Talk:Morgellons/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Reader feedback: It is 2013, there are new pe...

72.253.225.48 posted this comment on 5 July 2013 (view all feedback).

It is 2013, there are new peer reviewed studies linking Morgellons to Lyme disease. Yet, you continue to vilify and demean people who suffer from this by not allowing the new and updated information to be shared as in the Lyme disease case. Shame on you. You lose standing as a source of information when you choose to share propaganda instead.

Any thoughts?

Rodneye9110 (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)I totally agree with this comment since a mainstream practicing dermatologist has diagnosed me with Morgellons and I have received multiple anti-biotic treatments for it then why do you allow the propaganda that it is delusional to be portrayed as fact? I have seen VA psychiatrist in regards to this and they have confirmed that it is a real disease related to syphilis so it does have cognitive and memory loss aspects to it.

Nobody is being vilified. We should wait to see what secondary sources say before we add stuff from primary sources I think. What someone tells any of us is not a reliable source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Were those "anti-biotic treatments" colloidal silver? Rodneye9110 is the latest account to be investigated for being a sockpuppet of the same user (Ryanspir) who created the InLoveNoi account to "mediate" this page's dispute. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "83% protein" arguments

I see a couple of the pro-fringe research editors trying to claim this supports their views. It does not. "Protein" has multiple definitions and does not only mean "animal material", ie: nutritional protein; it can also mean "organic material": material composed of amino acids, as opposed to non-living material. Since the CDC study isn't about the nutrition content of the fibers and also immediately goes on to say that the protein is cotton cellulose, the "organic material" definition is clearly the one that was meant.

As I've mentioned in an earlier edit, if the conclusion of the study does not match your interpretation of a sentence or sentence fragment in the study, you should strongly consider the possibility that you've misinterpreted things. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You may need to check your chemistry texts. Sierraparis (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

Sure thing, brand new account that signs your name after your posts just like a certain fringe view editor. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the directions and thought I signed my post correctly. Please educate me on how I should sign my posts if I am doing it incorrectly. Also, now that I have read the arguments on this article more carefully, please explain how an article in Popular Mechanics and an article can be reference while Faculty of 1000 peer reviewed publications are denied. How do the "rules" apply in this instance. Sorry if I am signing posts wrong. I recently joined so I am new here. If you will tell me the proper way to sign posts, I'm all ears. Thanks! 70.196.2.118 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the Pearson report is a primary report, the main problem with inclusion of "protein (83%)" is that it's a detail buried in the Results section, and for primary report we're supposed to stick to major conclusions that don't contradict secondary sources. That's really where the relevance to our article ends - we don't include it. For those who are curious, I urge you to read the paragraph and not just a phrase, and you'll find it in the Pearson plosone paper as the first paragraph under the heading "Analysis of Fibers or Materials From Non-biopsy Skin Sites". Since this is not going to affect our article I'm not going to quote or debate it further - it's not going into our article for the reasons I've already stated. --Scray (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone that they are supposed to be welcoming and polite to new users. I can't imagine Sierraparis feels welcome. If the non-fringe editors do not want to discuss the chemical composition of fibers then why did they bring this topic up under its own heading? I am very sorry, but I cannot allow such bad chemistry to go uncorrected. The first paragraph under this heading is absolute nonsense, and this is coming from someone calling me "fringe". What is that bit about nutrition? That is sounding very "fringe" to me. There are not multiple definitions for proteins. Proteins are composed of amino acids that are linked together by peptide bonds. Proteins contain, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen. Cotton is composed of cellulose, a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates contain carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. Unlike proteins, carbohydrates do not contain nitrogen. As a WP editor, you are not supposed to insult other editors. Before you call me fringe again, please remember the old saying, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I should not be my job to correct basic biochemistry, so please carefully check our scientific arguments for accuracy before posting, especially if you continue to imply others are fringe rather than scientific.Erythema (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The section was created in response to attempts to change the main page, you can see this by looking at the edit history. The issue here is not that 83% protein is less or more factually correct, and of less concern is that an editor displayed what you perceive as "bad chemistry". The issue is that the reference is from a primary source, and therefore the overall conclusions of the source should be expressed rather than the specifics of the results section. The current state of the article effectively paraphrases this quote from the conclusions section "The fibers and materials collected from case-patients' skin were largely consistent with skin fragments or materials such as cotton and were either entrapped in purulent crust or scabs, suggesting the materials were from environmental sources (e.g., clothing) or possibly artifacts introduced at the time of specimen collection and processing." Do you have any pertinent comments relating to this issue?137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please inform me of how you would like me to sign my post since I am new here and not familiar with the post signing procedure. I was attracted to this page when I saw the scales of justice on the Morgellons article the other day. When I read the talk page I could not help noticing the remarks about protein and I just had to comment. I did not mean to offend anyone but simply felt that basic chemistry would be useful in your post about the protein. Chemistry is not my major either so don't feel bad. Please tell me how you want me to sign my post because I must have misread the instructions. I have interest in controversial issues of Morgellons wikipedia editing and feel I may be able to make positive contributions to this page. Thanks! Sierraparis (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

I will attempt to answer sierraparis's reference question the best I can. I do not have the answer as to why Popular Mechanics is considered an appropriate secondary medical resource, but I can shed some light on the topic of F1000 research. Some editors argue that this a a pay for publication journal (and Dove Press as well) so they claim that it is not reliable. They have indicated that they believe that when an author pays a publication fee that a paper automatically passes peer-review. This perception is erroneous and it is a false accusation that is damaging to the reputations of these journals. Although these journals do charge publication costs, so do many other reputable journals. It costs a lot of money to publish medical and scientific papers. The cost has to be recovered somewhere. This can come from advertising, from publication fees, or from other sources. Many grant applications will include publication costs, recognizing that publication fees are not unusual. This charge has nothing at all to do with the peer-review process. F1000 Research is an innovative new journal. It has been granted early approval for PubMed indexing, something that normally can takes a journal several years to achieve. Dove Press articles are PubMed indexed. Achieving indexing is important to journals, because if the articles are to be read and distributed, obviously indexing helps. F1000 has transparent, open peer-review. It is a new concept, so that unlike most journals, the reviewers' identities are revealed and their comments are available to the public. Both F1000 Research and Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol have guidelines for peer-reveiwers and these do not include granting approval on the basis of money paid by the authors. There is nothing in WP:MEDRS to suggest that on-line journals charging publication fees are not reliable sources. On the contrary this type of reference is encouraged because it is available to readers. Anyone wishing to know about Dove Press reviewer guidelines can check out, www.dovepress.com/peer_review_guidelines.php and for F1000 Research, www.f1000research.com/author-guidelines . It is my understanding that F1000 Research is an innovative approach to scientific publishing initiated by the F1000, who are largely regarded by the scientific community as an elite, distinguished group of scientists and doctors who are among the best in their fields of study. Please see the wikipedia article on F1000 for more information. Given the prestigiousness of F1000, why F1000 Research is so poorly regarded by some of the editors here is a mystery to me. In fact, citations of any article by F1000 are considered prestigious to journals. Some medical journals like to show case articles published in their journals that have been given a citation.Erythema (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

On the contrary, I know that journals charge publication fees. However, F1000 Research and Dove Press are not regarded by the general scientific community as "prestigious" or even reliable (although F1000, in general, is), and I cannot imagine how the "open peer review" system could possibly work. The explanation given how it does work does not show me how it can work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The financial model of specific publications is irrelevant to this section. The talk page is devoted to improving different dimensions of the article, either keep the conversations on the appropriate topic, start a new topic, or just read what has already been discussed about the topic.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree that the financial model is irrelevant. Erythema seems to claim that editors consider the sources (F1000 research and a Dove Press open access journal) are unreliable because of the financial model. My take is that the sources are unreliable because the review model is faulty, even if nominally "peer-reviewed". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur that the financial model of these Open Access publishers is not relevant.

Regarding the Dove Medical Press review process: long time commentator on Open Access publishing, Richard Poynder, writes the following about Dove: Hill added that while Dove was originally conceived as a traditional subscription-based publisher, the company is currently in the throes of being transformed into an OA publisher. And from Hill's description it would appear that Dove operates a perfectly respectable peer-review system. Indeed, speaking to me Hill emphasised high editorial standards, and said: "I believe that there is a real need for the traditional editorial standards to be applied to the growing number of Open Access publishers." Source: here.

Many Dove Medical Press journals are included in MEDLINE, so clearly the review process of Dove is considered of a high enough standard for MEDLINE. Examples of Dove journals that are MEDLINE indexed include (out of those beginning with C): Clin Interv Aging Clin Epidemiol Clin Ophthalmol Clin Pharmacol Core Evid.

But in any case, we are required to follow the rules of Wikipedia, including WP:MEDRS, and nowhere in these rules does it even suggest or hint that Open Access publishers are not reliable sources. Thus if we are to follow Wikipedia rules, Open Access journals are to be considered reliable sources. And if we follow WP:NPOV, we are required include all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. If people here faithfully followed the rules of Wikipedia, we would have no dispute at all. Drgao (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, this conversation has nothing to do with the topic of this section of the talk page. Refer to previous discussions about this, start a new topic, or engage in the dispute resolution which addresses this and other issues.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons Publication cited by F1000

Further looking for answers to why the peer reviewed publication in Faculty 1000 is going unrecognized by Wiki editors. Am I understanding you corre toy that Wiki has a policy about the review process and that F1000 has not met the mark? While looking around F1000 , I found that this paper on Morgellons was held in high esteem and actually received an award. Have you seen this? http://f1000.com/prime/716597867. Do fringe topics often receive awards such as this? I have concluded, according to many of the experts I have questioned about this, that F1000 actually IS a reliable source of medical information. I am still not sure whether Faculty1000Research editor and chief realize that wiki editors consider this to be an unreliable source or "fringe" but for the article I am writing on this interesting topic, I will try to find out. Sierraparis (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

I will quote from 3 sources, and you can perhaps see at least one of the problems in this situation:

Wikipedia- sources "Use independent sources[edit]

Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find while unreliable sources are readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles."

Charles E. Holman Foundation website- Donation section "Donate To Help Fund Morgellons Research

As is the case with any research project, financial donations are critical to maintaining our momentum. All donations are tax deductible and 100% of the money goes to research or education, which leads to more research! You can be sure that the funds will be put to good use, especially considering that the majority of people helping with this project have Morgellons Disease themselves. If it is within your means, please consider a financial gift."

Article- Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study- "Conflict of Interest Statement

RBS serves without compensation on the medical advisory panel for QMedRx Inc. He has no financial ties to the company. MJM, EHR and RBS serve without compensation on the scientific advisory panel of the Charles E. Holman Foundation. DGK has no conflicts to declare."

The claims in the article are not supported by mainstream research. The authors of the article are associated with a foundation that explicitly solicits donations to support research in this field. Third-party, independent sources have not been used to support the conclusions of the article. There are documented cases of people self-treating for this condition against the wisdom of the mainstream medical literature, leading to hospitalisation in some cases. It seems unethical to include the material within this context, and in the absence of third-party reviews of the methodologies and conclusions. The latter would have been hastened had the material been published in a journal which utilised orthodox submission and peer-review procedures. The conclusions of the article deviate dramatically from the mainstream consensus, and appeared in a publication similarly outside of the spectrum of sources which usually inform medical opinion. Do you have third-party, independent sources which support the conclusions of the article you have mentioned? Unless you do I don't see any good reason to ignore wikipedia's guidelines in this circumstance.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Investigative Medicine

With all the discussion of determining credibility of medical journals, I have a question to ask. How does the Journal of Investigative Medicine weigh in as far as being a reliable source of medical information? Sierraparis (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

When they're merely reprinting the abstract of an article that actually appeared in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal, not very. You're referring to the article "Morgellons Disease: Analysis of a Population with Clinically Confirmed Microscopic Subcutaneous Fibers of Unknown Etiology", already listed among the sources in Drgao's list above, correct? 198.199.134.100 (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That was an abstract for a presentation, the abstract was not peer-reviewed by the journal and doesn't meet the standard for inclusion as a medical source. Since we are keeping it informal, here is a review of the article that this abstract eventually related to http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2010/05/13/bad-science-done-badly-its-bad/. And in that spirit, here is a finding of scientific misconduct against Rapheal Stricker in the 90's http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not93-177.html. Enjoy.137.111.13.200 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa... I was not aware of the earlier research misconduct by Stricker.... I mean, I'm not too surprised to see shoddy research, but actively lying about results is something else entirely. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We are supposed to discuss if we should include new content and evaluate the NPOV status of this article, not the reputations of individual researchers. Furthermore, this group of researchers involved in detecting spirochetes includes a professor of medicine, psychology, from Stanford University; a professor of medicine, pathology, from UCLA; and a professor of biology from the University of New Haven. Are you going start ripping them apart too? Focus on the main issue of discussion and stop sidetracking. This is not the National Inquirer, or is it?Erythema (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Under WP:RS, and even under WP:MEDRS, there are two reputations relevant to whether a source can be included: the reputation of the journal, and the reputation of the authors. In some cases (although rarely under WP:MEDRS), a publication by an impeccable researcher in a questionable journal might be included. In this specific case, it appears that the reputation of the journal is not even relevant, as the sourced material is from the abstract. It them seems appropriate to touch on the reputation of the researchers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have tried to let everyone who has participated in the discussions here know that an ANI has started, but if I missed anyone, you can see it here [1] Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

TO: Sierraparis and Erythema (and anyone else on my side) — don't forget to vote in the above ANI, which Dbrodbeck kindly set up in order to ban me from Wikipedia, or at least ban me from the Wikipedia medical articles. To vote against this proposed ban on my Wikipedia account, just insert the word Oppose, and the your username on the ANI page. To vote for the ban insert to word support. Drgao (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You know we don't vote on wikipedia right? Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Meaning? Drgao (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Meaning we don't work on votes. You seem, again, to misunderstand how it works around here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are talking petulant crap. I have previously participated in voting processes on Wikipedia in which the outcome was decided by the "support" and "oppose" tallies. Drgao (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, if you had read our policies, you would know that Dbrodbeck is correct. See the first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS, a policy that I, and several other editors, pointed you to in the course of the last two months. Also read WP:CANVASSING, a guideline that you just violated above, and could be blocked for. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck is wrong. Dbrodbeck greatly over-exaggerates his knowledge and experience, to make himself sound important in the Wikipedia world (like most of you guys here), but both you and he are wrong on this matter, as quick glance at WP:VINE will reveal. I wonder where else you have been wrong. Drgao (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You apparently missed that little box at the top, ok it is not that little, and it is right at the start there 'This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.' Whereas WP:CONSENSUS IS policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And this page: WP:VOTE? Is than not policy? Drgao (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is policy, 'This page in a nutshell: Some decisions on Wikipedia are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions to achieve consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The AN/I discussion has concluded: [2].

