Talk:Morgellons/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Morgellons wikipedia page is hate speech against disease sufferers.

Looks like ever since the Morgellons page got unlocked, there has been a flurry of edits which have turned this topic back to hate speech against people with a disability.

Isn't that what Morgellons-Watch is for?

How is this possibly NPOV when the majority of the discussion ignores biology and science, while fully embracing quack psychiatry.

Finally, why is this page named "morgellons"?? The CDC has chosen a different name for this disease. The current page needs to be renamed "persecution and lies against people with a real disease, intended to promote human-rights violations and medical negligence against any patient with a Morgellons diagnosis." A new page and a complete rewrite needs to be started on "unexplained dermopathy." The CDC's "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED)" would certainly not be a place for psychiatric quackery. Concurring with this, on 3/28/2007, the CDC removed the Delusional Parasitosis web page from the Division of Parasitic Diseases site. Delusional parasitosis is irrelevant to "Unexplained dermopathy" aka Morgellons.

If you feel the need to waste people's time with idiocies like "delusional parasitosis", then start a new page on that subject, adding in all the big-pharma-funded psychotropic drug pushers papers -- such as the corrupt excercises in scientific fraud perpetuated by Drs. [BLP violations and libel removed by -- Fyslee / talk 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)], etc.

Is libel appropriate for wikipedia, because that's exactly what is going on with the "morgellons" page?? Morgellons sufferers are not delusional, they have an infection. Continuously equating DOP with Morgellons does not make it true. The fact that there are some medical opinions that Morgellons is DOP doesn't make it true either. The fact that the controversy isn't even framed correctly suggests to the naive reader that all morgellons patients are nutcases and their symptoms should not be believed or investigated. That further makes this wikipedia page a source for libelous "hate speech."

This isn't just an esoteric academic debate on an abstract subject. the wikipedia page promotes an unbalanced (esp if you start with the introduction or "treatment" portions) view of "Morgellons" as a psychiatric disorder, even though there is strong evidence of a physical and infective etiology. Just the fact that there are two independent university research groups who are finding consistent evidence of (1) never-seen-before material emerging from lesions of patients whose samples were collected in a clinical setting; (2) agrobacterium; (3) Lyme disease; (4) Chlamidia Pneumoniae; (5) immune deficiency. Although most of the aforementioned can produce profound psychiatric distress, it would be completely inappropriate to chemically lobotomize a patient, while not treating their underlying illness. That is the climate of medical prejudice faced by patients today; furthermore, there's the possibility of fomenting general discrimination in society against Morgellons sufferers as "crazy" rather than "ill."

And that is exactly the kind of civil rights violation against morgellons patients that the existing Morgellons wikipedia article entails. It is hate speech pure and simple. You could just as well have a page that equates people-of-color with being lazy... backed by numerous articles and opinions on the internet backing up that very opinion. And you could discuss this issue at length even... but it would be very inappropriate for wikipedia. Just because an opinion exists, even by a professional, doesn't make it true -- "blacks are stupid... Nobel prize winner Shockley, inventor of the transistor, said it was true, so it must be!" Nielsp 04:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clinical evidence? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) unpublished, (2) published in abstract form only, (3) published as assertions in two articles by the MRF without data or independent confirmation, (4) unpublished, (5) unpublished. That's not how Wikipedia works. Please see policies on verifiability and reliable sources for starters. By your logic, Wikipedia should report without qualification or skepticism that cold fusion is real, that silicone implants cause autoimmune disease, and that the average person has 10 pounds of impacted mucoid plaque in their colon. Sorry. Thatcher131 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 -- where is the clinical evidence in the published papers equating

Morgellons and DOP. They are OPINION PAPERS! They are

just as valid (and hate-mongering) as Dr. Shockley's opinions that blacks are

genetically inferior http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902005,00.html . Nielsp 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no clinical evidence of anything regarding the nature of Morgellons, which is why opinions are reported as well as facts. The opinions of the MRF, and the opinions of the majority of medical professionals. When there IS evidence, that that will be reported. Herd of Swine 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying because people don't know anything, it's ok to characterize scientific opinion as fact, because that's all that is known. Since nothing is known, and no formal evidence-based-medicine scientific studies have been conducted, how about a nice empty page with just the relevant links to articles and news-stories and http://morgellons.org http://thenmo.org http://morgellonsusa.com http://morgellons.eu http://silentsuperbug.com , and all the zillions of other sites that have sprung up in response to this "delusion" such as http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy . You can even throw in morgellonswatch.com to be "fair and balanced." Nielsp 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So if this were a medieval wikipedia article on "the earth is flat" you'd start out saying "most people believe the earth is flat. More importantly the church thinks the earth is flat. Some heretics think the earth is round but this thinking is clearly either the work of the devil or a delusion. These people need to be persecuted and denied the essentials for living." Nielsp 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

People in the Middle Ages didn't think the earth was flat. People have known the earth was round since ancient times. Stop spreading nonsense and chronological hate speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Morgellons, aka Unexplained dermopathy is listed under "Diseases & Conditions" - http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy -- not under delusions:

