This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn, revisit when things have stabilised. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Morgellons Research Foundation page were merged into Morgellons and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
I forked this from Morgellons because I think the organizational problems of the Foundation could be used as a distraction from the disease itself. Please be aware that information about living people involved in the Foundation, especially negative information, is subject to the policy on Biographies of living persons. Thatcher131 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi I don't think this was the editors intention, but to me the first half or 2/3 of this is a rave about the science and wonderful mission of the MRF. Then it mentions the internal schisms. That's not the editor's fault though, as his concern was to quickly fork it. But I do think at least one cite and sentence saying the different view people who are unbelievers in morguellons have about the MRF and their 'mission,' should be included. And the quote about their mission here is a bit long.
I'm hungover or I'd fix it myself lol, maybe later.:) Merkinsmum 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states:
and The MRF site (referenced) says:
The MRF version reads like "most newly emerging diseases are not recognized by the medical community, because Morgellons is not recognized, patients symptoms are often dismissed as psychological"
The Wiki version reads like: "With Morgellons, as in the case of many emerging disease, symptoms are often dismissed as psychological".
The problem is that it implies that many emerging disease are "dismissed as psycholgical" - either implying this is so (without citation) or implying the MRF believes this is true for MOST newly emerging disease. The whole sentence reads like a rationalization of the MRFs basic position, so I'd suggest we just use:
? Herd of Swine 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is the CDC page of issue Volume 13, Number 11–November 2007 of Emerging Infectious Diseases, quite a few. This link discusses how Polly Murray, her family, and others with the illness in Old Lyme CT had to fight to get Lyme accepted by the medical community in the 60s and 70s. Doctors tried to diagnose her with psychiatric illness and treat her with antidepressants. Polly Murray documents her story in the book “The Widening Circle". The site also discusses how it is still difficult for some people to be diagnosed after a tick bite and Lyme symptoms. Google searches will come up with many other illnesses that were first termed psychological. CFS, endometriosis, menstrual cramps, fibromyalgia, mitral valve prolapse, microvascular angina, vulvodynia, irritable bowel syndrome, interstitial cystitis are a few.
The MRF states what they state, and the word, "argues" put before "as in the case of many emerging diseases", is a word WP:AVOID suggests "is neutral and useful to paraphrase how someone has promoted a view or idea."
The comment on the talk page on "Medicine is full of phenomena that sounded like psychological ailments when first proposed but are now linked to invasive pathogens", and Ulcers, Syphilis and Tuberculosis was due to the assertion there were no cites to support, "implies that many emerging disease are "dismissed as psycholgical" - either implying this is so (without citation)". It is a cite showing the MRF's position is independently supported in an article about Morgellons.
The suggestion the MRF's position should be altered or removed because an editor believes their position is not clear or wrong is not NPOV. The WP suggested way of handling this is with assertions from RS disputing whatever part of, "The MRF acknowledges the diagnosis of Morgellons disease is not yet recognized by the medical community, and argues that, as in the case of many emerging diseases, patients' symptoms are often dismissed as psychological by health care practitioners" is objectionable. Ward20 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Ward20 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph, "The principal challenge currently faced by MRF is that the medical establishment does not accept the existence of Morgellons, considering instead that sufferers, all of whom are necessarily self-diagnosed, exhibit a range of symptoms from other known conditions. The proposed diagnostic tests for Morgellons are broad and encompass symptoms of a number of conditions including menopause and delusional parasitosis." has no citations. AFAIK there are no RS that state or argue "The principal challenge currently faced by MRF," or "sufferers, all of whom are necessarily self-diagnosed," or there are "proposed diagnostic tests for Morgellons", or that a RS links the symptoms of menopause and Morgellons. If there are please cite. Thanks. Ward20 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You are NOT being particularly cooperative or reasonable about this. The medical community says many (or most) cases of Morgellons = DP, one line of evidence being because it shares many of the symptoms - as far as the medical community is concerned, the causes of DP, such as menopause, *are* explicitly in relation to the topic (nonsense about brain tumors and mosquito bites aside)! This again sounds like an attempt to give undue weight to the MRF's arguments versus those of the medical community. Your argument for disallowing discussion of DP's symptoms and causes as relevant echoes the MRF's argument that Morgellons is not DP - but if you are willing to cite the MRF's opinions in that regard at face value (i.e., that Morgellons and DP are unrelated, and here's why they think that), then you must also be willing to cite the medical community's opinions in that regard at face value (i.e., that Morgellons and DP are related, and here's why THEY think that). The source IS reliable, authoritative, on the topic, and cited appropriately. Besides which, we can reduce this to its basic elements: if you state that "Dr. #1 says A and B share many symptoms" but Dr. #1 does not list the symptoms explicitly, then follow it up with "Dr. #2 says the symptoms of B include X, Y, and Z, all of which are indeed shared by A" this is NOT a novel synthesis or OR - it's supplying a citation that explicitly gives the list of symptoms that Dr #1 did NOT and therefore could not be cited for. Dr. #1 says there is a list but doesn't specify it, Dr. #2 gives that list. It's SIMPLE. And we've been over this nitpick about "sensations of insect-like crawling, stinging or biting" and your objections to referring to it as formication. That is the definition of formication! That's like arguing that if one person refers to a "massive, luminous stellar body around which our planet orbits" that we cannot assume that a different person referring to "the sun" is talking about the same thing. There is a boundary where worthwhile discussions of phrasing turn into passive-aggressive semantic debates intended solely to antagonize. Let's not go there, okay? Dyanega 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This looks biased toward the research foundation. Looks like it's pursuing people to help the foundation. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 22:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the controversial nature of this subject is causing us to lose sight of the purpose of this article. This entry should discuss the MRF, its history and mission. While it would be appropriate to discuss controversies within the organization, or misdeeds on the MRF's part (with proper citation), flagging and flogging this articles as has been done here seems to be based on disagreements about the existence of the phenomenon or its causes. These issues should be dealt with under the article relating to Morgellons itself.