Drgao and Erythema are indefinitely topic-banned from articles and talk pages within the realm of WP:MEDICINE. Sierraparis is cautioned not to follow them down this path.

I will emphasize that the ban applies to all edits to this article and this talk page, and that bans apply to the individuals using the Drgao and Erythema accounts—not just to the accounts themselves. In other words, to avoid any confusion, neither Drgao nor Erythema may edit these pages using any account under any name, nor while logged out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note based on this outcome I have manually archived off to Talk:Morgellons/Archive 10 all the threads here that were revolving around Drgao and Erythema. Zad68 14:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Claims of the Internet Role are Lacking Evidence

These claims are made citing just two scientific sources buried in a slew of unscientific hearsay from popular opinion magazines and newspapers. These sources and their opinions do not provide evidence that this syndrome is spread through the internet. It merely adds to the point of view of the editors who wish to keep this article from being presented with a NPOV. The article should have all these controversial sources removed. I propose that we do just that. Stick with ALL the scientific papers, including those a few editors keep trying to shut out of the paper. You show how biased you are by excluding them and including junk like this. If you wish to go around demeaning people who suffer from this because in your dermatology or psychiatry practice you refuse to recognize the possibility of another syphilis type infection then do so in those newspapers and opinion magazines but don't do it here.72.253.225.48 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)72.253.225.48 (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If anyone speaks french and has access behind the paywall this article seems like it would be helpful for expanding the section. It appears to be a review article on the subject. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources that agree with the mainstream medical view of this condition are not controversial, nor do they violate NPOV. The mainstream view is determined by secondary reviews of primary studies, all of which should meet Wikipedia standards. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh good then where are your secondary reviews of primary sources verifying scientifically that it is spread through the internet? Without that these media pieces are simply opinion and can be moved down to the media section.72.253.225.48 (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that piece from Misery (!) is an abstract from a conference, not a valid source. The Popular Mechanics article was quoted in a secondary source, in a paper specifically outlining the interaction between the "unscientific hearsay" found in poplar media and Morgellons (Morgellons: contested illness, diagnostic compromise and medicalisation- Fair). It is in the further reading section, I have no idea why it hasn't been used in this section.137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

the conversation seems to have been archived but I would like to bring this back for Andy the Grump who had requested sources that demonstrate the current talk n the Internet surrounding Morgellons. Andy...what type of sources? Magazine articles? Blogs or websites? We were discussing this as related to the "Role of the Internet Section". As infectious as this sounds, it appears that the Internet has spread the theory of a possible association of Morgellons with spirochetal infection. What types of sources was Andy the Grump looking for? Since this section utilizes Popular Mechanics and the Guardian, am I correct to assume that magazine articles, newspapers, blogs, etc...might suffice for this particular purpose? Sierraparis (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

To be specific, you claimed that "most Internet discussions on the topic of Morgellons revolve around the ongoing research and the presence of Borrela bergdorferi found within the lesions" - I asked whether you could cite a source which stated that, since it seemed on the face of it implausible that discussions concerning a single bacterial species would comprise the topic of the majority of online discourse concerning Morgellons. Still, if you can find a source that makes this assertion, we can consider possibly including it in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. My apologies that somehow I have managed to have this conversation going in two separate areas. That was my mistake but I don't know how to correct it. Yes, a quick search in some of the most popular Morgellns blogs and forums shows me that the findings of Borrelia bergdorferi by UNH and Austrailian Biologics among other alleged labs is by far the top topic of Internet buzz on Morgellons. I haven't looked for a publication that states just that but I am confident that it should not be too difficult to find. I heard that Popular Mechanics is interested in doing a follow up on the topic but I am sure there are others. Sierraparis (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic study

The Mayo study, "Delusional infestation, including delusions of parasitosis: results of histologic examination of skin biopsy and patient-provided skin specimens. Hylwa SA, Bury JE, Davis MD, Pittelkow M, Bostwick JM." was added back with the edit summary "the abstract explicitly includes Morgellon's among the conditions included. Deletion reverted."

I can't find Morgellons mentioned in the abstract or body of the [article. Where is it? Ward20 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be it?

"delusion of lice, delusional disorder with parasitosis, delusion(s) of parasitosis, delusional parasitosis, delusion(s) of parasitism, delusion(s) of parasites, parasitosis (delusional), delusional infestation, delusory parasitosis, psychogenic parasitosis, neurogenic parasitosis, neurotic parasitosis, Ekbom syndrome, formication and parasites, chronic tactile hallucination(s), dermatophobia, parasitophobia, toxic psychosis, tactile psychosis, monosymptomatic hypochondriacal psychosis, Morgellon(s), psychogenic dermatitis, neurotic dermatitis, neurogenic dermatitis, self-induced excoriations, and psychogenic excoriations."

From your second link. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep thanks, I didn't pick up the prens with my spell checker. Ward20 (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

People, you gotta read these things with more than your spell checker! From the article:

Interestingly, the majority of patients had some form of dermatitis, and almost half had excoriations, ulcerations, or erosions. The large number of dermatitis diagnoses found by skin biopsy raises the possibility that a true pathologic condition may underlie delusional skin disease. Dermatitis is associated with itching and atypical skin sensations. This raises the possibility that atypical sensations in the skin may be precipitated by a true pathologic condition (eg, dermatitis or an underlying systemic disease that may result in dysesthesia) and interpreted mistakenly by the patient as insects crawling from the skin (in the case of delusions of parasitosis). When patients scratch their skin, excoriations are associated with cutaneous crusting and debris, which may be misinterpreted as pathogens emerging from the skin. One patient stated that she initially felt sensations of rectal itching and tingling, which were then replaced by crawling sensations and a belief that she was passing mucus, eggs, and “snake skin –like ” opaque forms; a viral culture from her perianal area revealed herpes simplex virus.

Using that article only to dismiss Morgellons as delusional (and Morgellons is only listed as a search term for initial patient recruitment) is missing the point about three different ways. As I hinted above, I'd like to see these people checked for genetic aberrations in epidermal barrier function, cytoskeletal proteins, cytokines... all sorts of potential underlying conditions. Heck, in one of their patients they even pulled out an actual pubic louse, demonstrating that yes, occasionally it really is something crawling around. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. Finding the term morgellons buried in the search terms for initial patient recruitment was to determine if the Mayo study should be mentioned in the article. The Mayo study didn't actually break out how many morgellons patients were in the study. It could have been zero, but editors aren't supposed to interpret primary source material. However, the previous wording of the Mayo study in the article made it seem like all the study participants were diagnosed with morgellons. That's clearly not the case.

The Mayo study has a fairly narrow scope. "To review the results of skin biopsies and patient-provided specimens from patients whose assessment was consistent with delusional infestation, including delusions of parasitosis." IMO using it for other purposes puts an editor on shaky ground.

agreed. This study is not on the subject at hand and is presented as such. I find it more than a little dishonest.

It is my view the article could be improved by better describing the scope and perceptions of the illness using higher quality sources. There is a fairly extensive review article that has a large section called "The Morgellons Phenomenon" here, but it is hardly used in the article. Ward20 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ward20, you're right: that's a fantastic reference. -- Scray (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks to be a fine source indeed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It does look good. It's currently reference #6 in the article, and used only in the lead (which is a problem). This article could stand to make much better use of that source. Zad68 01:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - this source does make for interesting reading, especially the biographic detail on Leitao. Though it lacks the openness toward some other condition triggering itching in DI that I quoted from the other study above. And it mentions some decidedly curious ideas, like it has been recommended to introduce the model of nerve endings in the skin forming a “nerve fiber network” which has become “hypersensitive,” sending abnormal signals to the brain...

I still suspect we're missing something big with the notion of 'delusion'... the instincts of personal grooming are complex, no doubt fascinating. I mean, I don't have this disease, thank God, but it is normal to sense something to scratch at quite often. (How often?) Though I try to check myself for ticks carefully to avoid Lyme disease, half the time I find out about a crawling tick when my fingers are on it, and I don't know how they got there - I never sensed anything, or so I'd have thought if I didn't end up holding the evidence, thankful to some unknown instinct for sparing me the bite. Yet surely every hour - maybe every minute when thinking about an article like this - maybe every minute all the time but I just never remember or notice the others - there's some momentary sensation somewhere to scratch at that is consciously detectable, and is it a dust mite, a stray fiber, the fluttering of a blood vessel or the parturition of a flake of dandruff, I don't know. There ought to be some way to relate the "delusional" state to the "normal" state, to see how much they have in common, and the adaptive merits, in order to understand the differences. Wnt (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

University of New Haven Investigates Morgellons

It appears that a team at University of New Haven are also researching Morgellons and from this poster presentation, it looks as though ths is consistentent with the publications authored by Marianne Middelveen. Click here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=693067200709363&set=a.693067057376044.1073741825.100000182692626&type=1&relevant_count=1

How does this work from UNH weigh in as of the unpublished work of Dr Wymore at OSU? Dr. Wymore's work is included in the article so perhaps this input from UNH should be included as well. Sierraparis (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

I will try to verify this tomorrow with UNH. Sierraparis (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

Don't waste your time. This is a great example of crank magnetism. "Chronic lyme disease" is yet another disease found non-existent by the medical community at large, and apparently a prominent topic of research of the only PhD on the poster. Furthermore, it's utterly unpublished. Posters count even less than publications in shoddy "journals." Sailsbystars (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is a student showcase. As in, to show other students and staff at the university. Secondly, would this be the same Divya Burugu who was co-author of "Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease" Marianne J Middelveen1, Divya Burugu2, Akhila Poruri2, Jennie Burke3, Peter J Mayne1, Eva Sapi2, Douglas G Kahn4, Raphael B Stricker1? I can see why the student poster may well have been consistent with the work of Dr Middelveen.137.111.13.200 (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the way I spend my time is not of your concern. I am shocked by the rude responses such as this one in which you are telling me not to waste my time. I also noticed some accusation of being a sock puppet. What is that? I see that Wikipedia rules suggest welcoming of new users. I will be sure to check with the journals you are labeling as "shoddy" to get their take on your continued degradation of their credibility. Regardless of your rude comments, I feel that UNH Research should be considered as a viable portion of this controversial topic. The number of PhDs in a photo is certainly insignificant. Must you degrade others in order to make your point? For the purpose of my own journalism I will verify the research on Morgellons being conducted at UNH. Thanks to sailsbystars, am seeing more clearly the obstacles to NPOV being portrayed on Wikipedia. Sierraparis (talk)Sierraparis

A poster at a student conference would not meet our sourcing guidelines even remotely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I may not be able to contribute to a solution then but I am learning a lot. Thanks Sierraparis (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

You're free to spend your time however you see fit. However, I'm trying to indicate that your version of neutral and the wikipedia version of neutral are not one and the same. If you want information included in a wikipedia article, it MUST comply with our reliable source policy and particularly the even stricter guidelines for sourcing medical articles. (and also, the policy on undue weight which is particularly important for this article) Your original link does not comply with those policies and thus pursuing that source further will not persuade established editors towards inclusion. Hence why I indicated it was a waste of time. You seem to want to engage in original research which is a useful practice for academics and sometimes for journalists, but strictly prohibited on wikipedia. Regards, Sailsbystars (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks. My purpose here was to learn more about the controversy surrounding this condition. I had hoped that perhaps sharing some of the information I have found might be helpful to you in reaching a compromise about improving the article by making it more neutral. I do think it lacks neutrality considering all the information have gathered so far. I am actually encountering mainstream dermatologists who are far far more neutral about this debate than wiki editors seem to be. I do hope that, for the sake of those who suffer from this horrible condition, the tides will soon turn. Whether or not this condition is purely psychiatric in origin, I think the current article here is harsh, misleading and detrimental to an already a compromised group of very ill individuals some of whom have taken their own lives due to lack of hope of ever receiving acknowledgement or help from the medical community. After interviewing some of these very distraught human beings who are unfortunate enough to be plagued with such a horrible disfiguring condition, the current article IMO is more degrading than it needs to be. Sierraparis (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

You could make an equally good (or actually even better) argument in stating that Wikipedia has a responsibility to present this condition as psychiatric in origin, because that's what the authoritative secondary sources say, so as not to mislead individuals with the problem into seeking pharmacologic care that will never work because what they need is psychiatric help, with possible drastic consequences if they don't get it. (I hasten to remind every one that Wikipedia is not to be relied on for medical advice.) While I do feel bad for the people who have this condition, Wikipedia does not value personal experience of individuals as sources, or for determining due weight. Zad68 02:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how investigation of the origin of any condition could prevent anyone from receiving appropriate care. Seems that any illness could result in psych issues and especially an illness that is chronic and life altering. Having interviewed several patients with Morgellons, I have yet to encounter one who meets all the criteria of a Delusional Diagnosis. Having spoken to a couple of psychiatrists, I understand that Delusions of Parasitosis is not listed in the DSM 4 or the DSM 5. Many of the patients I have spoken to have zero belief that they have any kind of infestation by parasites. Makes one wonder how they can be diagnosed with DOP when they had nerver even considered parasites to be the cause of their condition. IMO the wiki article is biased and some of the editors here appear to have vested interest in keeping it that way. I predict that secondary sources will soon be forthcoming and I'll be interested in what type of argument you will use then, to prevent the article from depicting NPOV. University of New Haven seems to find the potential for an infectious etiology worthy of investigation. http://www.newhaven.edu/515835/. Sierraparis (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

Thanks for giving us a link to another press release authored by the Charles E Holman Foundation, and most likely the authors of the material you want included in the page.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome 137, that is if you are still around after last night's resemblance of a rabid dingo.