• Diseases & Conditions AZ Index

o Molluscum Contagiosum; Monkeypox; Monkeypox Vaccination; Morgellons; Mosquito-borne Diseases; Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries; MRSA (Methicillin ... + http://www.cdc.gov/DiseasesConditions/az/M.html Nielsp 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons Comes with Nanoprobes and Arrays

I am with Niels on this. The way you obviously slant your definitions in the explanation of this affliction should be a cause of great concern for everyone. It should open everyone's eyes to how media is being used to manipulate and steer perception. Tell the lie long enough, or is this 1984 revisited? I believe your site is "covert and owned" by the powers that be, that are trying to keep a tight lid on this horrid horrid affliction. You should all be ashamed - terribly ashamed for your stance taken. The many articles and images that have been accumulated on the www.rense.com site are being sequestered and if you can post morgwatch here, a powers that be sponsored debunking site to discredit us, I feel you should also list the Rense site as they are not publishing OPINIONS, as morgwatch is so blahtantly doing. Those images are real, not altered, doctored, or a delusion...... Morgellons sufferers demonstrate nanoprobes, nanoarrays, chimeric organisms, novel "fluorescent tatoos" that are in a variety of colors and patterns.....this was not "conjured" by some poor delusional person's imagination. This was manufactured and inflicted upon a very large number of the population worldwide. I am not shocked that your position is as such because you are cowards. If you weren't AFRAID of the powers that be (covert worldwide affiliations) you would allow Rense information to be viewed here....to DEBUNK the debunkers and allow a FAIR and BALANCED gathering of information pertaining to what we DO KNOW about this affliction. I will be happy to see you not so obvious in your obvious "slandering, insinuating, and misleading" remarks about this subject. How can you consider yourself and online encyclopedia that is legit and fair when you stomp on the FREEDOM of SPEECH of the actual individuals suffering from this bizarre affliction? I pray day and night without ceasing that all of you perpetrators involved or associated with this "in your face" cover-up are exposed, brought to justice, and humiliated in front of the world, as we have had to endure for years. Publish the Rense page link to Morgellons Data. Thank you,

Maggiemae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.212 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2007

No. But thanks for stopping by. Thatcher131 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I copied the following from Thatcher's sandbox because I don't think that Ward's comments were ever addressed. The information that Herd mentions above also makes it clear that the MRF is not the only ones who believe that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease. I think that the lead should be revised to reflect this Pez1103 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions about the following text in the lead.

"A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis[3][4] and believe any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing.[5]"

I can not find where the second word "majority" is coming from as I do not find that in cite [3] or (5), I do not have access to (4).

The text, "and believe any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing.[5]" needs to be reworded, tagged [citation needed], or deleted because as it is written it is not verifiable to the cite. The cite quotes one dermatologist Dr. Levine, "He says he has studied the fibers his patients bring in by the bag-load and they are textile in nature." Although there does seem to be a few dermatologists that say similar things in various cites, it seems a stretch to use this cite to say a majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe this.Ward20 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the "majority of health professionals" talk.[48] Unless reference (4)[49] says the same thing I think this source[50] should also be cited for the text above because it is the most recent.

I also found, "dermatologists say they are simply fibers from clothing, embedded in self-imposed sores."[51] which seems to be closest to the present article text.Ward20 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "majority" is a summary of several sources, and has been discussed before, and, I thought, agreed upon. See: [52], "Most doctors do not recognize Morgellons as a disease", [53] "Most doctors don't even believe it exists because the symptoms don’t fit anything listed in medical textbooks", [54] "most doctors don't acknowledge it as a real disease", [55],"most doctors believe the painful illness, called Morgellons Disease, is psychological", [56] "Most doctors interviewed dismiss alleged evidence that medical science has overlooked what patients are calling “Morgellons’ disease” and insist that the patients are delusional", [57] "most doctors believe Morgellons is not in the skin, but in the head." It could be changed to "most doctors", if you think that's better. The text of fibers being clothing is also a synthesis of MANY sources, with just one reference being given for clarity. I think perhaps you misunderstand the way articles are constructed. The intent is not to quote something, and then cite it. Where facts are not in dispute (i.e., there are many sources that say one thing, and no sources that say otherwise), then it's fine to simply describe what the situation is in your own words. Not the article is not saying that is IS delusions, or that it IS clothing fiber, it is simply saying what most medical professionals say about the subject. Herd of Swine 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) You're right, it was discussed before. I missed it. That was in the second post which I neglected to indent, sorry. The words "most doctors" are more accurate to the news articles you cited. The wording here is in dispute. This text is quite different than text produced by the Mayo Clinic,[58] "Some health professionals believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by another condition, often mental illness." The text used should be cited to show what source or sources are being relied upon. Readers and future editors will will then be able to easier judge the text quality. As to fibers, I can find sources that say dermatologists, or individual dermatologists say the fibers are textile or clothing. Others hypothesize the fibers are not textile or clothing.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [59][60][61] I can not find a source that says most doctors say the fibers are textile or clothing which is how I interpret the present text in the article. How about this, Most doctors, and dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.[3][4][62] Dermatologists say any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing,[63] but preliminary studies by MRF associates lead them to hypothesize fibers from Morgellons patients are not from textiles or clothing.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [64][65][66]" Or: Dermatologists say any fibers found are from textiles such as clothing,[67] but preliminary studies by MRF associates lead them to hypothesize the dermatologists are not correct.[Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [68][69][70]" Or: The fibers found from Morgellons patients are in dispute as to their origin.[71][Stricker RB, Savely VR, Zaltsman A, Citovsky V (2007) Contribution of Agrobacterium to morgellons disease] [72][73][74] The more I work with the fibers issue, the more I think it may be too complex to put in the lead and should be left to the body to explain. Ward20 08:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While we are on the lead, could someone with access, please tell me how reference (4) relates to the statement, A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis[3][4][1] Thanks. Ward20 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From [4] [2]: Morgellons’s disease is largely regarded in the dermatology literature as a manifestation of delusions of parasitosis (and potentially a means of promoting patient rapport through destigmatization), despite the efforts of the Morgellons Research Foundation to promulgate an infectious rather than a neuropsychiatric etiology." (Note, most definition of DP actually include other known medical conditions, in the form of secondary DP, so saying it is DP is not the same as saying it is entirely psychological)Herd of Swine 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Swine, thank you for the info and the article.Ward20 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

