would be considered original research. [35]"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." Ward20 00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Ward20 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A brand-new anonymous editor recently added an external link to a project of Randy Wymore. Since I don't follow this page very closely, does this duplicate something already in the reference list? I didn't want to remove it without consulting first. EdJohnston 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This recentish (12 September 2007) article by a respected science magazine has probably greatly increased the number of people who have heard about Morgellons. ( http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19526210.700-morgellons-disease-the-itch-that-wont-be-scratched.html)
The article has a lot of up to date information and interviews with scientists. However, you have to have a subscription to read it, therefore I'm not sure if it should be a link. The article raises a few points (not sure if these have been mentioned above), e.g. that the possible infection may eventually cause mental problems, therefore these may be real but secondary rather than primary. That some antibiotics but not others have had good results, suggesting that some specific pathogen, rather than the placebo effect, is at work. 141.5.194.4 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Please consider this recent article for further diagnostic and treatment guidelines, either for morgellons itself, or as a differential diagnosis: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/509325
Title Recent Updates on Onchocerciasis: Diagnosis and Treatment Author(s) Don N. Udall Identifiers Clinical Infectious Diseases, volume 44 (2007), pages 53–60 DOI: 10.1086/509325 PubMed ID: 17143815 Copyright © 2007, the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Recent progress in onchocerciasis research has led to improved understanding of the immunopathology of Onchocerca volvulus, as well as improvements in diagnosis and treatment of this morbid disease. This article reviews the recent literature, highlighting breakthroughs in sensitive means of antigen testing and an unusual new approach to therapy that targets an endosymbiotic bacterium required for filarial worm fecundity.
In other words, co-administered antibiotics act as "birth control" for microfiliaria, reducing the overall parasite load. As such "tetracycline" class antibiotics, usually doxycycline, is suggested for co-administration with a microfiliaricide, usually ivermectin, fenbendazole, oxybendazole, moxidectin, levamisole, DEC, etc. I believe new WHO guidelines for treatment specifically recommend co-administering antibiotics. This corresponds to my own remission of symptoms when I'm on oxytetracycline (especially potent but not available for humans in USA -- but w/o a prescription as veterinary medicine), and tetracycline (which amazingly, i was able to sneak out of kaiser despite the tuskeegee experiment they've been attempting on me). Nielsp 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The last two sections were about the subject of the article, rather than leading to anything which might improve the article itself. I'd suggest moving them to another subpage, but I've already done that for this editors contributions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The last two sections are **THE** subject of the article. THey're also a strong indication that this entire wikipedia article on "Morgellons" is complete garbage and needs to be thrown out. Either that, or it should be recast as a historical page accurately capturing the peculiar beliefs of a bunch of scientific flat-earthers who go to amazing extremes to defend the indefensible position that morgellons is not a real infectious disease, but rather a form of delusion, or even worse, a form of internet delusion (ala "Koro" aka "Penis Panic"). In this wikipedia article, most everything needs to go -- medical malpractice is being preached in all sections confabulating this disease with delusional parasitosis, DOP, treatment with psychotropics, and the sections mocking patients desperate for treatment while having their basic human rights violated by doctors. I'd suggest moving the entire wikipedia article to /dev/null and start with a new page based on the appropriate name for this disease, which is "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")" as per http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ .
Should a more psychologically oriented wikipedia page be needed, please consider the statement from Dr. Harvey:
...we are now certain it is NOT Delusions of Parasitosis. The latter in fact, will be the thrust of the paper: the DOP label has resulted in inappropriate and incomplete treatment of countless people who never recovered. Once the final DNA sequencing is done and the paper completed, it will be published with treatment protocol(s) for all clinicians world wide to use. Meanwhile, as both primary organisms create brain limbic system abnormalities, we now understand that the delusional component of the illness is real in many affected (but far from all), so correct psychotropic medication can help that component even if treated purely independently. Nearly half the Morgellons are bipolar, but became so AFTER the parasite infection began. Others have formal diagnoses of extreme OCD or ADD/ADHD. The prevalence in children is no different from adults, and there appear to be no gender or race differences.
In contrast, the current psychiatric-slant in this article is coming from people, all of whom are not trained psychologists or psychiatrists, who appear to be happily parroting terms used by psychiatrists, without any actual knowledge of what those terms or the treatment entails. Ridiculous clinging to very technical terms from people that aren't even willing to use their real names, or backup who they are with real credentials, and who are unwilling to disclose who they represent. How about finding another group to anonymously persecute through amateur couch-psychiatry?? There is a real suffering patient population here; your ongoing denialism, and the fact that you've all glommed onto wikipedia, forcibly slanted it towards the psychological and away from the medical, and are use this site as an organ to broadcast defamation&lies... is reprehensible. The current wikipedia Morgellons page is causing these patients suffering, and is ultimately libellous, discrimination-inducing hate-speech. Nielsp 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Since he was banned for being the sockpuppet of a banned user, should his contributions to this talk page be excised? (At least those which have had no comments by other editors....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Citation 20 at the end of the paragraph [46] discusses all these treatments for Morgellons by Savely. If that is not sufficient, another key source is [47]"Stricker and other physicians are treating Morgellons patients with a combination of antibiotics and anti-parasitic and antifungal drugs." Then there are [48] [49] [50]. These are not the only citations for these therapies, just enough to illustrate they are being used by some medical professionals. The only therapy I could not find multiple sources for was the Savely light treatment, if that is not accurate to "some" I will remove light therapy until I find another source. Ward20 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying and understand your points. Pejorative can be choice of wording too. I have pointed out Morgellons is not WP:FRINGE according to WP guidelines, and is also considered mainstream under WP guidelines, "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications."
MRF is a non-profit organization trying to raise awareness and money for research. Many many non-profit groups do that and have medical professionals on their boards and medical staff. For example: on the American Cancer Society front page: Donate, Participate in events, Volunteer your time, Advocate for change.