I have an important question to ask here. Actually I wasn't sure whether to ask this here or under the topic of 'The role of the Internet'. With University of New Haven drawing so much attention to Morgellons on their website with the aforementioned poster presentation and other Morgellons press, would it not be appropriate to cite UNH under the role of the Internet in dissemination of information regarding an association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons lesions. Hopefully Andy the Grump can answer this question. Would UNH website be a reliable source to reference under the role of the Internet. There are many other websites discussing various theories on Morgellons but to me, UNH seems to be the most reliable. It certainly is being talked about on the www by many.Sierraparis (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you proposing to cite them for? Do they have anything to say regarding the 'role of the internet'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sierraparis: The piece was not authored by the University of New Haven, it is a press-release authored by the Charles E Holman Foundation. It is unaltered. There are guidelines which explicitly discuss this. Displaying ignorance about wikipedia's sourcing guidelines is fair enough, but I don't accept that you are sufficiently clueless about standards of courtesy as to think it appropriate to describe fellow editors as akin to dogs. Your comments here have seldom lead to any improvements of the page, and have mostly served to drain away other editors' time and energy from doing so. Stick to the goal of improving the article or exercise restraint.137.111.13.200 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The poster was indeed created by Dr. Eva Sapi and her students at Universoty of New Haven and presented at a Physician's conference. <http://www.newhaven.edu/586934.pdf>. Sorry if I have added to your confusion 137 but somehow you have gotten off track....again. Sierraparis (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 (UTC)

The last link you had posted was authored by the Charles E Holman Foundation, and it is a press-release that has not been altered. There are guidelines covering this. The poster doesn't come close to being eligible for inclusion on the page. This has already been addressed. Regrettably, I just don't see how your suggestions improve the page.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder for 137 to read the top of this page and please stop violating 3 basic guidelines:

Be polite, and welcoming to new users, Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Sierraparis (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there is nothing there resembling a personal attack. This 'study' has been discussed and rejected, move on, really. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You've already clearly stated you're not here to edit, Sierraparis. You're not a user, you're pushing an agenda, and you are not welcome here while those two things are true. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

those 2 things are not at all true. I have very politely interacted here. I have asked whether certain additions meet criteria for updating the role of the Internet Section. If you feel I have been in violation of any wiki policy, please be more specific so I can correct my mistakes. Thank you in advance. Sierraparis (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Asked and answered, move on.137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

UNH source: Is there an edit being proposed?

Regarding this item from the UNH, is there a specific edit being proposed here? If so, please specify the proposed content change using this source. It needs to be pointed out that WP:MEDRS indicates that conference abstracts are often poor sources because they are self-published and have not undergone a peer review, and this item from the UNH appears to suffer from those problems. In either case, this item from the UNH is primary research and we already have several authoritative secondary sources, and so per WP:MEDREV I can't see how this item would be useful for this article. At this time we now need to see the proposed edit so that we can see if there is consensus supporting it, or not, and therefore bring this discussion to a conclusion.

If there is no actual change being proposed, this conversation should be closed as unproductive. Zad68 02:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zad ...the points you make are well understood and well taken. The conversation was regarding the Role of the Internet and the fact that some unreliable sources currently exist in this section. (Popular Mechanics article citing an anonymous derm for starters) The Morgellons related Internet talk is mostly centered around research at UNH and the association made with Borrelia . I only shared the poster to demonstrate what the people on Morgellons blogs and forums are discussing as theories. I am looking for a secondary source which mentions topics being discussed on the internet. I have heard about an article in the Septemember issue of Harper's Magazine. I haven't read the entire text yet but I will pick up a news stand copy because I think it may discuss the role of the Internet and the theories being suggested. I can run it by you when I get it. I believe there is mention of Internet discussion on the topic. Sierraparis (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, as I see you have started a new section below regarding the Hypothesis about the fibers section, I take it that this discussion can be closed. Zad68 14:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC

Yes, this conversation can be closed. Thanks. Sierraparis (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What about studies done by Oklahoma State University, that have been going on for years? Why a these not included?

http://www.healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/docs/Wymore-position-statement-2-19-07.pdf If you can see here, researchers actually state that Morgellons is NOT delusional parsitosis. I understand that nobody is trying to support this viewpoint, but exclusion of evidence is journalistically irresponsible. Even more so are the scientifically superb articles by Dr. Carnicorn, whose exclusion from the subject is almost absurd. http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/a_working_hypothesis.htm Read through these papers and the pages they lead you to and see for yourself. Usernameamanda (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't consider those sources to be reliable under even WP's non-medical source requirements, let alone the medical article guidelines. This has already been discussed, repeatedly, and consensus has been reached. The view that Morgellons is non-delusional is not supported by any reputable sources and therefore cannot be considered a significant minority view. It remains a fringe view and we do not include fringe research in articles. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see a webpage that is not possible to get to from the school's webpage. In fact, the OSU directory doesn't even list the alleged morgellons program (although Wymore is listed) and there is not even a single press release on Morgellons.... Something ain't right there.... Sailsbystars (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

here is the link from the school's web page, http://www.healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/index.cfmUsernameamanda (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/research.cfmUsernameamanda (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, the people who are being ridiculed throughout this article (which is, by the way, the most biased I have found on the Internet, unfortunate as Wikipedia is usually the first reference site on someone's list) have no say in the article whatsoever. The story of these studies occurring matters to the topic at hand, regardless of whether or not you consider them reputable, they are part of the story and a large part of it, indeed most of it, and they should be included. It is a very significant minority standpoint as it is the standpoint of the minority being discussed. That is not the fringe. That is the topic. Leaving out all information not matching popular opinion creates a warped and incomplete picture. This article is about a minority viewpoint yet its editors refuse to include any part of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameamanda (talk • contribs) 06:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you just don't understand WP policy on writing articles. Please take some time to read up on policy, then come back when you have a better understanding. We've already had to revert one of your edits to the article. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

that's fine. I'll be happy to go do my homework. In the meantime, please consider the added section I have suggested on the findings of these independent studies. I believe you will find it would be possible to do within guidelines, not as a medical source but as a general addition to the subject and a relevant and useful addition of information. Usernameamanda (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.10.0b/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=fulltext&D=ovft&AN=00128071-200607010-00001&NEWS=N&CSC=Y&CHANNEL=PubMed here is a link to a published paper meeting all your requirements. Unfortunately one must have an account with Ovid to read it in entirety. Does anyone here?Usernameamanda (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We have discussed that paper, that journal, and you ought to take a look at who the first author is. This is not an RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Oklahoma links, perhaps I was a bit to vague in my explanation. All of the links you give are healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/ It appears that Wymore user name is morgellons. Therefore, that is his personal webpage, and not an official department webpage, even though it has been dressed up to look official. Normally though, the department would link to personal webpages of members of the department and release news about their professors. In my humble opinion it looks like they've gone out of their way to avoid doing this... you can't get to Wymore's page from healthsciences.okstate.edu... It's almost certainly not a reliable source to begin with, but there is something very very strange going on here.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm, in my research I just found this article from the CEHF on... this article we're working on here. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10707772.htm I also have had email contact with this foundation, and they told me that attempting to reason with the editors workings this article was akin to beating against a brick wall. Many more qualified than I have already attempted to include some of these peer reviewed studies published in reputable medical journals, and many were shot down in rude manners, where less reliable sources supporting the majority opinion were allowed as references. You either understand completely what you're doing, or not at all. You are either very ignorant on the subject and feel that it is your duty to present a lopsided view in order to help Morgellons patients see their folly (it is not, it is your duty to present the whole truth in all forms it comes to you so as to show the whole picture), or you are specifically working against this information being released. Congratulations, it's working. You've provided fodder for every troll on the Internet. Usernameamanda (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. Sweet, delicious irony. There are no pro-fringe view, peer-reviewed studies in reputable medical journals. We've been over this with the editors representing the foundation already. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

there are quite a few as I'm finding. Just how reputable do these journals have to be? People are killing themselves. Do you understand that? People come to this article for information and deny their family members emotional support. The fact is this is not a black and white matter and it is presented as such. That's not sweet irony. That is deeply disturbing. The fact that you want to push your agenda when there are thousands of people suffering and dying over this makes me want to...Shake your hand. So that you can experience the loneliness and pain that living with a highly contagious and debilitating disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22253541brings. I have not touched another human in four months. I'm not asking for a pro Morgellons article. I'm asking for one that presents the issue as complex and manifold as it is, with ALL perspectives that have been published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameamanda (talk • contribs) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Go read WP:MEDRS please. The only agenda being pushed here is building an encyclopedia. We have rules, learn them. We don't talk about all perspectives, that is just not how it works. Oh and PR web is useless, it is a big pile of useless actually. We really don't base articles on press releases anyone can write. Can you please remove the link, it is an attack page about an editor, and as such also violates policy, thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

is there anything wrong with this study here? It was done on the largest group of patients yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047951/ I am afraid I will not be deleting that link as it is very relevant and might help to remind us to put aside personal bias and publish the information we encounter. Furthermore PR seemed important enough to include in the section on the internet, did it not? Now as for this study here, which links Morgellons to Lyme and explains the composition of the fibers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameamanda (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed, read the archives please. Before you present any more studies, please take a look at the archives. There is a link at the top of the page, just to the right and below the big yellowish boxes. Again, read the archives, these things have been discussed with other WP:SPAs. Dove Press journals don't meet WP:MEDRS. You also might want to look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you think an attack page is relevant, you might also read WP:NPA Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No I don't think an attack page is relevant, but I also don't see this as an attack page. I see this as a description of the article here from NPOV. You use SPA flippantly as if to brush me off, but I was advised by wiki staff member Kosten Frosch to get an account after complaining of the bigotry I found in this article. My intention was just to get one of those notices put up on the page that said "This article is Biased. You can help by..." I didn't realize the depth of the issue until I started talking to the editors, who refuse to make any compromise on the insulting tone of this article. Crazy or not, this is a medical condition and should be treated with a minimum of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameamanda (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You know, I don't care who told you to get an account, it does not matter. What does matter is policy. If you think someone here has not followed policy or has somehow mistreated you, you could always post at WP:ANI. Bigotry is a pretty damned strong word, and not at all appropriate. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

that's interesting, dictionary.com defines bigotry as " stubborn and complete intolerance of any belief, creed, or opinion that is not one's own." Seems to be very appropriate here. Wikipedia states that any significant minority opinion found in sources should be mentioned. So why is the minority in question not allowed any standing here? Yes it does matter to the thousands of people discredited in this article. It matters to have integrity. It matters to show both sides. Regardless of what you think this is, any article on morgellons which does not take in the perspective of morgellons patients themselves is incomplete. Usernameamanda (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

the sourcing page I have been shown also states that exceptions can be made when common sense allows. Would this subject not be one of those cases, as the subject itself is involved?Usernameamanda (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a significant minority view, it is a fringe view with no support in mainstream medical literature. Nobody here is 'bigoted' against anything, saying such things will get you absolutely nowhere. It is, in fact, a personal attack. Read WP:MEDRS read WP:CONSENSUS read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and all of the other links that have been provided to you. Oh and read the archives. This is getting exceedingly tiring. If you have a problem with an editor's actions you can always go to WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Usernameamanda, there is no 'bigotry' involved whatsoever in ensuring that this article complies with the relevant Wikipedia policies - and nothing you have written so far suggests that it in any way fails to do so. Instead, you appear to be upset that such policies don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform for fringe medical claims - well tough, that isn't what it is for, and were we to open up articles to such material, we'd soon loose any credibility as a source. Our policies have been arrived at by consensus, and you'll either have to accept that they apply and work within them, or find another platform to promote your views. Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I hhave been reading the links provided. I don't see how any of the policies would block this information from being included were this being done reasonably. Wikipedia has already lost credibility in my book. I know I won't be coming here for information anymore if I need anything more than the birthday of a pop star. I don't see a consensus being arrived at. I see lots of different viewpoints being squashed at a speed so discouraging as to keep those holding them from returning. This is not a personal attack. I am suspicious of your motives however. A section including the views and perspectives of the other side of this argument is necessary and lacking. I don't understand why there is such vested interest in keeping this from happening. Usernameamanda (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not the one with a platform to trumpet here. What I want is a balanced and well-rounded article. You are the ones who want only one platform presented.

Start with WP:MEDRS Then, please read the archives. Many experienced editors have hashed this out, many many times. We are following policy. You know, you have been here for like 22 hours or something, some of us have been here longer. You might consider that we know what we are talking about. But if you are not going to edit any more, fine, see you later then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed thoroughly. Since you are new to wikipedia, it is quite possible that you haven't yet discovered that reading the history of the talk pages can give you a good insight into edits you might want to propose, and the reasons why similar proposals have not been accepted in the past. In the spirit of wanting to help a new user, I suggest you have a look at the posts of Sierraparis, DrGao and particularly Erythema. These posts seem to mirror your proposals, and so you can see the different logical and procedural reasons behind the responses to them. It also really helps when new users read WP policies themselves, rather than relying on others to explain when and how they have contravened them.137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that I am just draining myself of,vital energy attempting to make headway on this article where so many have failed. This piece reads like a spoof. It reads like a rude theater performance. I'd like to talk a little bit about the impac this article is making, and why I find it's important to show both sides.

Perhaps you will forgive me for personalizing, but I see no other way to do this than to tell my story. Back in March I was teaching English in a small town in Ecuador. I had a fling with a boy I met there one afternoon. At one point he started scratching himself. I jokingly asked him if he had scabies and he got very defensive.

By June I was too itchy to sleep. I read on Earthclinic that sulphur soap and orange oil were remedies. When I used these two things in conjunction, I watched hundreds of red, black and white hairs and splinters (that's the only way to describe the, really) rise up out of my skin, along with little black specks. I wanted to vomit.

Over the course of the next two months I battled these with everything I could find. I started following Scabies forums where people described their scabies as looking the same as mine. Some of these people had been fighting 'scabies' for over ten years. Nothing worked. I was often close to suicide. I quit my job. Students were starting to stare. It was impossible to work.

At one point someone posted on the scabies forum, "Guys. The grains in the sheets? The black specks? These aren't scabies, these are Morgellons."

So, like anyone confronted with new vocabulary, I looked it up on Wikipedia. "What is this guy talking about? Morgellons is a delusion." and dropped the issue. For two more months I fought 'scabies'. Only a month ago, after returning to a quarantine at the house I grew up in and spending the last of my money for doctors to patronize me, did I find pictures of Morgellons.

if this article had had NPOV, I might have learned of ts before I ran out of the money needed to treat it. There is also the issue that no natural remedies are listed, though many are used by people with Morgellons. This article sends a message that if you're not crazy, there's no hope. Considering the high rates of suicide among Morgellons patients, this is a huge issue.