why are you people even discussing "the lead" as if you're going to accidentally expose a hideous truth

that you're attempting to hide through "morgellons-watch" style screed that has no place in wikipedia?

There's no discussion about what should be the lead... it's not some idiotic historical crap about a mom and her kid ... this sounds like a fairy tale, like back when the day when george bush (imitating his idol reagan) would tell us heartwarming tales about a mom and her dog... and feels just as disingenuous. Who cares about it's origins. It is a word that has entered into the english language. End of story. Now it's time to explore the word and create a framework for what that word means, which includes properly framing the controversy, and also framing the controversy in terms of it's costs to human life and suffering -- which is basically DENIAL OF TREATMENT by the majority of medicine, even though PATIENTS HAVE A RIGHT OF CARE THAT THEY'VE PAID FOR THROUGH THEIR HMO's AND MEDICAL PROVIDERS.

The lead, plain and simple, is this -- http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ -- and any information that can be attributed to this and only this. Delusional parasitosis and all the quack psychiatry represented in OPINION PAPERS by quacks like Drs. Koo/Murase/Koblenzer/etc are just that OPINIONS that DOP is Morgellons. They are wrong. Like I said, there's opinions by Dr. Shockley that blacks are inferior genetically. Why don't you add that to an article about people of color too?? The DOP-pushing papers are OPINIONS and there's COUNTER-OPINIONS to those OPINIONS that have been published as well, such as http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/11/24-b?etoc (the difference is that the DOP pushers have never actually helped the health of a true morgellons sufferer through their psychotropic nonsense... they've chemically-lobotomized their patients past the point of caring that they had nonhealing skin lesions. Meanwhile, Robert C. Bransfield, M.D., author of the article, being a Lyme practitioner, has probalby successfully diagnosed and treated the lyme-aspect of his morgellons patients, and has noticed a clinical improvement.)

And if the CDC/Kaiser study wasn't done by a lyme-denialist organization like kaiser, they might find clinical signs of improvements across all their morgellons patients by treating for Lyme. However, Kaiser does not recognize or treat chronic lyme (http://lyme.kaiserpapers.info ) and will only give long-term antibiotics to teenagers with acne.

What needs to be below the lead, is a full-run-down of the controversy. This includes a much more in depth discussion of the information found here: http://morgellonstreatmentsteps.com/Morgellons_Medical_informat.html

Talk about a "majority of health professionals" makes this sound like an advertisement for the latest big-pharma pushed drug... which is basically what the Morgellons=DOP viewpoint is about anyways. Have you conducted a poll of doctors, or are you going by the number of published reports by doctors that have a suprizing amount of "Zyprexa" schwag scattered all over their offices... along with a nice tan from the big-pharma funded conference they attended with their families in the carribean... There was once a majority opinion that the earth was flat too. What does a "majority" mean when there's so little medical understanding and even less clinical experience in treating Morgellons patients?

Otherwise, such "loose talk" of "majority opinion" from doctors that have never even seen or properly treated a Morgellons patient... sounds just like MorgellonsWatch, and not Wikipedia.