Board of Directors:
Briggs W. Andrews, Esq
Donald Anthony, MD
George W.P. Atkins
Ermilo "Milo" Barrera Jr., MD
Kathleen Bond
Nancy Brakensiek, CPA
Sally West Brooks, RN,
Tim E. Buyers, MD, MPH
Gena R. Carter, MD
Carmel J. Cohen, MD
Vincent T. DeVita Jr., MD
Audry B. Douglas-Cookie, RN,
R. Daniel Duquette, PhD
W. Phil Evans, MD
J. Michael Fitzpatrick, PhD
Elizabeth "Terry" T.H. Fontham, MPH, DrPH
Harold P. Freeman, MD
Laura J. Hilderley, RN,
Elmer Huerta, MD, MPH
Juan D. Johnson
Lila R. Johnson, RN,
Anna Johnson-Winegar, PhD
Douglas K. Kelsey, MD, PhD
Robert T. Kendall III, Esq.
Robert Kugler, Esq.
Cynthia Marie LeBlanc,
Rosemary Mackey,
Mario A. Mendez, MD
Pamela K. Meyerhoffer
Karen A. Moffitt, PhD
Marion E. Morra, MA, ScD
Edward E. Partridge, MD
Gary M. Reedy
The Honorable Paul G. Rogers
Carolyn D. Runowicz, MD
Christy A. Russell, MD
David G. Seaman
Jonathan W. Simons, MD
Patricia E.Swanson, RN
Stephen L. Swanson
Eric Taylor, MD,
William Todd
Alan G. Thorson, MD,
Richard C. Wender, MD
Van Velsor Wolf Jr.
The MRF's viewpoint may be treated with GREAT circumspection by the media, but not by WP editors. WP:NOPOV "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better." Ward20 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Institutional Review Board approval for a CDC investigation into Morgellons is scheduled for October, 30 2007.
So what happened? Anyone know? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Per this edit, User:Levine2112 removed the link to www.morgellonswatch.com from the article.
The link was originally added to the article here on 9 June 2006, and has survived in the article through thousands of edits, leading me to believe that it has consensus support among editors. The language in WP:EL is only that blogs are 'normally to be avoided.' Since Morgellons Watch provides close scrutiny of the statements at www.morgellons.org and helps give balance to the pronouncements of that site, I can see its value and recommend that it be kept. EdJohnston 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In a fit of boldness I removed the following item that was at the head of this talk page: {{ press}}
I won't feel bad if someone wants to revert my change. The reasons are personal; I went to the trouble of getting hold of that issue of the New Scientist, and then found that the ENTIRE mention of Wikipedia was this one sentence:
Most of the ideas and research have yet to be formally published, leaving believers and sceptics to slug it out on websites such as Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia.
To see other places where Wikipedia is cited in the regular press in a more substantive manner, open this what-links-here search to find other uses of the {{ press}} template. As I said, I won't feel bad if anyone wants to revert. EdJohnston 02:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Some editor who have posted on this page have been blocked and/or banned. Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/ c 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
The last line of the lead referring to and IRB approval, should be removed. An IRB is merely a panel that reviews proposed human subjects studies to make sure they are safe and ethical. All this factoid means is that the CDC investigation, discussed in its own section, is moving forward. IRB approval will have absolutely no bearing on the question of what Morgellons is, and to cite it in the lead is therefore misleading. Note that protection was largely due to edit warring by IPs and new SPAs, not the "regular editors." Thanks. Thatcher131 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
CDC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Looks like ever since the Morgellons page got unlocked, there has been a flurry of edits which have turned this topic back to hate speech against people with a disability.
Isn't that what Morgellons-Watch is for?
How is this possibly NPOV when the majority of the discussion ignores biology and science, while fully embracing quack psychiatry.
Finally, why is this page named "morgellons"?? The CDC has chosen a different name for this disease. The current page needs to be renamed "persecution and lies against people with a real disease, intended to promote human-rights violations and medical negligence against any patient with a Morgellons diagnosis." A new page and a complete rewrite needs to be started on "unexplained dermopathy." The CDC's "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED)" would certainly not be a place for psychiatric quackery. Concurring with this, on 3/28/2007, the CDC removed the Delusional Parasitosis web page from the Division of Parasitic Diseases site. Delusional parasitosis is irrelevant to "Unexplained dermopathy" aka Morgellons.
If you feel the need to waste people's time with idiocies like "delusional parasitosis", then start a new page on that subject, adding in all the big-pharma-funded psychotropic drug pushers papers -- such as the corrupt excercises in scientific fraud perpetuated by Drs. [BLP violations and libel removed by -- Fyslee / talk 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)], etc.
Is libel appropriate for wikipedia, because that's exactly what is going on with the "morgellons" page?? Morgellons sufferers are not delusional, they have an infection. Continuously equating DOP with Morgellons does not make it true. The fact that there are some medical opinions that Morgellons is DOP doesn't make it true either. The fact that the controversy isn't even framed correctly suggests to the naive reader that all morgellons patients are nutcases and their symptoms should not be believed or investigated. That further makes this wikipedia page a source for libelous "hate speech."
This isn't just an esoteric academic debate on an abstract subject. the wikipedia page promotes an unbalanced (esp if you start with the introduction or "treatment" portions) view of "Morgellons" as a psychiatric disorder, even though there is strong evidence of a physical and infective etiology. Just the fact that there are two independent university research groups who are finding consistent evidence of (1) never-seen-before material emerging from lesions of patients whose samples were collected in a clinical setting; (2) agrobacterium; (3) Lyme disease; (4) Chlamidia Pneumoniae; (5) immune deficiency. Although most of the aforementioned can produce profound psychiatric distress, it would be completely inappropriate to chemically lobotomize a patient, while not treating their underlying illness. That is the climate of medical prejudice faced by patients today; furthermore, there's the possibility of fomenting general discrimination in society against Morgellons sufferers as "crazy" rather than "ill."