Both sides need to be represented because, when it comes down to it, no one is certain what this is at this point. Articles like this are not helping. The derogatory tone is going to put any one on guard and defense who really does need psychiatric help. Usernameamanda (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also the matter of public opinion, to which the article gives first impression. By presenting this as if no physical conditions are being found by any researcher, anywhere, the article creates a natural bias in the public. Imagine everyone cracking up everytimeyou told the, you had HIV. Just his week, I have had six people cite this article to me. I am lucky to have very supportive friends and family, but most people with Morgellons do not have that luxury due to people's ignorance of the complexity of the subject. People need to understand where these folks are comingfromand why they believe what they do. Including these viewpoints would simply make this a better article. Right now, it does not make sense as the issues involved are not all included. The inclusion of the section on the Internet is particularly egregious. If this section can be included, with what amounts to a lot of gossip filling it out, than another section involving other unproven theories should also be included. I know for a fact there is at least one case (mine) which was not caused by the Internet, as the Internet was what caused me to put off research on the subject. Along with, I might assume, the countless people attempting to treat what they think is 'visible scabies' every day! Because these people were also ignorant of their condition and not exposed to the information they needed to put it in perspective, they continue to live horrendous, unimaginable lives. I saw these coming out of my skin long before I'd heard of anything like it. This article is causing actual harm to people who trust Wikipedia as a source of information. Usernameamanda (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, or a short-story contest. What you did one afternoon in Ecuador isn't our concern. Please keep the conversation on topic.137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But what is your concern is how your article is affecting people. You have a responsiblity to the public to present a full view of this subject, and your neglect to do so is causing people harm, myself on particular. This story is the only way I thoughti might be able to demonstrate that to you. The details are so you understand that I did not hear this from someone and then get it, thus by objectively taking in the evidence you perhaps can see the relevance. Scuse the typos, I'm on an iPad. Usernameamanda (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

if you'd continued reading, you see that this story is about this article and the effect it had on my life and those of many others who think they have scabies when they in fact have symptoms matching Morgellons. Due to lack of information they go on attempting to treat themselves for the wrong disease, as I did. It is our responsibility to include all information available, and there is a large subset of that information being left out. Please consider the consequences of these omissions. Usernameamanda (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum in which medical treatment advice should be given or sought. When you say "story", do you mean fiction? As in Debra Baumstark fiction?137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, but it is the first reference someone normally checks on the Internet. Keeping half the information on the subject out is not good reporting. By story I mean what actually happened to me. Unwillingness to recognize this as a possibility reflects personal bias. Willingness to ridicule people with this condition as you have just demonstrated is part of the issue with this article. Usernameamanda (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article, really. It is off-topic and doesn't help the article at all. Propose a specific edit or do some reading about WP policies. This exchange isn't productive and it should cease.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been researching these policies. It appears that we are just interpreting them differently. You term pro pathogen articles, papers and views as fringe views, whereas the percentages and medical papers show that this is a minority view. The number of editors who have come before seeking to create a balanced perspectives implies that a consensus cannot be reach. The illusion of consensus is created by overriding any editors who do not match these viewpoints. Furthermore the concessions for common sense in the guidelines on medical sources should be used here, as this is an issue of medical controversy, that controversy must be represented in the article. Usernameamanda (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Amanda, I am truly sorry that you feel you have been affected by Morgellons. It does sound like an awful condition and I wouldn't wish it on anybody. Based on this, I also understand why you're upset with the article. However, the other editors here are correct. Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to go looking to either give or expect to receive medical advice, see WP:MEDICAL. All the Wikipedia articles do is re-present the information found in reliable secondary sources. All the sources you have brought have been discussed to death, honestly, and the policy-based conclusion the experienced Wikipedia editors here have come to is that the sources you mention are unfit for use in this article.

At this point there is no consensus in support of the kinds of edits you are proposing based on the sources you have brought. If you continue to use this article Talk page to push for the use of those sources, or for general discussion about Morgellons, what will probably happen is that eventually a discussion will be opened up about your editing at an administrator noticeboard, possibly resulting in your ability to edit in this subject area being removed. This has already happened to several other editors. I don't mean this as a threat, but you need to be aware of the past history here and the likely outcome of this line of editing if you don't start listening to what's being said. Zad68 13:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Discussion started by Wnt Taking a single stab into this issue, I noticed that Drgao had said in archive 10 that saying that the CDC had "suggested" Morgellons was delusional parasitosis was not accurate. Looking up the two sources for that, the second (NBC news) does say that [3] but the source it is based on does not say that, saying instead that it is an open question, though it does begin by saying that many dermatologists believe it is delusional parasitosis. [4] For people with a strong investment in the issue, such nuances of meaning are very important, and I think they should be important to us also. As long as I'm here, I should ask: has anyone studied epidermal barrier function in these people? We are exposed to an endless number of what, on the microscopic level, are fairly sharp textile fibers, and I can picture that if someone had a genetic problem they might be better able to pierce the skin and cause inflammatory reactions. I'd like to see, say, an experiment where the patient goes to a test location and wears clothing all durably dyed one distinctive color and then is checked for whether fibers from these reemerge after they have thoroughly showered and returned home. Wnt (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Reread the conclusions of the CDC study, then, where they clearly state that it appears similar to delusional infestation. I'm not aware of any studies in regards to "epidermal barrier" disorders and, frankly, it's a completely ridiculous notion. Anyone who had skin that could be significantly punctured by microscopic textile fibers would have much bigger problems than Morgellons; they'd deglove their feet every time they put on socks, for example. The unanimous consensus of the mainstream medical community is that Morgellons sufferers are delusional (BLP violation redacted). Not only is it against WP standards to give quarter to a fringe viewpoint in this article, it's also not an ethical thing to do when we know the sufferers would take such pandering as a reinforcement of their delusion. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC) considering a fringe viewpoint is the Subject of the article, perhaps it would be logical to include their story rather than marginalizing and ridiculing them.Usernameamanda (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC) as stated by the page on identifying reliable sources, we must make sure that all majority and significant minority views are published. Yet this article verges on insulting and does not include any substantial coverage of the numerous formal studies which found that morgellons is a real condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameamanda (talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) It would certainly seem appropriate to perform such a study on Morgellons patients but to my knowledge it has never been done. Agree that nuances of meaning should be especially important to wiki editors. Sierraparis (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Please keep discussions focused on suggestions to improve the page.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC) off-topic - please don't use article Talk for this The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Yes, 137 ....I sure do hope you can do that . Maybe your posts won't disappear so quickly that way. We are interested input as far as improving the page so try to stay focused if you can. I'm preoccupied on other topics this week but will be back soon. Sierraparis (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC) I believe you've been warned about the content of your posts, and the general tone of your interactions here. If you have nothing to offer other than attempts to disrupt discussions aimed at improving the page then you should reconsider posting comments on this page in the future. This talk page has endured enough antagonism, it can do without your continued efforts.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC) To be clear, the conclusion of that paper I cited [5] was "We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features" That sentence seems unambiguously and deliberately to avoid giving any support for either side of the debate here. Wnt (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC) That is not the conclusion of the study you cited. That single (out-of-context) sentence is pulled from the "discussion" section. The "conclusions" section of the study quite clearly states the researchers found it similar to delusional infestation (which they also state at the end of the "discussion" section). 69.23.116.182 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I think you may be reading a bit too much into a single sentence from the conclusion, and possibly mistaking its emphasis. Essentially, the authors are admitting the impossibility of proving a negative—absent a perfect test for delusional infestation or somatization, it will always be impossible to fully rule out the presence of an unusually difficult-to-detect pathogen or other underlying organic cause for the symptoms. Then, of course, there's the rather subtle emphasis the authors have chosen to place on the different parts of that sentence through their choice of references—the first part of their statement, talking about Morgellons, has no footnotes; the second half of their statement, involving delusional infestation, has six references. But really, it is the sentences which follow your quote which are the most illuminating. I have reproduced the entirety of the remainder of the article in italics below. We found little on biopsy that was treatable, suggesting that the diagnostic yield of skin biopsy, without other supporting clinical evidence, may be low. That is, imaginary worms don't show up on H&E, and you shouldn't waste time or money on a pointless procedure. However, we did find among our study population co-existing conditions for which there are currently available therapies (drug use, somatization). Half of the patients showed evidence of drug use, while two-thirds had (to use Wikipedia's description) a "tendency to experience and communicate psychological distress in the form of somatic symptoms". These data should assist clinicians in tailoring their diagnostic and treatment approaches to patients who may be affected. In the absence of an established cause or treatment, patients with this unexplained dermopathy may benefit from receipt of standard therapies for co-existing medical conditions and/or those recommended for similar conditions such delusions infestation. The authors think it's likely enough that these patients are delusional that doctors should probably treat them on that assumption. (The footnotes accompanying the last sentence bolster this interpretation.) The authors' opinions and conclusions on the existence of Morgellons seem far from equivocal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I don't see it that way - I think you're reading more into it than is there. They say "On the PAI, 63% (25/40) of case-patients had clinically significant elevations (T>70) in scores for one or more of the clinical domains, with somatic concerns the most frequent (63%)". I won't pretend I understand the psychiatry, nor did I look into it, but I doubt the somatic concerns on the brochure rise to the level of proving the somatization that you link to. To be sure, they give some strong evidence - that they tried to find parasites in 20-odd biopsies and failed. They give what is almost a very damning piece of data: " When back lesions were present, there was usually sparing of a dumbbell-shaped area in the center of the back" (with back lesions in 68% of patients). But "usually" leaves open the suggestion that there are some patients with lesions where they couldn't pick at them! Now to be clear, I don't think anyone is disputing that there are some, perhaps most, of people with some of this loosely defined set of symptoms having a psychological reason, but that doesn't prove there isn't something else causing some of the other cases, even the most definitive cases. Of course, all this is an example of why we don't want to over-interpret primary sources. We should stick to exactly what they say, and what they say, in their conclusion, is that they couldn't tell. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC) I'm still unsure why this discussion is taking place under the topic name of ANI Discussion, but nonetheless- there are now numerous secondary sources which review the findings and conclusions of the CDC study, and the consensus on that is that the study indicated that Morgellons is most likely a form of delusional infestation. We need not parse the words of the authors of a primary source when there are researchers publishing in the field who have done that for us. We can state the general conclusions, and use the secondary sources as further references for readers to use if they are inclined to challenge the interpretation.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Agreed this should be split off from the ANI notification, so I've done that and created a new section heading for this thread. Zad68 02:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Because I was commenting on how people were handling this, rather than directly editing on the subject, I haven't gone hunting for other secondary sources - right now, we have [6] which is NBC News, which I feel in this case has misstated its summary of the paper (others would point to MEDRS - I don't particularly like that policy but this is admittedly the sort of case it addresses), one apparent dead link, and [7] which temperately declares "This comprehensive study of an unexplained apparent dermopathy demonstrated no infectious cause and no evidence of an environmental link. There was no indication that it would be helpful to perform additional testing for infectious diseases as a potential cause. Future efforts should focus on helping patients reduce their symptoms through careful attention to treatment of co-existing medical, including psychiatric conditions, that might be contributing to their symptoms." Now nobody here is denying that psychiatric conditions can be a cause of declared cases of "Morgellons" - as the CDC says, these might be contributing - but nothing in this dataset rules out the chance of some other non-psychiatric condition. The reason why I'm a bit dogged on this point is that science is hard. Think of how many years some of us heard people talking about how "stress will give you an ulcer" before at last someone found Helicobacter pylori and suddenly got a handle on a huge number of ulcers and cancers. It does a disservice to take one study that explicitly says it didn't close the case and use that to give the public the impression there's no more interesting research that might be doable. (I mean, with personal genome sequences under $1000, the sufferers could actually do groundbreaking research on their own, checking for aberrant cytoskeletal proteins or cytokines...) Wnt (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) While you're right about science being hard, that's not the point; on the contrary, WP would've properly reflected the "stress causes ulcers" consensus until Marshall & Warren made their discovery. That's just how our sourcing works. -- Scray (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Those numerous WP:MEDRES sources should be cited in the article. Right now the secondary source (ref 9) for the cdc study is not WP:MEDRS acceptable as it's a news article. Another problem is the Mayo study section The Mayo study doesn't even mention Morgellons and has a different case definition (some of its references do mention Morgellons). The secondary MedPage Today news article for that study (ref 65) doesn't mention Morgellons either. The CNN news article (ref 66) does, but not directly from the study or its authors, and it isn't WP:MEDRS acceptable either. Ward20 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, user DrGao already brought up Helicobacter pylori... The secondary sources I am referring to are scientific papers, not popular media. If the criticism is that these sources aren't used on the page then I agree with the criticism. But that has nothing to do with the CDC not concluding that Morgellons is most likely a form of delusional infestation, whether it falls under the category of DP or whether it is a separate form of DI.137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC) By all means, if someone has found other good secondary sources about this, add them! As contentious as this topic has been, people shouldn't be holding out on the sources that have influenced their opinions - it makes it much harder to generate consensus. Wnt (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Meanwhile, it looks like the article is losing sources rather than gaining them. [8] WP:MEDDATE is not written as a call to delete old sources, but to find new ones! The way some most? people interpret WP:MEDRS is that new sources can't be added unless they're confirmed, old sources need to be deleted, studies aren't to be trusted, news is inaccurate, and unsourceable articles should be gotten rid of entirely... Wnt (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC) @ 137.111.13.200, The numerous secondary scientific papers sources which review the findings and conclusions of the CDC study don't seem to be cited in the article. Would you please list them so they can be included? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC) "A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not find a medical or infectious cause for this condition, pointing out that these patients are similar to patients with DOP.6"- Patients labeled with delusions of parasitosis compose a heterogenous group: A retrospective study from a referral center, Reichenberg et al., 2013. "Recently, the long-awaited study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 115 patients from North California with self-diagnosed ‘Morgellons disease’ (called ‘unexplained dermopathy’ in the publication) found no evidence of an infectious process, as based on skin biopsies, extensive laboratory tests (e.g. Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies), and analyses of hair and the specimens.16 The skin lesions were ‘most consistent with excoriations or chronic irritation, some with evidence of secondary infection’. Solar elastosis was found in 51% of cases. Remarkably, hair analysis in a subgroup of 40 cases showed use of illicit drugs in 50% of cases (opiates and benzodiazepines > cannabinoids > amphetamines > other). This important study showed that Morgellons disease should best be seen as a form of DI."- Delusional infestation and the specimen sign: a European multicentre study in 148 consecutive cases- Freudenmann et al., 2012. These deal primarily with the conclusions of the primary source while others tend to deal with the methodologies and epidemiological dimensions of the study/sample. This is a growing list.137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the links. I'd like to read the articles but they are behind paywalls. They are primary studies but better than what is referenced in the article now I believe. Ward20 (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC) They are secondary sources in relation to the CDC primary source, as they form a lit review. I pasted the relevant sections, in case they were behind paywalls. They are copy and pasted verbatim.137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC) I tend to agree a primary study might be a secondary source for a review of a different primary study, but I have seen resistance to that in medical articles. I personally don't feel comfortable editing from snippets of articles without reviewing the whole article for context. Ward20 (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC) There is resistance against much of wikipedia's policies, but the guidelines for secondary sources support the inclusion of lit reviews in introductions to primary studies. I'm unsure what it means though for you to be uncomfortable editing based on information you aren't in possession of. Is the suggestion that someone who is in possession of it should edit, or that you won't be comfortable with that unless you personally verify it?137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC) "There is resistance against much (sic) of wikipedia's policies...." Primarily by people unable to come up with reliable third-party sources able to support their agenda. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) I meant to imply that much of each of the guidelines are challenged, though perhaps I left too much unspoken.124.170.214.179 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)AKA 137.111.13.200 @124.170.214.179. I try not to edit an article without reviewing the whole source for context of the material. IMO It's always good to see editing from persons who have access to hard to obtain sources as long as an accurate representation of the content with its original context is presented. Also, it's very difficult to get consensus when editing medical articles like this where POVS from sources are different. Ward20 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Hypothesis About the Fibers 'I believe this section can be improved . Currently it uses unpublished material which does not meet Wikipedia standards. Published papers in Medical Journals out weigh unpublished material as well as popular press. Do you agree? Sierraparis (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Which material in the section is cited to unpublished sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Rather than playing the disingenuous "Do you agree?" game, why don't you just tell us what change you are proposing? Trying to hide a specific agenda behind a vague question as some sort of gotcha! trap isn't helpful. Identify the published/unpublished material in the paragraph that you would like to preserve/remove. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Agree with TOAT, please propose a specific article content change so we can discuss it. Zad68 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Same here, put forth something please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC) The first paragraph discussing research contributions by Dr. Randy Wymore, OSU....I don't see anything in published medical literature. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't find any medical journal publications on these findings. Even the Tulsa Crime Lab information remains unpublished. I think this should be removed due to lack of credible publications. Also in paragraph 2, the statement about peripheral nerve endings. This originates from the Dallas Observer which is not a credible source. No, there was no "trap" intended whatsoever. Sierraparis (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC) If there is a need for this section it would perhaps be better placed directly after the section about the role of the internet, if not a part of that section. Some of the sources discussing the transmission of symptoms through popular media (matchbox sign, theories about fibers, etc) might also be pertinent there.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC) this would be a great place to include the research done by the Carnicorn Institute on the chemical breakdown of the fibers http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/a_working_hypothesis.htm I feel that as the fibers are such a big part of this issue, this section is necessary but could use so e concrete information like that from Carnicorn's study. A placement after the role of the Internet section would be inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameamanda (talk • contribs) 06:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry, we don't consider research websites as reliable sources, especially when the site is named after the primary researcher and all their papers are expressing a fringe view on a single topic. Find some peer-reviewed studies published in reputable medical journals. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) What does the name of the site have to do with it? It is a hypothesis and a very clearly stated one with all the evidence shown in the paper. Medical journals are not taking up the case, but considering this IS a fringe topic I feel the viewpoints ought to be expressed. I can see no reasonto shoot down such a well written paper which is on the topic we were discussing. Carnicorn is one of the leading, indeed, one of the only researchers on the subject. By omitting all 'fringy' sources, you are omitting half of the story and half of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameamanda (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Please read WP:RS, followed by WP:MEDRS. Those pages explain what sort of things we consider reliable sources for articles and medical articles, respectively. We do not include fringe research just because the majority of sufferers agree with it. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Considering the title of this section it would make a lot of sense to include it here. If a lot of media smack talk can be cited as a reference, why not say something like, The Carnicorn institute, which is an utterly disreputable source of information, did a five year long study using infrared technology which found the fibers to be made of ---. However, as the medical community is turning a blind eye to the topic and open minded dermatologists are being ostracized from the medical community, this study was not peer reviewed." Usernameamanda (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Perhaps, akin to the section on this spreading through the Internet, there could be another section on these independent studies and their findings, taking into account that they are not considered reliable sources. There a certainly enough of them to constitute a separate section and they definitely comprise a large part of the issue. This would be a concession to the fringers who are on the whole insulted by this article, and yet continue to appease the beaureaucratic necessities of article editing. The article would feel much more rounded as a result. Even WebMD includes both sides of the issue in their article.Usernameamanda (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC) There is no possibility of including such 'independent studies' in the way you suggest. This is an encyclopaedia, and by policy we base article content on the types of reliable sources already specified. We do not make 'concessions' to the promoters of fringe theories. Ever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, new to the game. Here is a peer reviewed pubmed study on the possible connection between filament formation and spirochetal infection which deserves to be included. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22253541Usernameamanda (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)--Usernameamanda (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Please check the archives, that article has been discussed already. It does not meet WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Show on Morgellons to Air on The Science Channel's Unexplained Files tonight at 9 pm. for your edification.2605:6000:6780:9C00:C9A6:8F6A:4943:6B31 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis

I just found this reference but I don't know if it is relevant : Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis http://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.217.65.205 (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not. F1000 journals fail to meet WP:RS criteria, let alone WP:MEDRS. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

See also [9] N^oformation ^Talk 07:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Source has Arrived

The article is lacking NPOV. This should be beyond sufficient as the secondary source we have previously been lacking. <https://www.dermquest.com/expert-opinions/clinical-updates/2013/morgellons-disease/>. I am suggesting that the wiki article be updated to include the viewpoints covered here in this very much mainstream publication on this very much mainstream Dermatology website. In fact, the entire article would be more accurate if it were similar to this. After all, if it's good enough for the highly esteemed international DermQuest Editorial Board with those from the U.S. being members American Academy of Dermatology, then surely it's good enough for Wikipedia. Sierraparis (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that these specialists in the fields of dermatology and psychiatry have a much different interpretation of the CDC paper than the majority of the well seasoned Wikipedia editors. It seems to me that the authors of this article on DermQuest.com took the words literally as they are written in the CDC's conclusion.

Excerpt: "In 2012, the CDC published the results of a federally-funded study on Morgellons disease.9 Of the 115 patients studied, there was no detectable infectious agent found. Unidentified material was further analyzed by scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray analysis; most materials collected were composed of cellulose: 63% had evidence of clinically significant somatic complaints, and 50% had drugs of abuse detected in hair samples. The authors explained that they were unable to conclude "whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition… or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features.

Criticisms of the study focus on the recruitment biases in that patients asked to participate were already labeled as 'delusional.' They also limited patient enrollment to a specific geographic area, and excluded patients whose symptoms had existed for greater than 3 months.10 In contrast to the findings of the CDC, Middelveen and colleagues examined tissue from Morgellons patients and found keratin and collagen filaments.11

Apparently the authors understood the words "Unable to conclude" as meaning just exactly what it says. Essentially the CDC's paper was inconclusive on whether or not this unexplained Dermopathy represents a new condition or wider recognition of an existing condition........".

Note the authors also include criticisms of the CDC paper. Sierraparis (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The majority of their sources are articles that we already know to be of poor quality, because we went over (and over and over) them with the previous fringe-view advocates. I'm not seeing a good reason to consider this article nor publication as reputable, especially when they make the same obvious mistakes in their claims about the conclusion of the CDC study (such as it not being the conclusion at all... just using the word "conclude" does not magically teleport a sentence in the "discussion" section of the article to the "conclusions" section), which we've also addressed repeatedly. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed? Medline indexed? Ad nauseum?210.84.29.211 (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it is a website run by a drug company, Galderma. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it is. "Galderma S.A. discovers, develops, and markets therapeutic, corrective, and aesthetic solutions for dermatology patients. The company provides drugs, sprays, shampoos, lotions, and therapeutic skin care products for treating skin, hair, and nail diseases, including acne, rosacea, psoriasis and steroid-responsive dermatoses, onychomycosis, skin cancer, pigmentary disorders, and skin senescence; pharmaceutical products for the United States markets; and non-prescription products for the United States and international markets. In addition, it offers clinical batches for trials in the United States and internationally. Galderma S.A. supplies its products through sales representatives in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Australia, Asia, and South America, as well as ships to Brazil and various Latin American countries. The company was founded in 1981 and is based in Lausanne, Switzerland. It has research and development locations in Sophia Antipolis, France; Cranbury, New Jersey; Montreal, Canada; and Tokyo, Japan. The company has production facilities in Hortolandia, Brazil. Galderma S.A. operates as a subsidiary of L'Oreal SA and Nestl? S.A.". Not WP:RS for such matters, never mind WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like it is a reputable source. Sierraparis, how did you come across it? Is this a source that is often used by sufferers of the condition? Maybe it is relevant in that light. Would it qualify for inclusion in the role of the internet section, possibly?210.84.29.211 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It was posted on Aug 20, so I doubt it has had any impact yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless this website is discussed elsewhere, I see no reason why it should deserve mention in the article. It is neither WP:MEDRS compliant nor neutral, and Wikipedia isn't here to provide links to material clearly intended to promote a cosmetics/pharmaceuticics company. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Two points: First, I agree with the others that the reliability (according to Wikipedia standards) of this source is suboptimal, although perhaps I don't think this is quite as questionable a source as other editors here think it is. Generally we're looking for sources to have undergone independent peer review, and be published by a reputable publisher. This site does have an editorial board with appropriate-looking qualifications, and does say that its articles are reviewed. As a publisher, its association with a drug company does raise concerns. I've seen other sources published on site associated with product companies before, and the general view of them is dim; articles from independent publishers, like dedicated journals, are better valued. The credentials of this article's authors, Reichenberg and Magid, are appropriate, and I actually quite like the fact that it's a team of a dermatologist and a psychiatrist. Their list of sources does include Middelveen and uses stuff from the Charles E. Holman Foundation, but does so appropriately--they're discussing the state of what's been published, they're not actually using the conclusions of them. I might actually use this source if no others were available to cover the topic I was interested in, but I'd be careful to qualify and attribute its use in the article.

That said, I do not find the conclusions of this source to be really all that out of line with the other secondary sources available. The authors review the history and current thinking about Morgellons, touch on the self-diagnosis and patient advocacy group phenomenon, and clearly state that the CDC found no infectious agents. Sierraparis, what is the proposed edit? I think you're driving toward adding a mention to our article that although the CDC did not find any infectious agents, they stopped short of concluding that there definitely was not an infectious agent. It appears they stopped short of saying that for political reasons, and the politics surrounding the study are covered in our article. Would this addition cover it:

The researchers could not find any explanation for sensations participants reported under their skin and suggested these could be “delusional infestation,” wherein people falsely believe their bodies are being invaded by small organisms,but stopped short of concluding that the "dermopathy represents a new condition".

We can do this without having to use the Dermquest source. Zad68 13:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that I trust these assertions but I don't know why some people think lack of evidence is proof it is real. Its completely illogical to come to that conclusion. Also there are tens of thousands of species (from bacteria to animals) that are undocumented. So it really isn't a significant finding if there is a new bacteria found or something like it. No one is happy to be told you are delusional. I think changing the name to something that doesn't make someone automatically mentally ill would do wonders in accepting its not an infection. But to get back to my first point the evidence is mostly against it being a disease and to make magnificent claims there should be unequivocal evidence to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:A046:CE7:D69F:A7C6 (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agrobacterium & Morgellons Disease

There is this source in Science in Society: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/agrobacteriumAndMorgellonsFull.php reprinted in part at globalresearch here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/agrobacterium-morgellons-disease-a-gm-connection/9891 and also here: http://www.morgellons-research.org/morgellons/agrobacteriumAndMorgellonsFull.pdf

In short it details the results of a study showing that samples for all with Morgellons tested positive for Agrobacterium, and those without all tested negative. Within the references section of the paper itself are several articles which detail the case for an association with Agrobacterium. 65.95.180.50 (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Pathology

It should also be noted that there is no pattern (or outbreaks) to identify where the disease started and moved out from like you would expect from a contagious illness. It just shows you that some people will never accept scientific facts no matter how much there is against them. Albeit no one likes to be called delusional when you have real ulcers but there are explanations as to where the ulcers and fiber come from. I don't have a citation although I don't think most reasonable people will argue that contagious diseases disperse randomly in a region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:A046:CE7:D69F:A7C6 (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

great lead

This is a tricky topic to get right, and leads are the hardest part of an article, so I'm happy to see such a good lead on this page. Leadwind (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

undiagnosed itch conditions

Is it possible to put something about sufferers of Morgellons having "real itch illnesses" that don't get treated sucessfully, which they then asign to morgellons?--149.254.58.126 (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an acceptable source to cite to show that this happens? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source from the UK newspaper "The Guardian". http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/may/07/morgellons-mysterious-illness And here's a relevant quote from that article:

I contact Dr Anne Louise Oaklander, associate professor at Harvard Medical School and perhaps the only neurologist in the world to specialise in itch. I email her describing morgellons, pointing out it's probably some form of DOP. But when we speak, she knows all about morgellons already. "In my experience, morgellons patients are doing the best they can to make sense of symptoms that are real. They're suffering from a chronic itch disorder that's undiagnosed. They have been maltreated by the medical establishment. And you are welcome to quote me on that," she adds.

--149.254.51.166 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That is Dr Oaklander's theory: she isn't asserting it as fact. She also makes clear that she considers that morgellons may sometimes have psychiatric causes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is denying or lessening the strong psychiatric component of morgellons. There are no parasites or etc. But some people who have Morgellons have real itch, and because they're don't get an effective treatment for it, go on to self-diagnose morgellons. All I'm asking for is a small mention, (not in the lead) that some people with morgellons have undiagnosed itch conditions.--31.96.231.85 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian article was written before the CDC study was completed and exclusively quotes people we already know to be fringe view advocates. Without an actual reliable source that supports Dr. Oaklander's hypothesis, I'm not seeing a good reason to include her opinion in the article. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

All itching/pain/touch is psychological as with sufficient drugs you can be set on fire and not feel a thing. The point being that if doctors can't do anything that addresses a known real problem then take the anti-depressants etc. They are NOT treating you unfairly. Its a universal treatment for BOTH crazy people and people with acknowledged real diseases especially terminal diseases which doctors cannot address in a real and effective way (if doctors think its a real disease for which the cause cannot be addresses its called pallative treatment). Real or imagined they can make the symptoms go away. 2605:6000:1011:4083:D522:2E64:E9E8:794B (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous Editing on Wikipedia Keeps Morgellons Sufferers in the Dark

Nothing to see here. This is not the reference you are looking for. Move along.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As cited from: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10707772.htm "what the public does not realize is that Wikipedia is posing as a genuine source of knowledge, the accuracy of their information is greatly lacking and it is vulnerable to manipulation through editing by anonymous special interest groups." Lots of astroturfing here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyefinity (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC) This too has been discussed, prweb is about as reliable as the National Enquirer. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Yup. Nothing but a press release by a disgruntled researcher. Worthless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Plus, it is really nothing but an attack page about a particular editor, I am going to hat this Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)|} at least is a researcher, maybe disgruntled, but not only a measly "editor" as some of the stumps here Blueyefinity (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The SECONDARY and THIRD source HAD ARRIVED

http://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/ Blueyefinity (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Already discussed. First isn't RS, for the second, see archives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, umm look up what a secondary and tertiary source are, they don't just enumerate how many sources you have. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition of condition not accurate

Consensus is clear: lede is fine.