Nielsp 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please follow talk page guidelines. It is helpful to keep comments short, avoid writing in all-caps, and not make characterizations of content as idiotic and people as quacks. Also, you've mentioned so many issues at once that they couldn't possibly be covered in a single discussion thread. It would be more helpful if you presented only a single content issue at a time, allowing more focussed discussion and collaboration. I would suggest doing so in a new section... this one probably got off to a poor start. Sancho 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How can I possibly have a reasoned discussion when this page, as I've mentioned before, is seen by myself and many others as hate speech, pure and simple. Drop the hate speech. Drop the "it's not real" drop the "it's delusional" and we can begin to have the conversation you expect to have. Until then, don't expect me to sit quietly on the back of the bus and allow the status quo of civil rights violations against morgellons patients to continue -- aided by partial, politically-motivated, morgellonswatch-controlled page of lies such as this page. If you want civil discussion, then this Morgellons page needs to change to be "civil" towards Morgellons patients. Nielsp 09:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Nielsp brings up a lot of valid points. The article is still heavily weighted with opinions and assumptions. I've said from day one that I don't believe that the treatment section belongs in this article at all since there is no real treatment for Morgellons, just treatment for DOP and lyme, and the article already mentions these possible connections in the theory section. The justification for the treatment section is that other diseases have treatment sections -- but this disease is unique because it is not yet recognized. The treatment section still implies that DOP treatment is an effective way to treat morgellons, when there is no proof of it. I also believe that this article should rely more on the CDC than any other source. Doctors have always lagged behind whenever there is a newly emerging disease. The fact that many aren't recognizing Morgellons as a new disease is pretty typical and meaningless and having the article state it over and over just makes it appear more biased, unless we add the qualifier such as "as with almost all new diseases, many doctors dismiss Morgellons as psychological." I also agree with Niels that the Mary story really doesn't belong or should be modified. Herd brought up at least two groups that predated Mary in identifying and studying the disease. Mary only gave the disease the "temporary label" of Morgellons. I think that the article needs to (1) eliminate the treatment section, and (2) change the lead to more closely follow the CDC page and the Mayo site. I think that there have been changes to make the article more neutral, but I don't think that we are there yet. Pez1103 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You want to rely on the CDC but all they have done is said they are going to study it. They have not produced a case definition or a differential diagnosis (a set of criteria that would distinguish Morgellons from other conditions, including DP). They have announced a plan to study biopsies and fibers but have not even formally awarded the contract to do so, much less published any findings. I'm not sure if you think there should be no article at all; you should review Mucoid plaque and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (second nomination). This is a medical condition that no reputable doctor thinks exists, yet it has attracted much popular interest and bogus claims (20,000 google hits). So Wikipedia has an article to present verifiable information from reliable sources that mucoid plaque is bogus. Morgellons actually fares much better as an article because, although there is little scientific evidence that it is a distinct entity, it has attracted a reasonable amount of commentary from both sides and now a CDC investigation. The treatment section is the best available information at this time. I would be more than happy for Savely, who apparently has hundreds of patients, to report a case-controlled double-blind trial of antibiotics. But he hasn't. Until then, we do the best we can with the information available.

I would be willing, for example, to state that antipsychotics do not work for all patients. However, to avoid the inference that this means the disease is not a form of DP, it would also be necessary to point out that antipsychotics also do not work for all patients with schizophrenia or other delusions. I would be willing to do this as well but it begins to drift into editorializing and I suspect it would be controversial among some editors here. Thatcher131 11:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that antibiotic treatment is held to a higher standard. There is no double bind study that shows that DOP meds work for Morgellons. If they are not the same (and there is no proof that DOP is Morgellons) then the effectiveness of DOP medicine to treat DOP is not really relevant to the article. The CDC does not give a case definition, but it does list symptoms of Morgellons, several of which are incompatible with DOP. I do think that the historical information about doctors traditionally dismissing new diseases as psychological is important to give perspective to the OPINION of these professionals if it must be included. I don't think that there should be a treatment section at all since there is no accepted treatment for Morgellons, just accepted treatment for DOP and contraversal treatment for lyme. I think it would be more appropriate for the article to rely on "see also" to these other articles for information about treatment. The way it is written now implies that DOP treatment works for Morgellons patients and there is no case study to prove it is effective for Morgellons. Pez1103 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons is a list of symptoms, with uncertain cause. There is no diagnostic criteria. People diagnose themselves (by all accounts). By far the most common diagnosis by actual doctors is DP, so that is what is treated. Even the Morgellons believer Dr. Wymore says [3] as many as 90% of self reported cases of Morgellons could be DP. Most doctors think that it's more like 100%, so the rather unusual treatment with antibiotics SHOULD be held to a higher standard. However, it's not, the majority DP theory is treated on a almost equal footing with the minority Lyme theory. Herd of Swine 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about this quote from Dr. Wymore? "Of the many thousands who have self-reported at the OSU web-based registration site we do not know whether 1% actually suffer from DOP or 90%."Ward20 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The problem with a treatment section is: treatment for what? What it boils down to is treatment for people who THINK they have Morgellons. Herd of Swine 16:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Treatment section discussion