And that is exactly the kind of civil rights violation against morgellons patients that the existing Morgellons wikipedia article entails. It is hate speech pure and simple. You could just as well have a page that equates people-of-color with being lazy... backed by numerous articles and opinions on the internet backing up that very opinion. And you could discuss this issue at length even... but it would be very inappropriate for wikipedia. Just because an opinion exists, even by a professional, doesn't make it true -- "blacks are stupid... Nobel prize winner Shockley, inventor of the transistor, said it was true, so it must be!" Nielsp 04:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
o Molluscum Contagiosum; Monkeypox; Monkeypox Vaccination; Morgellons; Mosquito-borne Diseases; Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries; MRSA (Methicillin ... + http://www.cdc.gov/DiseasesConditions/az/M.html Nielsp 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am with Niels on this. The way you obviously slant your definitions in the explanation of this affliction should be a cause of great concern for everyone. It should open everyone's eyes to how media is being used to manipulate and steer perception. Tell the lie long enough, or is this 1984 revisited? I believe your site is "covert and owned" by the powers that be, that are trying to keep a tight lid on this horrid horrid affliction. You should all be ashamed - terribly ashamed for your stance taken. The many articles and images that have been accumulated on the www.rense.com site are being sequestered and if you can post morgwatch here, a powers that be sponsored debunking site to discredit us, I feel you should also list the Rense site as they are not publishing OPINIONS, as morgwatch is so blahtantly doing. Those images are real, not altered, doctored, or a delusion...... Morgellons sufferers demonstrate nanoprobes, nanoarrays, chimeric organisms, novel "fluorescent tatoos" that are in a variety of colors and patterns.....this was not "conjured" by some poor delusional person's imagination. This was manufactured and inflicted upon a very large number of the population worldwide. I am not shocked that your position is as such because you are cowards. If you weren't AFRAID of the powers that be (covert worldwide affiliations) you would allow Rense information to be viewed here....to DEBUNK the debunkers and allow a FAIR and BALANCED gathering of information pertaining to what we DO KNOW about this affliction. I will be happy to see you not so obvious in your obvious "slandering, insinuating, and misleading" remarks about this subject. How can you consider yourself and online encyclopedia that is legit and fair when you stomp on the FREEDOM of SPEECH of the actual individuals suffering from this bizarre affliction? I pray day and night without ceasing that all of you perpetrators involved or associated with this "in your face" cover-up are exposed, brought to justice, and humiliated in front of the world, as we have had to endure for years. Publish the Rense page link to Morgellons Data. Thank you,
Maggiemae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.212 ( talk • contribs) 28 August 2007
I copied the following from Thatcher's sandbox because I don't think that Ward's comments were ever addressed. The information that Herd mentions above also makes it clear that the MRF is not the only ones who believe that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease. I think that the lead should be revised to reflect this Pez1103 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions about the following text in the lead.
"A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis[3][4] and believe any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing.[5]"
I can not find where the second word "majority" is coming from as I do not find that in cite [3] or (5), I do not have access to (4).
The text, "and believe any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing.[5]" needs to be reworded, tagged [citation needed], or deleted because as it is written it is not verifiable to the cite. The cite quotes one dermatologist Dr. Levine, "He says he has studied the fibers his patients bring in by the bag-load and they are textile in nature." Although there does seem to be a few dermatologists that say similar things in various cites, it seems a stretch to use this cite to say a majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe this.Ward20 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I found the "majority of health professionals" talk.[48] Unless reference (4)[49] says the same thing I think this source[50] should also be cited for the text above because it is the most recent.
I also found, "dermatologists say they are simply fibers from clothing, embedded in self-imposed sores."[51] which seems to be closest to the present article text.Ward20 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The word "majority" is a summary of several sources, and has been discussed before, and, I thought, agreed upon. See: [52], "Most doctors do not recognize Morgellons as a disease", [53] "Most doctors don't even believe it exists because the symptoms don’t fit anything listed in medical textbooks", [54] "most doctors don't acknowledge it as a real disease", [55],"most doctors believe the painful illness, called Morgellons Disease, is psychological", [56] "Most doctors interviewed dismiss alleged evidence that medical science has overlooked what patients are calling “Morgellons’ disease” and insist that the patients are delusional", [57] "most doctors believe Morgellons is not in the skin, but in the head." It could be changed to "most doctors", if you think that's better. The text of fibers being clothing is also a synthesis of MANY sources, with just one reference being given for clarity. I think perhaps you misunderstand the way articles are constructed. The intent is not to quote something, and then cite it. Where facts are not in dispute (i.e., there are many sources that say one thing, and no sources that say otherwise), then it's fine to simply describe what the situation is in your own words. Not the article is not saying that is IS delusions, or that it IS clothing fiber, it is simply saying what most medical professionals say about the subject. Herd of Swine 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) You're right, it was discussed before. I missed it. That was in the second post which I neglected to indent, sorry. The words "most doctors" are more accurate to the news articles you cited. The wording here is in dispute. This text is quite different than text produced by the Mayo Clinic,[58] "Some health professionals believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by another condition, often mental illness." The text used should be cited to show what source or sources are being relied upon. Readers and future editors will will then be able to easier judge the text quality. As to fibers, I can find sources that say dermatologists, or individual dermatologists say the fibers are textile or clothing. Others hypothesize the fibers are not textile or clothing.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [59][60][61] I can not find a source that says most doctors say the fibers are textile or clothing which is how I interpret the present text in the article. How about this, Most doctors, and dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.[3][4][62] Dermatologists say any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing,[63] but preliminary studies by MRF associates lead them to hypothesize fibers from Morgellons patients are not from textiles or clothing.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [64][65][66]" Or: Dermatologists say any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing,[67] but preliminary studies by MRF associates lead them to hypothesize the dermatologists are not correct.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [68][69][70]" Or: The fibers found from Morgellons patients are in dispute as to their origin.[71][Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [72][73][74] The more I work with the fibers issue, the more I think it may be too complex to put in the lead and should be left to the body to explain. Ward20 08:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
that you're attempting to hide through "morgellons-watch" style screed that has no place in wikipedia?
There's no discussion about what should be the lead... it's not some idiotic historical crap about a mom and her kid ... this sounds like a fairy tale, like back when the day when george bush (imitating his idol reagan) would tell us heartwarming tales about a mom and her dog... and feels just as disingenuous. Who cares about it's origins. It is a word that has entered into the english language. End of story. Now it's time to explore the word and create a framework for what that word means, which includes properly framing the controversy, and also framing the controversy in terms of it's costs to human life and suffering -- which is basically DENIAL OF TREATMENT by the majority of medicine, even though PATIENTS HAVE A RIGHT OF CARE THAT THEY'VE PAID FOR THROUGH THEIR HMO's AND MEDICAL PROVIDERS.