In this context, this article needs only minor editing. I would disagree that the information about the rift between BOD members should be removed, but I do think that going into the financial specifics here is unwarranted, and a link to a source would suffice. I will edit later, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Ninja housewife ( talk) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be fixed: "but the medical community disagrees, noting that the described symptoms of Morgellons are associated with a psychotic disorder known as delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's syndrome."
Who is this medical community? This is practically Subjective... By medical community I'm sure then you by no means are referring to the CDC because the CDC's investigation is STILL ongoing and they are inconclusive.... No one besides a few doctors interviewed in the recorded Morgellons Media have suggested this is parasitosis.
Quote from the CDC:
"What is the current status of the investigation?
Study recruitment, collection of survey data and the clinical examinations have been completed. Testing of blood and other samples is underway and data analysis will follow. No study results are available at this time."..... Yeah the "medical community" sounds very solid and conclusive....
"Is this condition contagious?
The factors associated with acquiring this condition are unknown. At this time, there is insufficient information to determine whether or not this condition is contagious."
Please check my references (CDC) if you like. These were taken from the FAQ
http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?queryText=morgellons&action=search
http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ (aka morgellons)
Wiki Quote: "The Foundation considers Morgellons to be a newly emerging infectious disease, but the medical community disagrees, noting that the described symptoms of Morgellons are associated with a psychotic disorder known as delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's syndrome"
.... I suggest this needs to be fixed or at least add more information. Who is writing these articles and what exactly is going on in wikipedia? The CDC has no idea in hell what is going with this potential disease and they are studying things under microscopes as we speak while making limited public statements. Yet CDC isn't mentioned once here. You merely state in so many words: "The foundation attempts to make awareness for people who say they have a fibergrowing disease that they refer to as morgellons but everyone in the medical industry says no its in their heads".
Thats not acceptable. I can link you an article discussing the CDC begining its investigation in 2006 and the CDC information I provided for you is taken from today.... this is not a debate section but for information purposes.... I would have to ask, it takes more than 3 years for these people to say "Hey these are just hair and fabric parts!" ?? You're quoted "Medical Community" currently has no idea and no suggestions to explain this situation.
When I write about this phenomenon in suggestions boxes like this they tend to get deleted. So I will save this on a document and discuss it elsewhere if wiki's "community" is not interested. No I don't have this disease, and I don't know anyone that does before you suggest that I am infected with the "delusions". I just prefer to pay attention —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.37.40.139 (
talk)
06:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Minor edit:
The Foundation considers Morgellons to be a newly emerging infectious disease, but the majority medical community disagrees, noting that the described symptoms of Morgellons are most likely associated with a psychotic disorder known as delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's syndrome. Center for Disease Control (CDC) is currently conducting a study of self diagnosed Morgellons patients.
If wikipedia considers accurate information important than this minor change should be acceptable. This is not subjectivity, this is information (reference provided). If the added information is disliked for this page then deletion of the entire sentence "The Foundation considers Morgellons to be a newly emerging infectious disease, but the medical community disagrees, noting that the described symptoms of Morgellons are associated with a psychotic disorder known as delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's syndrome", should be (deletion) suggested if confronted with the possible argument of one feeling that validation or invalidation of this particular disease/syndrome does not belong in the Morgellons Research Foundation introduction of this page although this does not appear to be the case. If this is dismissed I fear subjectivity may in fact be a prime factor in wikipedia's Morgellons text. Under the scenario of an unwillingness to alter this particular document because it was possibly provided in its entirety from a reliable source, in the world of wikipedia that would be considered ridiculous.
http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?queryText=morgellons&action=search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.40.139 ( talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn, revisit when things have stabilised. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Morgellons Research Foundation page were merged into Morgellons and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
I forked this from Morgellons because I think the organizational problems of the Foundation could be used as a distraction from the disease itself. Please be aware that information about living people involved in the Foundation, especially negative information, is subject to the policy on Biographies of living persons. Thatcher131 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi I don't think this was the editors intention, but to me the first half or 2/3 of this is a rave about the science and wonderful mission of the MRF. Then it mentions the internal schisms. That's not the editor's fault though, as his concern was to quickly fork it. But I do think at least one cite and sentence saying the different view people who are unbelievers in morguellons have about the MRF and their 'mission,' should be included. And the quote about their mission here is a bit long.