The first sentence reads: Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given to a condition in 2002 by Mary Leitao where sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in reality no such parasites are present. There are problems with this. First, many patients don't describe it as a parasitic infestation - but rather an infestation with fibers. The sentence does a good job explaining what DP is, but this article is on Morgellons which is seen as a variant of Delusional Infestation. Patients don't necessarily believe they are infected with actual parasites so the definition is misleading. For this reason, I think my edit was more accurate, defined what Morgellon's is, and reflected the sources more accurately. Here is what I changed it to: Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is is an unexplained dermatopathy that is believed to be a variant of delusional infestation. The condition was named by Mary Leitao in 2002. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Morgellons&oldid=584633944 Again, I think this is a more accurate definition on what Morgellon's is, and it is not giving credit to fringe views. It also adds that Morgellon's described as an "unexplained dermatopathy" by the CDC which I think is important in the definition of Morgellon's. I was also accused of removing citations (which I never did - I actually added one), and was given an edit warring warning. This was unwarranted because I never reverted the edit - I actually improved the sentence to not give credit to fringe views. Second, I only "reverted" once with edits addressing concerns of giving too much credit to fringe views. See WP:EW. I would like to know if the majority thinks this is a better definition - and if not, how can it be improved. --76.105.248.111 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC) The current lead is fine, there is no reason to change it. It is referenced. I am, however, willing to be convinced of course. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC) My primary objection is to using scientific terminology ("unexplained dermopathy") and indefinite terms ("believed to be") in the lead which can easily be misinterpreted or misrepresented by the fringe view advocates and those who think they're affected with the condition. We've had quite enough of that already, with fringe view advocates quote-mining the CDC study you're wanting to use as a reference to try and spin the condition as being unexplained or unknown to science (when the expert consensus is that it's delusional parasitosis). It's not unlike the "evolution is only a theory" argument you get from creationists. I do apologize for saying you were removing references; I didn't spot where you'd moved it to until after I made the comment (this IP is my employer's, the IP in the article history is my home connection). However, making the same edit that has already been reverted once is edit warring, just not to an extent that violates Wiki policies. I've found that telling people to stop edit warring often keeps things from reaching that point. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC) First, real or not, the condition is indefinite. Believed to be would be the right way to say it - unless you would want to say believed by the majority (but then you would have to find a citation for that to avoid weasel words). I am not implying that my edit is better. But I am simply saying the current definition on Wikipedia is wrong. If you believe Morgellon's is a delusional disorder, that is a personal belief. And it's a personal belief held by the majority of medical professionals. However, it's still a belief, and therefore still "believed to be". And even if you believe the above is fact, it doesn't change the fact that the definition is wrong. Morgellons patients generally believe they are infested with fibers. These fibers may be present and real, but they also may be textile in nature. Some may think it is parasites - and some have their other theories. But the condition is an infestation of fibers, not parasites in the traditional sense. The problem with controversial articles on WP is people often take sides (like a sports team), and intentionally or unintentionally spread their bias one way or another. It's actually why I enjoy editing them - but it seems unlikely that we'll come to a resolution when the two commenting were the one's who reverted my edits and slapped edit unwarranted warring notice (likely because of emotion) on my talk page. If it's not an "unexplained dermopathy", then what specifically is it? If you don't like my revison, that's perfectly ok. But if both of you think the current definition is correct and defines the condition well, then I'll probably have to call someone in for another opinion. 76.105.248.111 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC) 76, I urge you to read the archives, they may be enlightening. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I can read all I want but it doesn't change the fact that the sentence doesn't even define the condition. Or even describe it for that matter. I wish someone would respond to arguments instead of just "read the archives". It seems to be away to defend your POV instead of intelligently addressing valid points. 76.105.248.111 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors and don't assume that you have a special capacity to edit without bias that other editors lack; such a claim is often made or implied by tendentious editors (who are frequently drawn to "controversial" articles where the reputable sources are clear, but the fringe view makes a lot of noise). For example, the established medical consensus (which is what WP uses for articles, please see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) is not merely "personal beliefs" by any reasonable metric. Please restrict epistemological discussions to somewhere where people aren't trying to build an encyclopedia. As mentioned above, we've had a lot of problems from fringe view editors on this article in the past year; quote-mining a primary study to claim there's something unknown or subject to controversy (when reputable secondary sources both exist and are quite clear on the subject) both opens the door to further problems from the fringe view editors and counter to Wiki policies for selection and use of sources. I'd support changing the lead from "parasites" to "fibers" in some fashion, but not in a way that derogates a consensus so definitive that no reputable source opposes it. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC) I never claim to have a special capacity to edit. I was saying that making necessary edits or coming to a consensus on how to fix controversial articles can be very hard. Nevertheless I understand your points about restricting such unnecessary discussion on article talk pages. However, I am making claims that the definition on this page does not describe the condition. Someone can rewrite it if they want. It doesn't have to be me. And it's hard to assume good faith when the very editors that you are having discussions with slap warnings on your talk page. I am done with this one for now, and hopefully somebody will read this discussion and figure out how to correct the article in the future. 76.105.248.111 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC) You got warned for edit warring because you were edit warring. The solution would've been not to make the edit a second time before seeking discussion. Frankly, I'd be interested to know what other "controversial" articles you've involved yourself in, because a pattern of behavior similar to (or worse than) what you've exhibited here and on the warning editor's talk page could merit opening an ANI case. The two IPs you appear to be using to edit don't seem to have worked on anything else controversial. Proposal: Change "where sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in reality no such parasites are present" to "where sufferers have the delusional belief that unusual fibers are extruding from their bodies and causing skin lesions, whereas in reality the skin lesions are self-inflicted and the fibers are environmental debris". Would this satisfy your need to make changes to controversial articles or can we agree that "infested with parasites" is a concise summary (fit for, for example, the lead of an article) of what sufferers believe is occurring? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC) I'll let you take charge. And they are shown to be environmental debris. Mayo Clinic has a good definition and you might want to look at that one. I just moved across the country and have a DHCP address and the IP may have changed. I also have edited from another location - also a Comcast IP. I've always edited anonymously. You say to assume good faith and now I am being threatened? I don't get it. But good luck. 76.105.248.111 (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC) I agree, you don't get it. Editors advising you that your behavior could merit corrective action are not threats. However, since your desire to discuss the issue seems to have evaporated and I think the lead is accurate enough as is (particularly when the very next paragraph elaborates on the nature of the alleged infection), I'll consider this matter closed. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Good & Bad References Page

I see a huge archive on this article's talk page and apparently one of the recurring issues is the reliability of various sources. It seems this has happened so often that the standard response has become words like: "this is old, go read the archives". Rather than asking a new editor to dig through a contentious mountain of archived discussion I would like to suggest that a special talk page be created listing all of the rejected sources (preferably in a table format) along with a very clear explanation of why that source is unacceptable per WP standards. I guess that same page should also list the accepted references and the exact reasons why these are acceptable. 66.97.209.215 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mixed feelings on this. My initial inclination was to tell you to go ahead and do it yourself if you think it's a good idea, but on reflection, I'm starting to think that it's really not a good idea even to do that. To wit,

• Categorizing sources on this list (or lists) would probably provoke or reignite bickering almost as fierce as took place when the sources were originally considered for use.
• I would be reluctant to encourage the compilation of a parallel list of sources on this talk page (or a conspicuously-linked special page), as it might well become a web directory for fringe, unreliable sources and hypothesis—exactly the sort of thing that we try to avoid Wikipedia being used for. It would actually reward editors who deluge this page with fringe nonsense, by immortalizing their web sites and theories in a conspicuous location to which they could easily link.
• It is a common misconception that 'reliability' of a source is a clear, binary, yes or no property; this is not correct. For Wikipedia's purposes, 'reliability' depends both on the source itself and – this is important – upon how that source is used in Wikipedia. My personal blog would not be a reliable source for the federal government's budget numbers; it would be a reliable source for determining whether or not I like broccoli. (I do.) Context matters.
• 'Reliability' isn't the only consideration in determining the appropriateness of a given source (and the statements it supports) for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Equally important is the question of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYN. A common problem on medical topics is cherry-picking from the literature to give a skewed or incomplete view of a topic. There are circumstances where a statement and accompanying source could be entirely correct in one article, but totally unnecessary, inappropriate, or misleading in the context of another.

In other words, the more I think about it, the more trouble I can foresee. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. Many people come here in attempt to edit citing peer reviewed sources from medical literature. The group of regular editors quickly become annoyed with newer editors (read the archives to see the patterns). If the wikipedia rules are so cut and dry then why is it that they change so frequently from editor to editor and what flies on other Wiki articles does not fly here. For instance, I have read the archives and I have read the rules very carefully. I cannot find exactly where it states that sources from medical journals which have instituted the increasingly popular post publication peer review process are not considered to be acceptable sources. Also I have not been able to locate the rules which state that journal publications from sources such as F1000 Research should be considered underweight literature. On this article sources such as are deemed unacceptable while in other articles these same sources are considered to be perfectly acceptable. I think it would be well worth the time if someone who has the ability to answer these questions would simply answer them rather than refer to the archives. The archives contain the same misunderstandings stated over and over from editors who have asked these same questions. Rather than getting answers from the seasoned editors, the newer editors are banned for questioning this. (these patterns are vivid when one takes the time to once again....read the archives) The same FAQs remain and are asked over and over. I have done a fairly comprehensive review of literature on this subject. Perhaps if I get some spare time I could list the publications if someone would kindly insert whether or not they are citable and a brief explanation of why or why not. But then again ....perhaps a waste of time especially if medical textbooks are considered quality sources. I am told that a chapter on Morgellons in a medical textbook which reviews both sides of this debate will be published by early spring 2014. Perhaps increased clarity on both sides of the controversial topic will allow improved edits for an improved article with NPOV. Sierraparis (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this proposal has superficial appeal, but TOAT has summarized nicely the reasons we should not do this (the 3rd and 4th bullets are especially compelling). -- Scray (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is really a great idea, though at first blush I liked it. We usually have people coming here bringing the same fringe sources. This happens at a lot of articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TOAT above; there are a number of good reasons not to compile such a list. The archives are not so extensive that searching the archive is a burden. Yobol (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I am pretty familiar with the archives and thankful for them. Sierraparis (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDHT, WP:DEADHORSE Nothing new here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection Proposed change rejected as not supported by reliable sources Addressing the physiological aspect of the Morgellon disease, the wiki article should be REWRITTEN with data extracted from the National Center for Biotechnology Information here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/#!po=5.00000 and other sources http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10694837.htm http://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1 Hopefully someone will make the time and properly review the Morgellon wiki article that is presently addressing just the "psycho" part of the disease. If doctors and scientists take their time and study this condition seriously, not just labeling it "delusional belief" and put the a lid on it, I think the Wikipedia users can do the same and make the articles in such manner to reflect all points of view, not just the old, superficial ones. I hope someone will find the time and take a look at the info before discarding it as before. As for AndytheStump, maybe he will learn to read an article and see all the references pointing to, some of which are already presented in the wiki article, before reverting changes on a whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyefinity (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC) This is a single primary source. It is entirely unjustified (per both WP:MEDRS and common sense) to rewrite much of the article based on it. If you bothered to check the archives, you'd see that it has already been discussed. Furthermore, the images you have uploaded are clearly derived from the same source [10], and uploaded in breach of copyright. I see you have already been warned regarding copyright violations, [11], and I can think of no good reason not to report the matter immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC) And I now see that you have further violated copyright by copying text from the same source. I shall now be reporting the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC) - Here's your second source: http://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1 That is not a RS, please see the archives. In fact, just go read the archives anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Exactly - F1000 is an open-access journal, with no peer review prior to publication. [12] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Are you aware that many prestigious journals are moving toward this type of publishing? Even the highly esteemed PLoS One is planning to adopt this method of open peer review post publication. < http://www.nature.com/news/plos-profits-prompt-revamp-1.14205> Actually the concept is becoming increasingly popular among many of the medical journals as the wave of the future. The aim is basically to enhance complete transparency to the publishing process, reduce delays and perhaps most importantly, it reduces referee and publishing bias. Andy the Grump, I am seeing this type of process more and more all the time in lots of very highly regarded journals. Aren't you? Actually there is a review process prior to publication but the actual peer review comments come post publication for the reasons I've listed above. In my line of work I access lots of scientific publication and I've seen this process more and more. Please tell me ...does Wikipedia have a rule about this and if so can you direct me toward it? Because I think that IF there is one...it will need revision very soon since more and more journals are favoring this process. Sierraparis (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC) The guideline you are looking for is WP:MEDRS. And, even if now-reputable journals accept that publication model, there is no reason why Wikipedia should. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC) That's a very selective reading of that article about PLoS ONE. The actual quote is "The organization’s research arm, PLOS Labs, founded this year, aims to develop and test concepts for peer review after papers have published." I'm not going to say you're deliberately lying, Sierraparis, but you're badly misreading the source in order to see what you want to see. As well, simply declaring that you're seeing post-publication peer review (really?) "more and more all the time in lots of very highly regarded journals" is a useless proof-by-assertion. I will counter with the equally unsourced but likely more accurate declaration that I have never seen a highly-regarded journal that relies solely on post-publication peer review to vet its articles. Of course, even if (arguendo) F1000's process employing self-selected post-publication reviewers were equivalent to the more usual system of pre-publication review, the paper you're pushing would still be rejected by any normal journal editor. I count two out of four reviewers giving a flat rejection (with detailed reasoning), one more offering an accept with reservations (including a list of further experiments that would be required to actually accept), and just one reviewer accepted without revisions (and without useful comment, offered by a chronic Lyme disease quack). It is obvious that merely appearing on the F1000 website is insufficient to establish even a whisper of reliability for our purposes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) oh my...sounds as though you have some major personal issues with specific docs. Personally I have no idea whether chronic Lyme Disease exists or not. I'm not sure this is the place to refer to any doctors in an ill manner. Personal attacks of any kind are not helpful in creating an encyclopedia. I don't know what reviewer(s) you have issue with but it doesn't matter. You should take it up with them personally if you feel so strongly rather than name calling here. As my mother used to say "My dog's not in this fight" . Didn't mean to get under your skin by stating that more and more journals are adopting this method for increased transparency. Sorry if any feathers are ruffled and apologize if my post played a role in instigating you anger towards any doctors.. Not sure why you feel that the Chronic Lyme Disease controversy is even pertinent to what we are doing here? Correct me if I am wrong but shouldn't that discussion take place on the Lyme Disease talk page? Lighten up and be merry. Assume good faith and good will towards all. Tis the season. Sierraparis (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC) You still haven't named any highly-regarded journals that rely solely on post-publication peer review processes; does that mean you actually had no basis for your claim? You keep repeating the assertion without any evidence or examples. And I think the qualifications and competence of the post-publication reviewers of the F1000 paper you want to use as a reference are quite pertinent to this discussion. I don't have any personal issues with the individual in question beyond my general distrust of people who do sloppy science; I didn't bother to name him here, nor did I know who he was until a few hours ago. Given that the paper attempts to describe Morgellons as a form of chronic Lyme infection, I should think that the relevance of 'chronic Lyme disease' would be obvious to someone who has read and understood the source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Enough is enough. Opened ANI case for Sierraparis here: [13]. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Let me be perfectly clear in that I have not suggested using the F1000 paper as a resource. Why do you think I have suggested that either F1000 paper be used? That was discussed over and over several months ago and I fully recall the discussion. The same group of editors are here now that were here then and are firmly against using any references even remotely associated with any journal publications which suggest any kind of relation to Lyme Disease. I have not suggested citing either paper from F1000. Someone else suggested it again if you will read above but I certainly didn't. I have some suggestions for improving the article but they have nothing to do with the F1000 publications. I have not forgotten the verdict and the be-heading of Erythemia and Drgao for suggesting such a thing. We've been over and over it. Sierraparis (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Cutaneous dysesthesia as a potential diagnosis according to Popular Mechanics Magazine. My suggestion for editing is either finding a stronger source for cutaneous dysesthesia or removing that sentence altogether. Since the regular editors have determined several months ago that publications in F1000 nor peer reviewed articles in Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology are strong enough sources, then why have Popular Mechanics Magazine as the only source for cutaneous dysesthesia? Does anyone have other sources besides Popular Mechanics? Sierraparis (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Fringe Theories Galore reference by Popular Press should go As it stands this article does not accurately represent either side of the Morgellons Debate. Fringe theories from extraterrestrial life forms to genetically modified organisms and more are represented in this article. Why are so many fringe theories included all the while there is an adamant consensus that certain peer reviewed journal publications are not worthy. This article is of low quality and makes little sense because of the group of editors who control it . The text ironically reads very much like Morgellons Watch which was another unscientific source of information. The editors here use much of the same phrasing as Morgellons Watch. Have any of you noticed this characteristic? I suggest that the fringe theories such as cutaneous dysethesia, extra terestrials and genetically modified anything be deleted since there is no scienticific references to support any of those theories. Sierraparis (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