Propose something like this, (rough draft) Currently, there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons, and medical professionals treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Most dermatologists treat with established dermatological treatment regimens including, lotions, topical medications, antipsychotics, and counseling, which is claimed to help symptoms. Some medical professionals treat with infectious disease treatment regimens including, antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy, and it is claimed symptoms subside. The efficacy of the various treatments for people who identify themselves as having Morgellons has not been documented in studies.Ward20 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should face that the literature indicates there are more medical professionals who believe the symptoms of Morgellons are caused by DP (and it is a range of estimates given by several sources). But, the literature also indicates there is more research (such as it is) that indicates Morgellons is not DP, and that the literature talks about much higher numbers of Morgellons patients treated for infectious disease than DP (but the total reported numbers are still tiny). We just have to deal with it honestly and factually.Ward20 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting, I think, that the current treatment section makes no claim of efficacy for antipsychotic treatment. It only notes, correctly, that because a majority of doctors believe Morg is a form of DP, that current medical practice is to treat it as DP. In fact, the only statement of efficacy is regarding antibiotics. I have no objection to adding emolients or other symptomatic relief, but using the word claimed for both antipsychotics and antibiotics puts them on the same footing, which is emphatically not the case. Thatcher131 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Since most Morgellons patients refuse to take antipsychotic drugs since they do not believe they are delusional, and since there is no evidence that these drugs are even effective for Morgellons, I don't think that they should have a "higher footing" than the antibiotics. It's difficult to argue that the current medical practice is to treat it with DP meds when the patients refuse to cooperate. Herd has mentioned supportboards before. If you read the hundreds of accounts on these boards, you will find people who are taking meds and responding to meds used to treat infectious disease. The very few references made to people trying antipsychotics have been to say that they have been of limited value. I know that these reports cannot be used in wiki, but the reality is that most people with the Morgellons are not treating it with DOP meds. 204.115.33.49 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Messageboards are self-selected and not representative. We have no idea how many people have gone to dermatologists thinking they had "Morgellons" who allowed themselves to be treated for DP and got better.

“ the reality is that most people with the Morgellons are not treating it with DOP meds. ”

This is actually a good point; it does not change the fact that the consensus conventional medical treatment is antipsychotics, and that alternative treatments are unproven. Thatcher131 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctors who prescribe antipsychotics are not treating Morgellons at all, they are treating DOP. These doctors do not believe that Morgellons exists so they don't even attempt to treat it. How does antipsychotic medication treat the systemic symptoms of Morgellons -- such as vision loss and neuropathy? 204.115.33.49 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with the medical establishment is not relevant to the question of how the medical establishment views Morgellons, including the establishment's view of treatment.

I think it's time to drag out Galileo again. Because Wikipedia requires reliance on reliable sources, and coverage of all significant views of a subject without undue weight given to minority views, Wikipedia will reflect the view of the establishment, and will lag, rather than lead, when the view of the establishment changes. If Wikipedia had existed in 1633, it would have reported the consensus view that the earth was the center of the universe, backed up by reliable sources of the Bible and Aristotle. If Wikipedia had covered heliocentrism at all, it would have been to mention that the Inquisition had recently placed a Florentine astronomer named Galileo under house arrest for promoting it. Fortunately no one will be arrested for challenging the establishment view of Morgellons. But Wikipedia must and will reflect the establishment view as such until the establishment view changes. Thatcher131 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The "consensus view" in this case is just a group of doctors (several of whom have a long standing policy of dismissing new illnesses as psychological) making assumptions and agreeing with one another regarding these assumptions. I think that Ward's suggestion was a nice NPOV compromise. 204.115.33.49 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not neutral to say that doctors "claim" success with antipsychotics and that others "claim" success with antibiotics. It would be better to leave out any claims with regard to suvess or failure and only note the various treatment methods. Thatcher131 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is from the CDC website on Morgellons. The CDC "does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition." I think that this should be part of the treatment section. How about we replace the treatment section with: The CDC does not endorse or recommend any specific treatments or medications for this condition. Medical professionals sometimes treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Those who believe that Morgellons is a manifestation of DP, attempt to treat the condition with antipsychotics. . Others, who believe that the disease is caused by an infectious agent, treat the condition with infectious disease treatment regimens which may include antibiotics, anti-parasitic, and/or antifungal drugs. The efficacy of the various treatments for people who identify themselves as having Morgellons has not been documented in studies.204.115.33.49 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The way you write that suggests that many doctors think DP is the underlying condition behind all the symptoms listed under Morgellons. This is characterization that the MRF is continually pushing: that it's either purely psychological, or it's a real disease. That's a false dichotomy. There's a fundamental problem with language here that I've struggled with for a while. The root cause of the problem is how people use the word "Morgellons". Many people use "Morgellons" in the sense of "Morgellons (a new disease)", when the more accurate sense is "Morgellons (a long list of symptoms)". Taking the second (more accurate) sense, your suggestion becomes: "Medical professionals sometimes treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing these symptoms. Those who believe that these symptoms are a manifestation of DP, attempt to treat the condition with antipsychotics. Others, who believe that the symptoms are caused by an infectious agent, treat the condition with infectious disease treatment regimens which may include antibiotics, anti-parasitic, and/or antifungal drugs. The efficacy of the various treatments for people who identify themselves as having some symptoms on the list has not been documented in studies." Herd of Swine 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You failed to provide the context for your quote.

“ Is CDC aware that some web sites claim they have products that will treat/cure this condition?

Yes. We are aware of some web sites that make these claims, including some that imply CDC support of their products. CDC can not validate the information or product claims of those web sites and does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition.