The lead, plain and simple, is this -- http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ -- and any information that can be attributed to this and only this. Delusional parasitosis and all the quack psychiatry represented in OPINION PAPERS by quacks like Drs. Koo/Murase/Koblenzer/etc are just that OPINIONS that DOP is Morgellons. They are wrong. Like I said, there's opinions by Dr. Shockley that blacks are inferior genetically. Why don't you add that to an article about people of color too?? The DOP-pushing papers are OPINIONS and there's COUNTER-OPINIONS to those OPINIONS that have been published as well, such as http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/11/24-b?etoc (the difference is that the DOP pushers have never actually helped the health of a true morgellons sufferer through their psychotropic nonsense... they've chemically-lobotomized their patients past the point of caring that they had nonhealing skin lesions. Meanwhile, Robert C. Bransfield, M.D., author of the article, being a Lyme practitioner, has probalby successfully diagnosed and treated the lyme-aspect of his morgellons patients, and has noticed a clinical improvement.)
And if the CDC/Kaiser study wasn't done by a lyme-denialist organization like kaiser, they might find clinical signs of improvements across all their morgellons patients by treating for Lyme. However, Kaiser does not recognize or treat chronic lyme ( http://lyme.kaiserpapers.info ) and will only give long-term antibiotics to teenagers with acne.
What needs to be below the lead, is a full-run-down of the controversy. This includes a much more in depth discussion of the information found here: http://morgellonstreatmentsteps.com/Morgellons_Medical_informat.html
Talk about a "majority of health professionals" makes this sound like an advertisement for the latest big-pharma pushed drug... which is basically what the Morgellons=DOP viewpoint is about anyways. Have you conducted a poll of doctors, or are you going by the number of published reports by doctors that have a suprizing amount of "Zyprexa" schwag scattered all over their offices... along with a nice tan from the big-pharma funded conference they attended with their families in the carribean... There was once a majority opinion that the earth was flat too. What does a "majority" mean when there's so little medical understanding and even less clinical experience in treating Morgellons patients?
Otherwise, such "loose talk" of "majority opinion" from doctors that have never even seen or properly treated a Morgellons patient... sounds just like MorgellonsWatch, and not Wikipedia.
Nielsp 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Propose something like this, (rough draft) Currently, there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons citation needed, and medical professionals treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Most dermatologists treat with established dermatological treatment regimens including, lotions, topical medications, antipsychotics, and counseling, which is claimed to help symptoms. citation needed Some medical professionals treat with infectious disease treatment regimens including, antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy, and it is claimed symptoms subside. citation needed The efficacy of the various treatments for people who identify themselves as having Morgellons has not been documented in studies. Ward20 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | the reality is that most people with the Morgellons are not treating it with DOP meds. | ” |
The "consensus view" in this case is just a group of doctors (several of whom have a long standing policy of dismissing new illnesses as psychological) making assumptions and agreeing with one another regarding these assumptions. I think that Ward's suggestion was a nice NPOV compromise. 204.115.33.49 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | Is CDC aware that some web sites claim they have products that will treat/cure this condition? Yes. We are aware of some web sites that make these claims, including some that imply CDC support of their products. CDC can not validate the information or product claims of those web sites and does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition. |
” |
“ | Persons who believe they may suffer from this condition should contact a healthcare provider for evaluation and medical care. CDC is not a clinical facility and does not provide clinical care or consultation to patients. | ” |
No original research here.
Currently, there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons [4], and medical professionals treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Most dermatologists use established dermatological treatment regimens including emollients, anti-psychotics, and counseling. citation needed(I believe there is one out there with this treatment that speaks directly to Morgellons, but I can not find it right now). Some medical professionals use infectious disease treatment regimens including, antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy. [5] The CDC, "does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition." [6] Ward20 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Ward's suggested language is NPOV and works. What I took from the comment that Ward made is that maybe dermatologists diagnosing DP (rather than a psychiatrist) and treating Morgellons with drugs with very serious side effects is somewhat risky, even if it is what many of them attempt to do right now. Pez1103 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I will go a long way toward trying to make opposing editors happy through compromise, but I am starting to get frustrated.
First, Ward argues that we can not say that antipsychotics are the standard treatment for Morgellons because the doctors who use them are treating DP and there are no studies on antipyschotics specifically for Morgellons. Of course this is silly because doctors don't treat diseases, they treat patients, and if doctors believe that a person who presents with self-diagnosed Morgellons actually has DP, then treatment for DP will be medically appropriate.
Then Ward argues that the CDC does not endorse any treatment. This is true, but it ignores the context offered on the very same page of the CDC website. First, the CDC is not a consulting service and does not provide patient counseling on any course of treatment, and second the CDC is specifically disclaiming certain web sites that claim CDC endorsement. The CDC is not saying there is no treatment, they are saying talk to your doctor.
Now Ward has decided that it is ok to talk about treating Morgellons as DP because he has found a negative reference to treatment of DP with antipsychotic drugs. Yes, Dr. Hillert and colleagues think a 54% success rate is optomistic, and prefer risperidone and olanzapine to pimozide. But Hillert never says DP should not be treated with antipsychotics, and obviously if he thinks 54% is optomistic then someone else must have published that 54% is attainable. (here it is; PMID 10900563) Checking through reports of case series I see a range for remission or significant improvement from 25% to 75%. PMID 8559947 is an analysis of 1223 cases with 50% success rate in the post-psychopharmacologic era.
I believe that Ward20's editing is driven by a desire to downplay and dismiss the use of antipsychotics. That agenda does not fit with Wikipedia's core principles of Neutral point of view, avoiding undue weight for minority opinion, and verifiability. Dr. Hillert's comments on psychopharmacology for DP would be appropriate maybe for the article delusional parasitosis, as long as it is balanced by other more optimistic views. But a long discussion of how psychopharmacology does not always work for DP is inappropriate for the Morgellons article because it is impossible to have a similarly detailed discussion of other therapies, because the people practicing those therapies have not disclosed any details. In PMID 10900563 the author reports on 52 consecutive cases he saw in his practice, gives details of treatment method and success rate. No similar details are forthcoming from Savely's practice. How many patients has she treated with antibiotics? How many with antifungals and herbal supplments? How many showed improvement? Does she treat all patients or only a subset meeting other diagnostic criteria? We know nothing. We do not even know which antibiotics, antifungals and herbals she uses!! How many patients has Dr. Harvey treated, and what was the outcome? How many patients have been treated at OSU? What drugs, what doses, what regimens? We know nothing. We are told nothing except "It works."