I'm hungover or I'd fix it myself lol, maybe later.:) Merkinsmum 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states:
and The MRF site (referenced) says:
The MRF version reads like "most newly emerging diseases are not recognized by the medical community, because Morgellons is not recognized, patients symptoms are often dismissed as psychological"
The Wiki version reads like: "With Morgellons, as in the case of many emerging disease, symptoms are often dismissed as psychological".
The problem is that it implies that many emerging disease are "dismissed as psycholgical" - either implying this is so (without citation) or implying the MRF believes this is true for MOST newly emerging disease. The whole sentence reads like a rationalization of the MRFs basic position, so I'd suggest we just use:
? Herd of Swine 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is the CDC page of issue Volume 13, Number 11–November 2007 of Emerging Infectious Diseases, quite a few. This link discusses how Polly Murray, her family, and others with the illness in Old Lyme CT had to fight to get Lyme accepted by the medical community in the 60s and 70s. Doctors tried to diagnose her with psychiatric illness and treat her with antidepressants. Polly Murray documents her story in the book “The Widening Circle". The site also discusses how it is still difficult for some people to be diagnosed after a tick bite and Lyme symptoms. Google searches will come up with many other illnesses that were first termed psychological. CFS, endometriosis, menstrual cramps, fibromyalgia, mitral valve prolapse, microvascular angina, vulvodynia, irritable bowel syndrome, interstitial cystitis are a few.
The MRF states what they state, and the word, "argues" put before "as in the case of many emerging diseases", is a word WP:AVOID suggests "is neutral and useful to paraphrase how someone has promoted a view or idea."
The comment on the talk page on "Medicine is full of phenomena that sounded like psychological ailments when first proposed but are now linked to invasive pathogens", and Ulcers, Syphilis and Tuberculosis was due to the assertion there were no cites to support, "implies that many emerging disease are "dismissed as psycholgical" - either implying this is so (without citation)". It is a cite showing the MRF's position is independently supported in an article about Morgellons.
The suggestion the MRF's position should be altered or removed because an editor believes their position is not clear or wrong is not NPOV. The WP suggested way of handling this is with assertions from RS disputing whatever part of, "The MRF acknowledges the diagnosis of Morgellons disease is not yet recognized by the medical community, and argues that, as in the case of many emerging diseases, patients' symptoms are often dismissed as psychological by health care practitioners" is objectionable. Ward20 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Ward20 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph, "The principal challenge currently faced by MRF is that the medical establishment does not accept the existence of Morgellons, considering instead that sufferers, all of whom are necessarily self-diagnosed, exhibit a range of symptoms from other known conditions. The proposed diagnostic tests for Morgellons are broad and encompass symptoms of a number of conditions including menopause and delusional parasitosis." has no citations. AFAIK there are no RS that state or argue "The principal challenge currently faced by MRF," or "sufferers, all of whom are necessarily self-diagnosed," or there are "proposed diagnostic tests for Morgellons", or that a RS links the symptoms of menopause and Morgellons. If there are please cite. Thanks. Ward20 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You are NOT being particularly cooperative or reasonable about this. The medical community says many (or most) cases of Morgellons = DP, one line of evidence being because it shares many of the symptoms - as far as the medical community is concerned, the causes of DP, such as menopause, *are* explicitly in relation to the topic (nonsense about brain tumors and mosquito bites aside)! This again sounds like an attempt to give undue weight to the MRF's arguments versus those of the medical community. Your argument for disallowing discussion of DP's symptoms and causes as relevant echoes the MRF's argument that Morgellons is not DP - but if you are willing to cite the MRF's opinions in that regard at face value (i.e., that Morgellons and DP are unrelated, and here's why they think that), then you must also be willing to cite the medical community's opinions in that regard at face value (i.e., that Morgellons and DP are related, and here's why THEY think that). The source IS reliable, authoritative, on the topic, and cited appropriately. Besides which, we can reduce this to its basic elements: if you state that "Dr. #1 says A and B share many symptoms" but Dr. #1 does not list the symptoms explicitly, then follow it up with "Dr. #2 says the symptoms of B include X, Y, and Z, all of which are indeed shared by A" this is NOT a novel synthesis or OR - it's supplying a citation that explicitly gives the list of symptoms that Dr #1 did NOT and therefore could not be cited for. Dr. #1 says there is a list but doesn't specify it, Dr. #2 gives that list. It's SIMPLE. And we've been over this nitpick about "sensations of insect-like crawling, stinging or biting" and your objections to referring to it as formication. That is the definition of formication! That's like arguing that if one person refers to a "massive, luminous stellar body around which our planet orbits" that we cannot assume that a different person referring to "the sun" is talking about the same thing. There is a boundary where worthwhile discussions of phrasing turn into passive-aggressive semantic debates intended solely to antagonize. Let's not go there, okay? Dyanega 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This looks biased toward the research foundation. Looks like it's pursuing people to help the foundation. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 22:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the controversial nature of this subject is causing us to lose sight of the purpose of this article. This entry should discuss the MRF, its history and mission. While it would be appropriate to discuss controversies within the organization, or misdeeds on the MRF's part (with proper citation), flagging and flogging this articles as has been done here seems to be based on disagreements about the existence of the phenomenon or its causes. These issues should be dealt with under the article relating to Morgellons itself.