”

It looks like they are refuting misleading claims made by some websites. Also,

“ Persons who believe they may suffer from this condition should contact a healthcare provider for evaluation and medical care. CDC is not a clinical facility and does not provide clinical care or consultation to patients. ”

None of this overrules or invalidates the premise that Most dermatologists deny the disease exists, saying the people who claim to suffer from it have either common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis. Thatcher131 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• It may be possible to make the distinction Herd of Swine suggests but it will be hard to do based on the sources without relying on original research (looking at evidence to make a new argument). Certainly it will be hard to do as long as some editors remain as contentious as they have been. Thatcher131 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research here.

Currently, there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons[4], and medical professionals treat what they believe are underlying conditions causing the symptoms of Morgellons. Most dermatologists use established dermatological treatment regimens including emollients, anti-psychotics, and counseling. (I believe there is one out there with this treatment that speaks directly to Morgellons, but I can not find it right now). Some medical professionals use infectious disease treatment regimens including, antibiotics, anti-parasitic, antifungal drugs, herbal supplements and even light therapy.[5] The CDC, "does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition." [6]Ward20 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For Morgellons emollients, and anti-psychotics[7]Ward20 23:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to be wise not to go into depth in the treatment section. Delusional Parasitosis[8],"Psychopharmacology: The treatment is carried out by use of antipsychotic agents. According to the research literature - which lacks major studies - the highly potent, by no means ‘mild’, antipsychotic Pimozide is used most frequently. Considering the psychopharmacological mechanisms of effect, preferred use of this agent prescribed at a dosage of 1–12 mg/d is incomprehensible; specific side effects (early dyskinesia, parkinsonoid) must be considered [Driscoll et al., 1993]. Besides, case studies on treatment with other antipsychotics exist (Triflupromazin, Chlorpromazin, Haloperidol – Srinivasan et al. [1994]; Sulpirid – Takahashi et al. [2003]; Risperidone – Elmer [2000]; Olanzapine – Freudenmann [2003]). Even if treated with antipsychotics, prognosis of delusional disorders is often difficult; the assertion that a complete remission of symptoms – while receiving antipsychotics – can be obtained in about 54%, seems to be rather optimistic [Bhatia et al., 2000]. After discontinuation of the medication, relapses are frequent. Therefore, it is especially important to keep in touch with the patient and to plan the treatment as a longterm measure from the start."Ward20 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So Hillert perfers risperidone and olanzapine, and treatment is often difficult. Does this mean this is not the standard treatment at this time for DP? Of course not. You do realize that Hillert also says As with other psychotic disorders it can be assumed that delusional parasitosis is affected by current models of possible threats of the skin held in society." Hence the apparent rise in incidence after the publicity campaign, attribution to toxic chemicals, and the attribution by some to shadowy government groups distributing nanobots from chemtrails. Thatcher131 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ward's suggested language is NPOV and works. What I took from the comment that Ward made is that maybe dermatologists diagnosing DP (rather than a psychiatrist) and treating Morgellons with drugs with very serious side effects is somewhat risky, even if it is what many of them attempt to do right now. Pez1103 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that involving a psychiatrist in the care of the patient is recommended in the DP literature; I can't help it if some Morgellons patients have had other experiences. And if you want to say that dermatologists should involve a psychiatrist when diagnosing DP that's ok with me. The significant problem comes from treating the conventional and alternative treatments with language suggesting that they are equally credible, when they are not (see below), and the CDC quote is completely misleading, also as discussed below. There may be a way to provide additional information without being misleading. Thatcher131 01:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I will go a long way toward trying to make opposing editors happy through compromise, but I am starting to get frustrated.

First, Ward argues that we can not say that antipsychotics are the standard treatment for Morgellons because the doctors who use them are treating DP and there are no studies on antipyschotics specifically for Morgellons. Of course this is silly because doctors don't treat diseases, they treat patients, and if doctors believe that a person who presents with self-diagnosed Morgellons actually has DP, then treatment for DP will be medically appropriate.

Then Ward argues that the CDC does not endorse any treatment. This is true, but it ignores the context offered on the very same page of the CDC website. First, the CDC is not a consulting service and does not provide patient counseling on any course of treatment, and second the CDC is specifically disclaiming certain web sites that claim CDC endorsement. The CDC is not saying there is no treatment, they are saying talk to your doctor.

Now Ward has decided that it is ok to talk about treating Morgellons as DP because he has found a negative reference to treatment of DP with antipsychotic drugs. Yes, Dr. Hillert and colleagues think a 54% success rate is optomistic, and prefer risperidone and olanzapine to pimozide. But Hillert never says DP should not be treated with antipsychotics, and obviously if he thinks 54% is optomistic then someone else must have published that 54% is attainable. (here it is; PMID 10900563) Checking through reports of case series I see a range for remission or significant improvement from 25% to 75%. PMID 8559947 is an analysis of 1223 cases with 50% success rate in the post-psychopharmacologic era.