You are lucky to get any coverage of antibiotic treatment at all under these conditions. Entering into a discussion about how some patients treated with antipsychotics improve and some do not; and some patients treated with the Savely cocktail (whatever it is) improve and some do not; implies that the evidence for the two treatments is equal in quality and that the outcomes are roughly equal. We know the evidence is by no means equal and we are ignorant of the outcomes of alternative methods. Thatcher131 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Herd of Swine said, :"But since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing.", and "but they are both treating the same symptoms." That is your opinion, not verifiable, is original research, and still does not mean Morgellons Patients and DP patients have the same illness, because "the cause of Morgellons is unknown", [5] and "further research will be needed to help resolve the validity of Morgellons disease. Until then, whether Morgellons disease is another name for delusional parasitosis or a real disease entity with a biologic or physiologic basis will remain up in the air." [3],. Herd of Swine also said, "thousands of dermatologists see patients with similar symptoms all the time," is verifiable, and still does not mean Morgellons Patients and DP patients have the same illness. [5] [3] Your other arguments are based on your hypothesis that, "since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing," which research (such as it is) refutes, and CDC, and Atlas of Human Parasitology says is not proven. Ward20 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
NPOV "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." [16]
The present wording of the treatment section does not comply with this guideline. The statement, "conventional medical treatment for Morgellons is the same as that for delusional parasitosis." is an opinion, and the wording "Conventional medical treatment" infers a bias of correctness to DP treatment of Morgellons. "Alternative medical treatments" (this particular wording has a negative bias in itself) associated with infectious process treatment infers a bias of inferiority.
It should be enough to say, "Most dermatologists treat Morgellons as if it is a form of delusional parasitosis"..... Etc. Literature supports that most dermatologists treat Morgellons but not most medical professionals. Dermatologists are the doctors most Morgellons patients consult due to the skin condition. [17]"Because skin symptoms are often the most visible aspect of this disease, dermatologists are usually the first to be consulted. Most have no doubt that what they're seeing is delusional parasitosis."
Then, "Some medical professionals treat Morgellons as if there is an underlying infectious process..... Etc.
Most dermatologists treat verses Some medical professionals treat is the NPOV comparison that should be presented. The bias injected by "Conventional medical treatment" and "Alternative medical treatments is not an acceptable NPOV". Ward20 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read this again more carefully, it is more than advocacy, it goes to the heart of the matter as to why morgellons was so rapidy declared "DOP" on the basis of doctors who don't even do a proper medical exam on their patients before misdiagnosing... Mainstream medicine is doing everything it can to not find any answers on this, and perpetuate a barbaric status quo that misdiagnoses and mistreats ALL morgellons patients. The bottom line here is that the Morgellons=DOP is the same camp that also says Chronic-Lyme=psychosomatic/post-lyme-syndrome ... and this is a longstanding schism in the medical community -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease_controversy , morgellons being a new arrival to the long list of disease first ridiculed, then grudgingly accepted by mainstream medicine.
ISN'T WIKIPEDIA ABOUT PRESENTING THE TRUTH?? -- this isn't an opinion poll. These are supposed to be enclyclopedic facts, true for all time. If there's a controversy, then all sides need to be presented, this even includes the nano-chemtrails-tinfoil hat crew... The diversity of opinion has you all cowering instead of searching. Why aren't you people even willing to talk specifics, as I am... waving your arms around and going "DOP" isn't convincing when you can run the tests I and others outline, and see anomalous results in a majority of morgellons patients given these specific and not oft-given tests. Oh, and a majority of Lyme doctors believe Morgellons is not DOP... listening to "regular doctors" for opinions on the cutting edge of a specialty -- lyme disease -- is as foolhardy as getting treatment diagnosis and treatment advice on cancer from a general practitioner. Nielsp 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You've got a real epistemological connundrum on your hands there, pal. Might want to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 ( talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Th psychology today article states: "Craft says that he, unlike many doctors, always examines these patients." I think that the current language which implies that derms always perform a thorough examination is inaccurate so I am changing this. According to Craft, this is not the norm Pez1103 12:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the article that was cited. "Meanwhile, she says she is plagued by tiny dark specks and fibers that infest her house. She's paid for exterminators, taken antidepressants, bathed in Borax and spent hundreds on vitamins, garlic pills and other potential remedies." This doesn't support the existing language that sufferers "often" resort to dangerous remedies. There are many, many websites offering advice on morgellons treatment -- many are very safe and non toxic. I think that the existing language is not NPOV.
The other medical treatment section should be written to follow the DP section above it. Other medical practitioners treat Morgellons as an infectious disease.... The part about Morgellons sufferers not believing they are DP was already stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The history section wastes significant space and diverts attention from reality by providing undue coverage to the ongoing government coverup and denial to Morgellons/Lyme:
"That same day the Los Angeles County Department of Health services issued a statement saying, "No credible medical or public health association has verified the existence or diagnosis of "Morgellons Disease", and "at this time there is no reason for individuals to panic over unsubstantiated reports of this disease".[13]"
In contrast, recent articles on Morgellons state the CDC's position as follows: http://www.ktvu.com/health/13810037/detail.html
UPDATED: 10:22 am PDT August 4, 2007
OAKLAND -- KTVU Channel 2 has learned the federal Centers for Disease Control has asked Kaiser Permanente to begin the nation’s first epidemiologic study of "Morgellons Disease," a mysterious ailment that the government terms an "unexplained and debilitating condition that has emerged as a public health concern."
...
The CDC for the first time publicly says Morgellons is "an emerging public health problem."