misleading lead

Real-world issue, not Wikipedia's problem to fix.

The source - The Mayo Clinic - does not support the view currently attributed to it. The source says, quite specifically, that "signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are very similar to those of a mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by parasites (delusional parasitosis)" Thus it does not support the current lead which says Morgellons is simply this one delusional belief. Unclear why several editors keep reinserting this non-sourced claim, and thus I would be grateful if you could give your reasons here, or at least find a source that actually supports the current lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 November 2013 This seems to be splitting hairs to me. We have a well established lead actually. I don't think edit warring helps very much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Well established perhaps, but also unsupported by the sources. That is, the sources offered are nowhere near as definitive as the lead. Specifically, the sources all have caveats such as "likely" or "similar" that are completely absent from the lead. And, if it is just splitting-hairs, as you claim, then you should have no objection to my version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 November 2013 My objection is to changing a contentious article without discussion and edit warring actually. I still see it as splitting hairs, and, therefore, and unnecessary change. I would like to see what others think though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Agree it is laregely splitting hairs, but changed source for that sentence to the Freudenmann review. No need to cite Mayo when we have an authoritative review on the topic. Yobol (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC) That's better, although the intial part of the lead still inaccurately characterises Morgellons as being that delusional belief alone rather than as a variety of genuine symptoms which also include that belief (as a symptom). Unsure why it can't just be characterised in line with the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC) ........The current lead and the entire article actually is in no way supported by the sources provided. However, it is supported in it's entirety solely by the group of editors who insist on the continuation of the POV which these editors have chosen for some reason to adhere to. It is not only derogatory toward Morgellons patients but it also misrepresents the viewpoints of America's health organizations as well as degrading to public view on Wikipedia in general as being a source of any reliable information. The viewpoint of Wikipedia editors on the Morgellons article is shared solely by the editors themselves. The Mayo Clinic as well as the authors of the CDC report disagree with the viewpoints in this article. Why would a few editors on Wikipedia wish to override more authoritative viewpoints from those much more credentialed and certainly more informed? That is a question to which no one seems to have an answer. Maybe the editors themselves can explain their fixed and unshakable beliefs that Morgellons is purely psychological in origin. Sierraparis (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Sieraparis Pretty much everything you just said is wrong, as we've repeatedly explained to you. However, if you have a specific proposed edit for the article, post it here and we can discuss it. If you don't have a proposed edit for the article and are just here to advocate your point of view without actually being willing to put any effort into building an encyclopedia according to Wikipedia principles, then there's no reason to allow you to continue disrupting the people who are. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Sierraparis, have you forgotten this [14]. Attacking other editors (saying we are 'derogatory towards Morgellons patients') and misrepresenting sources are exactly the kind of bullshit you have been told to stop or you will be topic banned. Stop it now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Dbrodnbeck, I have no vested interest in Morgellons pro or con and I do not know this User:Sierraparis or the other editors mentioned in your example. I am however always concerned with civility in our community. Respectfully, I am surprised at your "misrepresenting" Mr/Ms Sierraparis' words. Specifically you say: "Attacking other editors (saying we are 'derogatory towards Morgellons patients') and misrepresenting sources ..." yet his/her exact words are: "The current lead and the entire article ... It is not only derogatory toward Morgellons patients ..." (emphasis added). At no time does he/she say any person is being "derogatory", only It (the lead and article). Editors are not "it"s. I can see this is a very contentious article but when an editor -- any editor -- can so easily misread text like that then perhaps it becomes a good time for an editor to cool off and try hard not to subjectify opposing statements. 66.97.209.215 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Go read the archives, and read the ANI decision, This editor has been warned before about tendentious editing. Oh and I know the meanings of words, no need to point me to a dictionary, though thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC) The issue of sources for the lead has been addressed. Sierraparis, you should keep a civil tongue, and if possible direct it towards improving the article rather than making vague suggestions about editors' beliefs. The vehemence of an opinion isn't the measure of its worth, here.137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC) G'Day Mate. Please try to refrain from misinterpreting my tongue as being less than civil and please do try to avoid making any unsolicited attacks on other editors. Thank you very much. Sierraparis (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC) While your behaviour here has certainly warranted attack, I've instead tried to provide helpful suggestions that might make your interactions here much less antagonistic for everyone involved. I see now that there was never any point in my own civility, as you seem not to have been motivated by a genuine desire to discuss the improvement of this page. Perhaps you can provide an example, however, in light of your topic ban, of how not to engage with other editors here, so that in future people might see the futility of your approach and decide to take a more respectful and thus more effective route. Adieu.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Sierraparis has been topic banned from all medically related articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Terminology question

As I begin the sloooow process of analyzing this article's history to try and help improve it I would like a layman's understanding (I am neither a medical professional nor do I even remotely know anyone who has identified as being a "MD" sufferer -- my interest is purely related to the editing process here at WP) of certain terminology. In a research paper I found at the NIH I read the following:

Nonbiopsy dermatological specimens representative of MD lesions were collected from four MD subjects ... Fibers associated with these patients’ lesions were embedded under unbroken skin or projected from dermatological tissue. Calluses with attached filaments were collected from all four patients after informed consent was obtained.

What exactly is the difference between a "collection by biopsy" and the collection method described above? What is the scientific significance between the two methods? 66.97.209.215 (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The publishers Dove and F1000 do not meet Wiki standards for reliable medical sources and Stricker has been disciplined for scientific misconduct, so we don't accept research he contributes to and we're skeptical of the research of people willing to work with him. As for answering your question, Wikipedia isn't really here for that and it's not relevant to the discussion. We don't accept the paper regardless of whether the specimens they clearly stated were "nonbiopsy" might actually have been collected via biopsy. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dove Press journals do not meet WP:MEDRS. Check the archives. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia Editor just like both of you and I reasonably have a right to expect a somewhat more Collegial answer to my inquiries on an article talkpage. I did not ask about the source, I asked about specific terminology. I am trying -- from scratch -- to understand the subject matter and so the answer to my question is required in order to have intelligent discussion on the editing of the article. As far as the idea that "Wikipedia isn't really here for [answering my terminology question] and it's not relevant to the discussion." please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style related to the use of Jargon and the Wikipedia Guideline on Making Technical Articles Understandable. I have already stated I am not a medical professional and I need the Plain English translation of this terminology. Please assume good faith and answer the question that was asked. Thank you. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 13:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The article up there is not any good, so the point itself is moot. I think the both of us were just pointing that out. This talk page is not here to explain an unreliable source to you. No offence was intended, at least on my part. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree that we should restrict our discussion to reliable sources - and the ref provided in this section is not one, as previously discussed. I also agree that it's worthwhile to discuss terms where they are relevant to the article and the sources we're using. -- Scray (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What about this page do you think needs improvement? Why do you think Wiki jargon guidelines apply to sources that will not be used in the article? I assume good faith, but I don't assume competence to edit an article that consistently attracts people with strong POV issues when the first thing an editor brings to the discussion is a question about a research paper written by people with strong POV issues. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

IP 69.23.116.182: To answer your questions:

• What about this page do you think needs improvement?

Other than the general belief that there is always room for improvement I don't think anything specific about this article needs improvement at this time. Everybody keeps saying "Read the archives!" so I am despite the difficulty of that task. Until I have read all of the archives, done a thorough analysis, and then discussed that analysis here on the talkpage I have no plans to edit the main article at all. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK

• Why do you think Wiki jargon guidelines apply to sources that will not be used in the article?

Comprehension of specialized terminology is mandatory for meaningful discussion. The assertion that something is irrelevant to comprehension is presumptive. However, I have found another way to ask my question, see the new section below. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK

• I assume good faith, but I don't assume competence to edit an article that consistently attracts people with strong POV issues when the first thing an editor brings to the discussion is a question about a research paper written by people with strong POV issues.

The question was about terminology and nothing else. You are erroneously reading intent that does not exist into a question that has been thrice explained as being purely about terminology. Again see the new section below. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK

As for "competence" please be very careful how you use that word. I am making an extraordinary effort to become competent on the subject matter and the edit history of this article. For the record any explicit or thinly veiled implied assertion that I am incompetent or biased is not an assumption of good faith, especially when I have explicitly stated my purpose and my objectives. I expend my energy for Wikipedia's overall benefit, not for any particular article, topic, category, or editor. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Terminology Question -- Try #2

Within the existing article text are the following statements (emphasis added):

• Dr. Noah Craft, a dermatologist at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, has seen a handful of Morgellons patients and biopsied their skin lesions, but found only normal skin and inflammation, as one would find in a bump that has been picked at.
• Wymore sent samples of fibers, none of which was collected by biopsy, to the Police Crime Lab in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for analysis.

Please explain for non-medical Wikipedia readers (per MOS:JARGON) the significance of the difference between:

1. samples collected by medical professionals using biopsy techniques, and
2. samples collected by medical professionals using non-biopsy techniques?

What are the technical differences between these two professional techniques? Why is it important to explicitly state in the article when each technique was used? F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So it appears you're not confused about what a "biopsy" is but rather you're wondering why the literature makes a distinction about samples collected by biopsy vs. non-biopsy? A biopsy is a technical term that implies a medical protocol was followed to ensure the right tissue was collected, efforts were made to prevent contamination and infection, the equipment used was sterile and free from outside contaminants, etc. Also as the entire piece of tissue being investigated is removed, the biological matter surrounding what's being studied can be investigated for any lesions, inflammatory reaction, etc. With a non-biopsy collection, none of these is implied--it could mean that the person doing the collecting stuck a piece of cellophane tape to the skin, pulled it off with whatever it was they were looking for stuck to it (if it all came out in one piece), and put that into a lunch baggie. You'd expect that the evidence produced from a biopsy done by competent personnel in a medical setting to be of higher quality than a non-biopsy collection. Zad68 15:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

These are questions you could have easily answered for yourself. Wikipedia has an article about biopsy if the terminology used is unclear to you, and a referenced source (the Telegraph article) explains Wymore's collection technique (it was extremely unprofessional: he had patients mail him specimens they collected themselves). Assuming incompetence instead of bad faith is Wiki policy, per WP:NOCLUE. Article talk pages are for discussing changes to the article. You have now stated you are not proposing a change to the article at this time. Please stop using this page for asking people to do your research for you. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

63.95.64.254 thanks for pointing out the weaknesses of the sourcing of that section, I've removed it based on those issues and have placed it below for discussion. Zad68 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

References

"Hypotheses about the fibers" section

I've removed the following section as insufficiently sourced. All the sourcing is to popular press and makes references to poor-quality primary studies. It should not be in the article in a discussion about medical hypotheses. It might be useful for History or Popular culture. Zad68 16:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hypotheses about the fibers

Randy Wymore, a former research director of the MRF and presently director of the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences' Center for the Investigation of Morgellons Disease, claims that Morgellons patients have submitted masses of dark fibers visible at 60x magnification under the unbroken skin, while unaffected individuals do not. Wymore sent samples of fibers, none of which was collected by biopsy (patients mailed self-collected specimens to Wymore), to the Police Crime Lab in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for analysis. A forensic scientist at the Tulsa Police Crime Lab in Oklahoma searched the FBI's national database, but the Morgellons sample did not match any known fiber in the database. Lab director Mark Boese said the fibers were "consistent with something that the body may be producing," adding, "These fibers cannot be manmade and do not come from a plant. This could be a byproduct of a biological organism."

Conversely, in Wymore's further studies of the fibers, none of the samples he has sent to the laboratory have been unusual. Laboratory results have included nylon, cotton, human hair, a fungal fiber and a rodent hair.

Dermatologists say many fibers are from clothing embedded in self-inflicted sores and the fibers patients bring in bags are textile in nature. The fibers may also be peripheral nerve endings.

References

Well, we do have a history section in the article. Could retitle this subsection as something more appropriate ("Wymore, OSU, and the FBI"?) and put it in there as the second subsection. Though I'm not sure it's notable enough to merit inclusion; articles do talk about it, but I don't think there's an article specifically about Wymore's involvement. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A Study on Morgellons seems to disagree with Wiki

Please forgive my lack of medical knowledge but this article I read http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047951/ from the National Institute of Health appears to contradict the assertion that Morgellons is a delusional disorder. This is my first communication with the wiki process so please be gentle if I have done anything too out-of-form.