I believe that Ward20's editing is driven by a desire to downplay and dismiss the use of antipsychotics. That agenda does not fit with Wikipedia's core principles of Neutral point of view, avoiding undue weight for minority opinion, and verifiability. Dr. Hillert's comments on psychopharmacology for DP would be appropriate maybe for the article delusional parasitosis, as long as it is balanced by other more optimistic views. But a long discussion of how psychopharmacology does not always work for DP is inappropriate for the Morgellons article because it is impossible to have a similarly detailed discussion of other therapies, because the people practicing those therapies have not disclosed any details. In PMID 10900563 the author reports on 52 consecutive cases he saw in his practice, gives details of treatment method and success rate. No similar details are forthcoming from Savely's practice. How many patients has she treated with antibiotics? How many with antifungals and herbal supplments? How many showed improvement? Does she treat all patients or only a subset meeting other diagnostic criteria? We know nothing. We do not even know which antibiotics, antifungals and herbals she uses!! How many patients has Dr. Harvey treated, and what was the outcome? How many patients have been treated at OSU? What drugs, what doses, what regimens? We know nothing. We are told nothing except "It works."

You are lucky to get any coverage of antibiotic treatment at all under these conditions. Entering into a discussion about how some patients treated with antipsychotics improve and some do not; and some patients treated with the Savely cocktail (whatever it is) improve and some do not; implies that the evidence for the two treatments is equal in quality and that the outcomes are roughly equal. We know the evidence is by no means equal and we are ignorant of the outcomes of alternative methods. Thatcher131 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I probably need to think about this some more. I could consider an expanded section on conventional treatment that would cite a figure of 50% success with medication and mention the problem of side effects. The problem is that Ward20 would take us right back to argument #1, that since these were not specifically "Morgellons" patients, the studies are not relevant. Plus it would be hard to balance "50% success rate out of 1220 cases studied" against "the authors claim success but have not reported their dose regimen, treatment method, a case series, or other report that would allow independent review of their claim." Thatcher131 02:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• And also bearing in mind that we are a general encyclopedia, not a specialty medical reference, journal or textbook. Thatcher131 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Thatcher131 writes above. The current article reflects the literature very well, and in that sense is neutral. I though at first that the discussion of the choice of drugs for psychopharmalogical treatment of Morgellons as DP might better belong in the DP article, but on re-reading it and the sources, the relative merits are worth mentioning, especially in light of [9] "Pimozide at Least as Safe and Perhaps More Effective Than Olanzapine for Treatment of Morgellons Disease", which is quite specifically discussing patients who claim to have Morgellons. Herd of Swine 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I am frustrated too, so we are NPOV on that point.

Please let me argue my own case. I can do that. The article says," As the prevailing medical view of Morgellons is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis, conventional medical treatment for Morgellons is the same as that for delusional parasitosis." "The prevailing medical view", is not accurate. Using two (Mayo, Atlas) of the three (Mayo, Atlas, CDC) third sources available, the Nature magazine article, the MRF, and some news articles for the 1st most, Information from these sources estimate, Some to most health professionals, including many to most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.. The Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), a non-profit advocacy organization, and some health professionals believe Morgellons is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. "Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.". Therefore the words prevailing (syn. sweeping, universal) is wrong. The next part of the text that is not correct is conventional medical treatment. There is no "conventional medical treatment" for Morgellons patients. there is no accepted national standard for the diagnosis of Morgellons [10] and the cause of the condition is unknown. The treatment of Morgellons patients is experimental by definition. The present construct of the first sentence (which the first paragraph hinges on) is not verifiable and is original research, that an unknown majority of medical professionals believe Morgellons is a form of DP makes Morgellons treatment the same as (i.e. equal to) DP, and all or most DP literature can be used for Morgellons treatment. If this construct is verifiable and accurate, then forget the whole article and use the construct globally to say, "Refer to DP literature for any questions about Morgellons."

Concerning the CDC text: I stated, The CDC, "does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition.", not "the CDC does not endorse any treatment.". So I did not imply, CDC is saying there is no treatment. My statement was taken from this text, "Yes. We are aware of some web sites that make these claims, including some that imply CDC support of their products. CDC can not validate the information or product claims of those web sites and does not endorse or recommend any specific treatment or medications for this condition. Consumers should seek input from their healthcare providers before purchasing or using products (e.g., skin creams, pills, and other medications) or equipment that are marketed as treatments for this condition." I believe the statement is a global statement pertinent to the text I used it with.

I said, "I think it would be wise to be wise not to go into depth in the treatment section." (because it opens a bag of worms about DP drug side effects and efficacy which would be inappropriate for a Morgellons article,) which was exactly my point in quoting Dr. Hillert's article. I thought I made that clear, apparently not. That is why the text I posted in the article about treatment was brief.

Thatcher, you can believe what you want. I want the Morgellons article to deal with verifiable text about Morgellons, that's all.

Thatcher, addressing the last comment: the text that is being referred to, which I posted to the talk page was also discussed before, by me at length, on the talk page.[11]"[12]"several dozen Morgellons patients during the past six months" and "we do have medications [that can help] and, [13]"Texas nurse Ginger Savely treats some 125 patients, telling them, as she prepares experimental treatments, "You're signing up as a lab rat. Dr. William Harvey, a former medical director of the lab contracted to work for NASA, observes 70 patients complaining of Morgellons and finds that all carry a bacteria called Borrelia, which, possibly, tampers with the entire immune system. He treats patients with antibiotics -- Rocephin or Zithromax -- and almost always, symptoms subside. Yes I thought 200 patients on antibiotics verses several dozen on antipsychotics was very generous, and the wording I used seemed approximately equal and NPOV. But you objected to that version on the talk page, so I took out the wording you objected to then (and are objecting to now), before I put it in the article. So I am not sure why it is an issue.