In this context, this article needs only minor editing. I would disagree that the information about the rift between BOD members should be removed, but I do think that going into the financial specifics here is unwarranted, and a link to a source would suffice. I will edit later, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Ninja housewife ( talk) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be fixed: "but the medical community disagrees, noting that the described symptoms of Morgellons are associated with a psychotic disorder known as delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's syndrome."
Who is this medical community? This is practically Subjective... By medical community I'm sure then you by no means are referring to the CDC because the CDC's investigation is STILL ongoing and they are inconclusive.... No one besides a few doctors interviewed in the recorded Morgellons Media have suggested this is parasitosis.
Quote from the CDC:
"What is the current status of the investigation?
Study recruitment, collection of survey data and the clinical examinations have been completed. Testing of blood and other samples is underway and data analysis will follow. No study results are available at this time."..... Yeah the "medical community" sounds very solid and conclusive....
"Is this condition contagious?
The factors associated with acquiring this condition are unknown. At this time, there is insufficient information to determine whether or not this condition is contagious."
Please check my references (CDC) if you like. These were taken from the FAQ
http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?queryText=morgellons&action=search
http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ (aka morgellons)
Wiki Quote: "The Foundation considers Morgellons to be a newly emerging infectious disease, but the medical community disagrees, noting that the described symptoms of Morgellons are associated with a psychotic disorder known as delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's syndrome"
.... I suggest this needs to be fixed or at least add more information. Who is writing these articles and what exactly is going on in wikipedia? The CDC has no idea in hell what is going with this potential disease and they are studying things under microscopes as we speak while making limited public statements. Yet CDC isn't mentioned once here. You merely state in so many words: "The foundation attempts to make awareness for people who say they have a fibergrowing disease that they refer to as morgellons but everyone in the medical industry says no its in their heads".
Thats not acceptable. I can link you an article discussing the CDC begining its investigation in 2006 and the CDC information I provided for you is taken from today.... this is not a debate section but for information purposes.... I would have to ask, it takes more than 3 years for these people to say "Hey these are just hair and fabric parts!" ?? You're quoted "Medical Community" currently has no idea and no suggestions to explain this situation.
When I write about this phenomenon in suggestions boxes like this they tend to get deleted. So I will save this on a document and discuss it elsewhere if wiki's "community" is not interested. No I don't have this disease, and I don't know anyone that does before you suggest that I am infected with the "delusions". I just prefer to pay attention —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.37.40.139 (
talk)
06:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Minor edit:
The Foundation considers Morgellons to be a newly emerging infectious disease, but the majority medical community disagrees, noting that the described symptoms of Morgellons are most likely associated with a psychotic disorder known as delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's syndrome. Center for Disease Control (CDC) is currently conducting a study of self diagnosed Morgellons patients.
If wikipedia considers accurate information important than this minor change should be acceptable. This is not subjectivity, this is information (reference provided). If the added information is disliked for this page then deletion of the entire sentence "The Foundation considers Morgellons to be a newly emerging infectious disease, but the medical community disagrees, noting that the described symptoms of Morgellons are associated with a psychotic disorder known as delusional parasitosis or Ekbom's syndrome", should be (deletion) suggested if confronted with the possible argument of one feeling that validation or invalidation of this particular disease/syndrome does not belong in the Morgellons Research Foundation introduction of this page although this does not appear to be the case. If this is dismissed I fear subjectivity may in fact be a prime factor in wikipedia's Morgellons text. Under the scenario of an unwillingness to alter this particular document because it was possibly provided in its entirety from a reliable source, in the world of wikipedia that would be considered ridiculous.
http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?queryText=morgellons&action=search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.40.139 ( talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)