<-- Copy-pasted article deleted for copyright/space reasons AndyTheGrump -->

2602:306:BCEC:1800:48D5:2141:ECDA:6B66 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the article you have copy-pasted here, because (a) it may be copyrighted (the status is unclear), and (b) it is entirely unnecessary to copy articles to talk pages: a link to the source is all that is required. Talk pages are NOT intended as repositories of sources, and filling them with large volumes of such material disrupts discussion. As for the study you link, it does not rule out a delusional disorder - it makes no such assertion. You also need to read WP:MEDRS, concerning the use (or rather non-use) of primary studies as Wikipedia sources concerning medical content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is (yet another) source that has already been discussed and deemed unreliable. Even if that wasn't the case, Stricker has been disciplined for scientific misconduct; no source that he contributes to will ever be reliable and anyone willing to work with him is suspect, particularly when they do so repeatedly, as Savely has. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this is out of form to do this, but: thanks for the information regarding the researcher's credibility and not being too brutal regarding my gaffe of posting the entire article.-revscrj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCEC:1800:1532:BD3D:E60E:407B (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

F1000 journal publications fail WP:RS and the stricter WP:MEDRS guidelines. They will not be used in this article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Morgellons connection to Lyme http://www.australianbiologics.com.au/latest-borrelia-research.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blcwall (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC) See WP:MEDRS. We don't base article content on single primary-source studies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture

Maybe the movie "Bugs" from 2006 (Bug (2006 film)) could be mentioned, as it depicts people who have this delusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoD (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference for symptoms and diagnosis

I'm unsure of when this section was edited to include the source from Oklahoma State University- http://www.healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/index.cfm, but I thought I'd point out that that website solicits donations to fund research into Morgellons, while also stating that it is "frequently misdiagnosed as Delusional Parasitosis or an Obsessive Picking Disorder", which is contrary to the scientific consensus. Just thought I'd mention this, I am unsure of whether this is a relevant.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it should go then? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It is strange that more recent review papers are not used as the sources here. I can't find anything on the OSU site that is more recent than 2007, which is woefully out of date. I'm unsure of why Rhonda Casey's name appears so prominently here, maybe she has some more current data?137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"the delusional belief"

I think the opening sentence is misleading: "Morgellons ... is a name given to a condition in 2002 by Mary Leitao in which sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, but in reality no such things are present." Leitao gave the name to a condition in which sufferers ARE infested. She might have been wrong, it might be delusional, but she did not name a condition of delusion. In the source referenced, Leitao et al specifically say that it is sometimes falsely called delusional.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The part of the sentence that references a delusional belief is at the end of the sentence, reference 2. Reference one only supports the part of the sentence that states she gave the name. Yobol (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the mention of Mary Leitao is appropriate for the first sentence of the article, or even necessary content for the lead section. (Alois Alzheimer isn't named until the third sentence of Alzheimer's disease. George Huntington doesn't get a plug in the lead of Huntington's disease at all; he doesn't show up until the article's History section.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, because Mary Leitao invented it. Morgellons is a name she invented because she did not like the implications of the correct medical name, delusional parasitosis. A lot of public money has been wasted proving that the two are one and the same. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that this is an invention of Leitao is important for the lead, though I would not oppose moving it outside the first sentence, where it does seem kind of out of place. Yobol (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I did that. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is now very clear and accurate. Well done. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

SECTION TREATMENT

Treatment for infectious disease Calls note that dermatologists suggest that the use of antibiotics showing an improvement is a placebo effect. Dermatologists are not qualified to make this assessment unless they are involved in pharmaceutical research. Should be stricken. - revscrj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCEC:1800:315B:3AE:74B6:D80D (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Dermatologists don't know about skin diseases? Anyway, the statement is referenced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Medical Textbook with Chapter on Morgellons

The Morgellons article should be updated based upon chapter 26 of the Medical Textbook "Practical PsychoDermtology" . The chapter on Page 220 off the textbook provides a balanced overview of the Morgellons Debate in a proportionally balance way. It's time the Wikipedia Morgellons article is updated based upon medical text. Both viewpoints, delusional infestation and Lyme disease are discussed in an clear and concise context. Controversial topics such as Morgellons must follow the medical text in this chapter, <http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-111856068X,subjectCd-MDN0.html> Goldrushing (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of the chapter? It is a brand new book it seems. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Google books to the rescue! See here. It's a 4 page chapter and it seems to include citations to unreliable sources like the CHEF... Sailsbystars (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

......textbook is authored by accomplished reputable specialists in the fields of dermatology and psychiatry and editors are reputable as well. Are you thinking that university dermatologists and psychiatrists do not understand Morgellons? There is no question. A medical textbook chapter is the best source available. 66.17.246.2 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a proposed edit based on this book? If so, please provide the wording you'd like to see included and we can work on it. I don't see any new information in this book. The chapter repeatedly documents the proponents' POV, without advocating it as fact, and we already do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to rehash the sources that are already outlined on this page, reiterating that the consensus suggests that Morgellons is not an accepted medical term, and is "a form of delusional infestation or somatic symptom disorder". Not to take anything away from the authors and editors of the book and chapter, this source is not peer-reviewed. There are already reviews of studies that are peer-reviewed and cited appropriately already on this page.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the article couldn't be reworded to indicate that there is disagreement and a lack of consensus in the medical community and in the scientific literature as to whether Morgellons is 'real' or not and that 'further research is needed' - as that is a description of the reality. The Wikipedia page claims it's definitely a delusion when there is no proof of this one way or the other. Just point out it's something that needs further research. 105.237.110.167 (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what medical research says when there are no results. That would violate WP:UNDUE and also create a false balance, leaving the impression on readers that there was a significant controversy within medicine, when it is actually an extremely minor and VERY small disagreement in a corner which is pretty much settled. We don't give a fringe minority more credence than they deserve. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

But if there are "no results" then you CAN'T make the strong claim that it's a "delusion" - because there are no results proving this! It's not settled at all - the number of scientific articles is a small handful at best - more research is needed. When there are "no results" about something then the only correct answer is "it's not known" - not to pretend to know something that you can't possibly know due to the lack of research. Research IS the method by which such answers are determined. And the research isn't there yet - it's too new. 105.237.110.167 (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Making strong claims with no proper citation violates everything Wikipedia stands for - never mind 'false balance'. The strong claim that "Morgellons ... is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief" lacks proper citation. Either it needs a proper citation, or the claim needs to be made less strong - one of the two. "Most doctors think" is not a citation, because doctors don't know everything and they aren't scientific researchers --- that is the entire reason we still do scientific research at all, because we don't yet know everything (if we did, we could just shut down all science labs and researchers today) --- filling in the gaps when we 'don't really know' definitely does not conform to Wikipedia's goals, nor does it conform to any reasonable consideration of the ideal of documenting current knowledge. (And no, one recent scientific article alone isn't enough to settle a matter that is still an active area of research - there are also scientific articles that show a contradictory viewpoint - so the matter remains unresolved pending further research.) David Joffe (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That "strong claim" from the article does have a proper citation. Note that the quote is from the lead, and sums up properly sourced content in the body of the article. That citation is one of many which could have been chosen to back up the statement. We aren't making statements on our own here, we are using what reliable sources say. So, having cleared up that "misstatement"...can you suggest a specific improvement based on WP:MEDRS? That's the purpose of this page based on the rules for how to use it. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In the cited work of Freudenman and Lepping, where does it state 'what most doctors think'. Perhaps I am missing something but I don't see where the reliable source polled doctors or patients for matter to determine what the majority thinks. This paper aims at familiarizing readers with delusional infestation rather than polling doctors to statistically determine the majority's thoughts. In creating a new lead I suggest steering away from what most doctors believe. What patients "believe" to be the cause of their malady too is irrelevant. Since when is the patient supposed to have the correct diagnosis and the causative agent? If patients were reliable at determining causative agents and making their own diagnoses, doctors would become extinct. I would like to see the lead changed to represent what scientific and medical evidence shows rather than what anyone thinks, which according to the medical textbook chapter, is still largely undetermined and up for debate. Proposing new lead "In the past 10 years, there have been an increased number of publications debating the presence of a new medical condition referred to as Morgellons Disease". The textbook chapter, according to [WP:MEDRS] is the single most reliable source available on the topic. Length of chapteris irrelevant. The textbook, a highly credible source, is written and edited by highly esteemed qualified experts in the field. A textbook is peer reviewed and highly scrutinized by a group of editors perhaps more rigorously than a peer reviewed paper. The title of the medical textbook chapter is Morgellons 'Debate'. When a medical textbook describes Morgellons clearly as a debated topic then why would a Wikipedia article ignore that the debate exists? That debate should be given due weight within the contents of the article especially in the light of the fact that both viewpoints of said debate are well described in peer reviewed medical literature. The role of Wiki editors is not to critique a textbook chapter for it's content or it's length. That work has already been done prior to textbook publication by experts in the field who are qualified to make such judgements. The goal here at Wikipedia is to create an article which accurately describes the textbook picture of Morgellons. Including the fact that the topic is medically and scientifically debated is indicated is appropriate and necessary. Goldrushing (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That wording change is not supported by the proposed source, which says that the physician community has been hesitant to even use the term "Morgellons", and that most physicians consider it a form of delusional parasitosis. The "debate" is between the patients who believe they have the disease and the medical community which does not believe the condition exists; it is not really a debate within the medical community. As an aside, nowhere in WP:MEDRS does it declare this textbook "the single most reliable source available on the topic"; that is an absurd overstatement. We have multiple review articles, including Freudemnman's, which go into much more detail about the topic, and is probably more reliable. Having read the source, I see no new information there that is not already covered in the article. Yobol (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that Freudenmann and Lepping are authors of the Delusional parasitosis chapters of this same medical textbook. The Morgellons Debate was given a chapter of it's own in the same book...a chapter apart from the DOP, DI chapters. If these conditions were considered by most of these experts to be synonymous with Morgellons then why wouldn't Morgellons be covered in the DOP chapter rather than a chapter of it's own? Goldrushing (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, based on other publications by the textbook/chapter authors, "debate" could also refer to the question of which mental disorder as associated with self-diagnosed "Morgellons". Magid and Reichenberg – the two editors who wrote the Morgellons chapter – have been advocates for the view that many (perhaps most) of these patients are actually better described as having a somatoform disorder instead of delusional parasitosis (see, e.g. PMID 23058734).

And the proposed phrasing "In the past 10 years..." is misleading puffery. Since Mary Leitao only publicized the term in 2002 – 12 years ago – of course there's more material in the last ten years than there was in any other decade; it went from 'zero' to 'marginally more than zero'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than assume that Reichenburg and Magid had any viewpoints other than what is written in the textbook chapter, let's take a look at recent Reichenberg and Magid's conclusions here in more recent articles <https://www.dermquest.com/expert-opinions/clinical-updates/2013/morgellons-disease/> where same authors Reichenburg and Magid have concluded that:

"Many physicians have come down strongly in favor of a psychiatric etiology. Basic science research continues to produce data that may imply an infectious etiology". Let's be clear that Reichenberg and Magid find the use of the term "Morgellons" controversial while also clarifying that the jury is still out on possible infectious etiology. Goldrushing (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see [15] That is not a reliable source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here Dbrodbeck because I wasn't suggesting this as a source for the article. It does provide insight on the meaning of the textbook chapter and reading recent writings by the two (this one is dated August 2013) better than guessing what Reichenberg and Magid meant. So this is in reply to Tenofalltrades who suggested that Reichenberg and Magid were advocates for the view of describing the majority of patients as having a somatoform disorder. Please see TenOfAllTrades post above to better understand the context for providing the recent viewpoint of Reichenberg and Magid.Goldrushing (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Science and medicine are constantly evolving and it is more relevant to discuss what Reichenberg and Magid 'are' advocates for rather than what they 'have been' advocates for. I hope this better explains the point I was making.Goldrushing (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) That's not an unreasonable perspective. From that standpoint, it's worthwhile that Reichenberg and Magid report (both in their peer-reviewed publications and in the Dermquest article) successfully treating 'Morgellons' patients with antipsychotics and, more recently, antidepressants. If you want to hold out Reichenberg and Magid as your experts on the topic, you can't just ignore the (successful) therapeutic approach that they actually use in the clinic while you grasp at passing statements. But I shouldn't get sucked (further) into a forum chat with you. I'm not going to waste any more time in this thread unless there are serious suggestions for specific article edits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I offer two notes in passing. First, there is a difference between "both viewpoints are...discussed" and "both viewpoints are lent equal weight by the authors, and are supported by citations of equal quality in the text". Merely noting that fringe perspectives exist on topic (and pointing to information about them) is something that is useful to clinicians: the likely audience of this book. That is, it's useful as a dermatologist or psychiatrist to know what beliefs patients may have about their skin, even if those beliefs are totally unsupported by credible research.

Second, it might help if GoldRushing, David Joffe, or others could propose specific changes to the Wikipedia article. (Note that we should be very cautious about making major article changes based on snippets from a single short book chapter.) Ultimately, that is what this talk page is supposed to be used for. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Very well put. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

According to [WP:IRS] secondary sources such as meta analyses, textbooks and scholarly review articles are preferred when available as sources. Textbook entries, regardless of length of chapter, are reliable sources. Since the textbook chapter focuses on the debate, even titles the chapter Morgellons Debate, then the debate is significant and certainly deserves mention if this article is to reflect guidelines of [WP:IRS] Goldrushing (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Goldrushing, hope you don't mind, I moved your comment. Anyway, please read what Yobol has written above, it is a pretty good summary. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I have read and disagree with what Yobol has written because Freudenmann and Lepping are co authors of this medical textbook and have authored additional themselves. When multiple co-authors are involved it is imperative prior to publication that all authors have reviewed the manuscript. Goldrushing (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, we need a specific suggestion for a change, starting with the body, not the lead. Changes to the lead only occur after changes to the body, and only if the change is significant. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Without proposed edits this discussion really isn't going anywhere. The book in question is not peer-reviewed, and doesn't add anything new to the page. It mostly reiterates what is already discussed, and if Chapter 26 of this book is seen as some sort of tangent then why does Chapter 14 (Delusional Infestation) introduce Morgellons as a sub-type of delusional infestation, referring the reader to Chapter 26 thusly: "In recent years some patients have started to advocate a new disease entity they call Morgellons disease. The possibility of an undiscovered pathogen, in this case fibres, was attractive to many sufferers and with the internet, the idea spread quickly. A recent study by the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention, funded after pressure from self-declared Morgellon's sufferers, showed no evidence of real infestation or infection. See Chapter 26 for a more extensive discussion of this phenomenon and the literature surrounding it."137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)