But of course, it would violate the egregious bias already presented in this wikipedia article to actually report fairly on the current understanding of the disease... why do that when there's at least a hundred years of psychological quackery that satisfy wikipedia's ridiculous (as practiced here) notions of verifiability, citability and credibility. Let's just ignore the fact that medicine and psychology/psychiatry have completely different standards, to the point where people call psychology and psychiatry "pseudo science". Let's just completely muddle the two and hope nobody notices, right?
Why not have a medical discussion based on proper evidence based medicine? Because of the incredible confusion you can bring to any subject, through handwaving such as "DOP" "delusional" and insisting on descriptions like "bug like crawling/biting" when very few morgellons patients even talk about bugs, and if they do, it's because of language limitations in discussing hard-to-describe symptoms, and not a delusion or hallucination...
This wikipedia article is biased. It embraces a cop-out of the medical mainstream that has proven its contribution to the morbidity and suffering for many patients, by increasing profits and denying coverage to patients who have a guaranteed right to medical treatment that they've paid for. By "psychologizing" and ignoring every new emerging condition, medical coverage can be avoided, through ongoing scientific and medical fraud. Even trivial medical issues today -- ulcers caused by helicobacter pylori -- were long thought to be caused by "stress" and not treated appropriately.
The existing "History" section is like explaining the Iraq war by showing the "bush mission accomplished" photo. Years later, the reality on the ground is clearly much different, and the current state of this wikipedia article will be as risible as that photo-op. But instead of actually paying attention to the voices crying that Morgellons is a real disease, you people are too busy counting how many DOP angels can dance on the head of a pin. You can find lots of reputably published articles that fit into the angel-pin-dancing that you're doing here with respect to citations and verifiability. Similarly you can find reputable, verifiable citable documents stating that thalidomide is good for unborn babies, that DES is good for unborn babies, that silicone breast implants are safe, that artificial transfats are "good" while natural fats are "bad", that AIDS is caused by drug abuse and the "gay lifestyle" and not by a virus, etc. It's just a matter of how foolish you intend to look in the future, as to your positions on morgellons today...
Nielsp 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been some odd changes today to the case definition [24] and the FAQ [25] at the Morgellons Research Foundation's web site [26]. Basically they now strongly suggests that Morgellons is caused by an infestation of horse worms (Onchocerca cervicalis) and various other similar "zoonotic filaria" and also other worm type parasites such as Onchocerciasis. They also say the fibers are manifestations of Actinomycosis. They claim to have unequivocable clinical evidence of this, based on "11,400 patient parameters" and "400 data points per patient" (which I'm thinking translates to 29 patients). They claim they will publish soon in a peer reviewed journal. They also see to suggest that CFS may have similar causes (see section 6 of the case definition). I'm thinking this should at least justify a new section under Proposed causes? My worry is: is it notable now? The sudden and unusual nature of the edits at the MRF site seem very out of keeping with the previous drift of the MRF members, who all seem to have proposed a Lyme based cause. It's frankly quite bizarre that they suddenly switched to parasitic horse worms. Maybe we should just wait a few days until things settle down? Pez and Ward - you both are associated with the MRF, can you throw any light on the subject? Herd of Swine 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgellons/Nielsp (4) According to Dr. George Schwartz, author of "Lisa's Disease, Fiber Disease, Also known as Morgellon's disease: Origins, staging, clinical course, treatment, case histories, decontamination of house--much more" -- testing for microfiliaria should be done via microscopic examination of a peripheral blood smear. . My own research indicates that "ONCHOCERCA VOLVULUS" and it's Blackfly vector may be present in areas considered Morgellons endemic and may be a significant aspect of morgellons etiology. In Florida, this is backed up by Trish Springstead, RN, who appeared on a recent Florida News segment on "Body Bugs" ( http://www1.wsvn.com/features/articles/investigations/MI46364 ). In California, Morgellons endemic areas such as Los Angeles county have had longstanding problems with blackfly: http://www.lawestvector.org/black_flies.htm . Although it is repeatedly claimed that onchocerca volvulus is not found in the USA, there are scattered reports in the medical literature indicating otherwise. Furthermore, the presence of Morgellons in Blackfly endemic areas of the United States, indicates that these claims need to be updated for the 21st century. . Thus in addition to standard peripheral blood smears for microfiliaria, blood collection should occur through a "bloodless skin snip" as suggested by http://www.mssushi.com/stuff/medschool/notes/micro/other/GKHelminths.doc . That document also suggests "microfiliaria migrate through dermal lesions" therefore the skin snip and blood collection should probably occur from a morgellons lesion and not uninfected skin. . There is also a Lyme connection to Microfiliaria. After all Dr. Burgdorfer discovered borrelia by accident while investigating microfiliaria in ticks: . > A microfilaria of exceptional size from the ixodid tick, Ixodes dammini, from > Shelter Island, New York Beaver, P. C.; Burgdorfer, W. 1984 > > Journal of Parasitology 70(6): 963-966 > > Thirty or more microfilariae 0.70-1.32 mm in length were recovered from the > haemocoel of an unengorged adult tick, Ixodes dammini, that was collected from > vegetation on Shelter Island, New York, USA. Among approximately 500 I. dammini > collected from the same area only one other was similarly infected. Outstanding > features, in addition to size, were absence of a cephalic space and the presence > of nuclei in 2 or 3 irregular rows extending to the end of a bluntly rounded > tail. The microfilariae apparently were ingested in a blood meal that was taken > when the ticks were larvae or nymphs, and had persisted alive without > development. . For more info, see http://lymebusters.proboards39.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=rash&thread=1186564783 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsp ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed: Delusional Parasitosis | CDC Division of Parasitic Diseases www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/delusionalparasitosis/default.htm - 10k
how much more of a kick in the head do you need before you wake up??? Why would the CDC spend a bunch of taxpayer's money launching an investigation over a delusion? Such blatant bias in the face of reality is present among the majority of authors active here... Nielsp 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not read all the letters on the topic of Morgellons on this page.
I have been researching the symptoms of Morgellons and certain "Auto immune" diseases because of the devastation to mine and others health here in Hawaii, of the sores, pain, fatique.
Three years ago I made up my mind that I was going to find out, before I died, what was the cause.
I had no agenda, religious or political, I just wanted to know what was killing me and my friends here and elsewhere.
What at one point seemed like a "No Brainer", lead me into an environmental disaster beyond my comprehension and a very deliberate action to misled the American public, allowing 100,000's to suffer and die a slow and excrutiating death.
There HAS been a major break-through with Morgellon patients, they have been found to have a GMO-Pharmicutical (Monsanto) patented material in their bodies, when their sores have been biopsied, Agrobacterium, has been used by the BioPharmicutical companies for 25-50 yrs. Look it up!
Monsanto has been raising corn and other crops here on Maui for 10+yrs. in secret, open field experiments, non-contained, supposedly creating Pharmicuticals. I think we have found the "Smoking Gun" OTC Now 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been getting a lot of sources within the fringe matters/conspiracy theory circle claiming that this is caused by nanobots, and that analysis of the fibres and so on have given evidence toward this argument. Despite the unpopularity of this viewpoint I think it should at least be noted on the main page, because at the moment I can't find anything about it. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Question, are you talking about herbal supplements, and light therapy treatment, or am not seeing something else? Thanks. Ward20 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with any of the changes Dyanega made (without any discussion on this page). There was no basis to take out "medical" before practitioner -- only medical practitioners can prescribe the meds outlined in the paragraph. This is disparaging of people with the disease and there is no basis for some of the comments. "Patients say that they have an infection" - I have spoken to hundreds of morgellons patients, I've never heard one say "I have an infection." Some say that they have lyme disease and seek treatment for their lyme disease -- is that what this is trying to say? Almost every single new disease was dismissed as psychological. If you had lupus 30 years ago, and you saw a doctor and he said that you were imagining your symptoms, what would you do? Would you say that you had an infection and seek out a practitioner who would treat your symptoms as product of an infectious process and specify what drugs that you wanted? Or would you just know that your symptoms weren't delusional and seek help. Some doctors are treating Morgellons with antifungals, antiparasitics and antibiotics. It is the doctors prescribing the meds -- yes, the patient may ignore the advice which says that the disease is delusional if they do not believe that they are delusional, but to go further and say that the patient says that it is an infectious process and to imply that the patient is determining the treatment is inaccurate and unsupported. Patients are seeking help for their symptoms, not specific drugs. The existing language is not NPOV.
I suggest this: People who believe they have Morgellons will frequently reject the diagnosis of delusional parasitosis[36] and, "report that their symptoms are not taken seriously."[2] Some medical practitioners will treat morgellons symptoms as a product of an infectious process, including the use of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications, herbal supplements, and light therapy. Physicians associated with the Morgellons Research Foundation have reported that some Morgellons patients who test positive for Lyme disease obtain symptom relief using aggressive, long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease. However, if the treatment is discontinued the symptoms return.[18][2][19] There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments. 72.231.188.136 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The text "There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments", has a few problems. It is not sourced, it is technically wrong, because peer reviewed studies of long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease have been done. There may be a study in a book or a foreign language for Morgellons symptoms by another name that has not been discovered for all anyone knows. This appears to to a statement from an editor that would be considered original research. [35]"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." Ward20 00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Ward20 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A brand-new anonymous editor recently added an external link to a project of Randy Wymore. Since I don't follow this page very closely, does this duplicate something already in the reference list? I didn't want to remove it without consulting first. EdJohnston 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This recentish (12 September 2007) article by a respected science magazine has probably greatly increased the number of people who have heard about Morgellons. ( http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19526210.700-morgellons-disease-the-itch-that-wont-be-scratched.html)
The article has a lot of up to date information and interviews with scientists. However, you have to have a subscription to read it, therefore I'm not sure if it should be a link. The article raises a few points (not sure if these have been mentioned above), e.g. that the possible infection may eventually cause mental problems, therefore these may be real but secondary rather than primary. That some antibiotics but not others have had good results, suggesting that some specific pathogen, rather than the placebo effect, is at work. 141.5.194.4 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Please consider this recent article for further diagnostic and treatment guidelines, either for morgellons itself, or as a differential diagnosis: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/509325
Title Recent Updates on Onchocerciasis: Diagnosis and Treatment Author(s) Don N. Udall Identifiers Clinical Infectious Diseases, volume 44 (2007), pages 53–60 DOI: 10.1086/509325 PubMed ID: 17143815 Copyright © 2007, the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Recent progress in onchocerciasis research has led to improved understanding of the immunopathology of Onchocerca volvulus, as well as improvements in diagnosis and treatment of this morbid disease. This article reviews the recent literature, highlighting breakthroughs in sensitive means of antigen testing and an unusual new approach to therapy that targets an endosymbiotic bacterium required for filarial worm fecundity.
In other words, co-administered antibiotics act as "birth control" for microfiliaria, reducing the overall parasite load. As such "tetracycline" class antibiotics, usually doxycycline, is suggested for co-administration with a microfiliaricide, usually ivermectin, fenbendazole, oxybendazole, moxidectin, levamisole, DEC, etc. I believe new WHO guidelines for treatment specifically recommend co-administering antibiotics. This corresponds to my own remission of symptoms when I'm on oxytetracycline (especially potent but not available for humans in USA -- but w/o a prescription as veterinary medicine), and tetracycline (which amazingly, i was able to sneak out of kaiser despite the tuskeegee experiment they've been attempting on me). Nielsp 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The last two sections were about the subject of the article, rather than leading to anything which might improve the article itself. I'd suggest moving them to another subpage, but I've already done that for this editors contributions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The last two sections are **THE** subject of the article. THey're also a strong indication that this entire wikipedia article on "Morgellons" is complete garbage and needs to be thrown out. Either that, or it should be recast as a historical page accurately capturing the peculiar beliefs of a bunch of scientific flat-earthers who go to amazing extremes to defend the indefensible position that morgellons is not a real infectious disease, but rather a form of delusion, or even worse, a form of internet delusion (ala "Koro" aka "Penis Panic"). In this wikipedia article, most everything needs to go -- medical malpractice is being preached in all sections confabulating this disease with delusional parasitosis, DOP, treatment with psychotropics, and the sections mocking patients desperate for treatment while having their basic human rights violated by doctors. I'd suggest moving the entire wikipedia article to /dev/null and start with a new page based on the appropriate name for this disease, which is "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")" as per http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ .
Should a more psychologically oriented wikipedia page be needed, please consider the statement from Dr. Harvey:
...we are now certain it is NOT Delusions of Parasitosis. The latter in fact, will be the thrust of the paper: the DOP label has resulted in inappropriate and incomplete treatment of countless people who never recovered. Once the final DNA sequencing is done and the paper completed, it will be published with treatment protocol(s) for all clinicians world wide to use. Meanwhile, as both primary organisms create brain limbic system abnormalities, we now understand that the delusional component of the illness is real in many affected (but far from all), so correct psychotropic medication can help that component even if treated purely independently. Nearly half the Morgellons are bipolar, but became so AFTER the parasite infection began. Others have formal diagnoses of extreme OCD or ADD/ADHD. The prevalence in children is no different from adults, and there appear to be no gender or race differences.
In contrast, the current psychiatric-slant in this article is coming from people, all of whom are not trained psychologists or psychiatrists, who appear to be happily parroting terms used by psychiatrists, without any actual knowledge of what those terms or the treatment entails. Ridiculous clinging to very technical terms from people that aren't even willing to use their real names, or backup who they are with real credentials, and who are unwilling to disclose who they represent. How about finding another group to anonymously persecute through amateur couch-psychiatry?? There is a real suffering patient population here; your ongoing denialism, and the fact that you've all glommed onto wikipedia, forcibly slanted it towards the psychological and away from the medical, and are use this site as an organ to broadcast defamation&lies... is reprehensible. The current wikipedia Morgellons page is causing these patients suffering, and is ultimately libellous, discrimination-inducing hate-speech. Nielsp 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Since he was banned for being the sockpuppet of a banned user, should his contributions to this talk page be excised? (At least those which have had no comments by other editors....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Citation 20 at the end of the paragraph [46] discusses all these treatments for Morgellons by Savely. If that is not sufficient, another key source is [47]"Stricker and other physicians are treating Morgellons patients with a combination of antibiotics and anti-parasitic and antifungal drugs." Then there are [48] [49] [50]. These are not the only citations for these therapies, just enough to illustrate they are being used by some medical professionals. The only therapy I could not find multiple sources for was the Savely light treatment, if that is not accurate to "some" I will remove light therapy until I find another source. Ward20 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying and understand your points. Pejorative can be choice of wording too. I have pointed out Morgellons is not WP:FRINGE according to WP guidelines, and is also considered mainstream under WP guidelines, "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications."
MRF is a non-profit organization trying to raise awareness and money for research. Many many non-profit groups do that and have medical professionals on their boards and medical staff. For example: on the American Cancer Society front page: Donate, Participate in events, Volunteer your time, Advocate for change.
Board of Directors:
Briggs W. Andrews, Esq
Donald Anthony, MD
George W.P. Atkins
Ermilo "Milo" Barrera Jr., MD
Kathleen Bond
Nancy Brakensiek, CPA
Sally West Brooks, RN,
Tim E. Buyers, MD, MPH
Gena R. Carter, MD
Carmel J. Cohen, MD
Vincent T. DeVita Jr., MD
Audry B. Douglas-Cookie, RN,
R. Daniel Duquette, PhD
W. Phil Evans, MD
J. Michael Fitzpatrick, PhD
Elizabeth "Terry" T.H. Fontham, MPH, DrPH
Harold P. Freeman, MD
Laura J. Hilderley, RN,
Elmer Huerta, MD, MPH
Juan D. Johnson
Lila R. Johnson, RN,
Anna Johnson-Winegar, PhD
Douglas K. Kelsey, MD, PhD
Robert T. Kendall III, Esq.
Robert Kugler, Esq.
Cynthia Marie LeBlanc,
Rosemary Mackey,
Mario A. Mendez, MD
Pamela K. Meyerhoffer
Karen A. Moffitt, PhD
Marion E. Morra, MA, ScD
Edward E. Partridge, MD
Gary M. Reedy
The Honorable Paul G. Rogers
Carolyn D. Runowicz, MD
Christy A. Russell, MD
David G. Seaman
Jonathan W. Simons, MD
Patricia E.Swanson, RN
Stephen L. Swanson
Eric Taylor, MD,
William Todd
Alan G. Thorson, MD,
Richard C. Wender, MD
Van Velsor Wolf Jr.
The MRF's viewpoint may be treated with GREAT circumspection by the media, but not by WP editors. WP:NOPOV "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better." Ward20 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Institutional Review Board approval for a CDC investigation into Morgellons is scheduled for October, 30 2007.
So what happened? Anyone know? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Per this edit, User:Levine2112 removed the link to www.morgellonswatch.com from the article.
The link was originally added to the article here on 9 June 2006, and has survived in the article through thousands of edits, leading me to believe that it has consensus support among editors. The language in WP:EL is only that blogs are 'normally to be avoided.' Since Morgellons Watch provides close scrutiny of the statements at www.morgellons.org and helps give balance to the pronouncements of that site, I can see its value and recommend that it be kept. EdJohnston 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In a fit of boldness I removed the following item that was at the head of this talk page: {{ press}}
I won't feel bad if someone wants to revert my change. The reasons are personal; I went to the trouble of getting hold of that issue of the New Scientist, and then found that the ENTIRE mention of Wikipedia was this one sentence:
Most of the ideas and research have yet to be formally published, leaving believers and sceptics to slug it out on websites such as Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia.
To see other places where Wikipedia is cited in the regular press in a more substantive manner, open this what-links-here search to find other uses of the {{ press}} template. As I said, I won't feel bad if anyone wants to revert. EdJohnston 02:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Some editor who have posted on this page have been blocked and/or banned. Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/ c 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
The last line of the lead referring to and IRB approval, should be removed. An IRB is merely a panel that reviews proposed human subjects studies to make sure they are safe and ethical. All this factoid means is that the CDC investigation, discussed in its own section, is moving forward. IRB approval will have absolutely no bearing on the question of what Morgellons is, and to cite it in the lead is therefore misleading. Note that protection was largely due to edit warring by IPs and new SPAs, not the "regular editors." Thanks. Thatcher131 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
CDC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).