As a point of courtesy, I ask that others not jump in here to answer for Thatcher, this has happened before and usually sidetracks the discussion and makes the issues harder to address.Ward20 07:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct error, change sources to article in 3rd paragraph aboveWard20 08:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not answering for Thatcher here, this page is for general discussion, if you want to have an exclusive conversation with someone, then conduct it via their talk pages, or via email. You raise issues about the Morgellons article, and any editor may comment on those issues.

We have a fundamental problem here, in that Morgellons is only a list of symptoms. So treatment of "Morgellons" as such will classify a case as Morgellons, and treatment of Delusional Parasitosis (DP) will classify it as DP, and hence they are not treating Morgellons. But since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing. You argue that antibiotics are for treating Morgellons, and antipsychotics are for treating DP, but they are both treating the same symptoms.

While it's quite true that Stricker and Savely (MRF Board members, authors of the original Morgellons paper) have treated hundreds of people who think they have Morgellons with various drug cocktails, it is also true that thousands of dermatologists see patients with similar symptoms all the time, but, key to this point, they do not call it Morgellons. See: [14] for a representative collection of dermatologists opinions. Levine has seen 100 patients, and says they respond well to Pimozide [15], Lynch has seen 75 and says "80 percent of patients with delusions of parasites respond to psychotropic medication". That's just two examples, but paper after paper on treating these symptoms discusses using Psychotropic medication, and virtually none discuss antibiotics. Herd of Swine 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Swine said, :"But since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing.", and "but they are both treating the same symptoms." That is your opinion, not verifiable, is original research, and still does not mean Morgellons Patients and DP patients have the same illness, because "the cause of Morgellons is unknown", and "further research will be needed to help resolve the validity of Morgellons disease. Until then, whether Morgellons disease is another name for delusional parasitosis or a real disease entity with a biologic or physiologic basis will remain up in the air.",. Herd of Swine also said, "thousands of dermatologists see patients with similar symptoms all the time," is verifiable, and still does not mean Morgellons Patients and DP patients have the same illness. Your other arguments are based on your hypothesis that, "since they are treating the same symptoms, it's the same thing," which research (such as it is) refutes, and CDC, and Atlas of Human Parasitology says is not proven.Ward20 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about a disease that isn't recognized, that had no established case definition, that cannot be definitively diagnosed, the cause of which is unknown.... having a treatment section at all doesn't really make sense. This article has been around for a very long time and there was never a treatment section before. The CDC does not recommend any treatment -- presumably because they have not yet investigated the disease and are currently without sufficient information to determine treatment. BTW - Most of the comments attributed to Ward above were made by me. 204.115.33.49 16:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Me who? 204.115.33.49, are you Pez or some other user? If not could you sign in, as you are using a shared IP. Anyway, the literature discusses treatment, so that's reflected in the article. Herd of Swine 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Above, the underlying assumption, and underlying misdiagnosis is that Morgellons==DOP. And you're backing up this OPINION by stating that the majority of medicine is publishing opinions attempting to backup their status-quo attempts that have already misdiagnosed and mismedicated a large number of patients... none of the patients were actually enrolled in any kind of study by the authors. It's more of an ass-covering than any kind of answer as to why such a disease has suddenly caught everybody else's attention including the drug-pushing author's ... Bottom line is that there is no medical basis by which to correctly establish whether a patient as "Morgellons" or "DOP" today, as such complaints and symptoms are outside the vocabulary of modern dermatology, "DOP" is the default midiagnosis for the usual 15-minute-doc-in-a-box visit. In comparison, an initial visit at an LLMD often takes one-two hours, and results in diagnoses such as my own "Lyme dz/Morgellons type" ... WHAT OF the dissenting voices, that keep saying the same thing? What of the Wymore's and Citofsky's and Schwartz's and many-LLMS's?? FYI, ILADS is only major medical group recognizing Morgellons having published two articles on the subject, latest being http://www.ilads.org/publications_bransfield_06_2007.html . Why is information like this ignored, when it too is published and supported by a "majority" of lyme doctors?? But of course, really what you're all getting at is Lyme-denialism here, because of course, that allows the medical abuse of sick people, fed by HATEFUL QUACK-PSYCHIATRY-BASED LIES as found in the current morgellons page or sites like morgellons-watch. In the Lyme world, the damage caused by such wrongheadedness is clear: http://www.ilads.org/sherr6.html (Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy and Lyme disease: medical misogyny or diagnostic mystery? ((Virginia T. Sherr, M.D. Medical Hypotheses. 2005;65(5):440–447, May 27, 2005.))... and bottom line here is that Morgellons is the ugly-head of Lyme-disease, now raised in the form of distinctive nonhealing&scarring lesions that no ordinary doctor could possibly claim is "all in the head" . Yet, as with Lyme disease itself ( http://www.openeyepictures.com/underourskin/ ), the public information is skewed to not recognize Lyme disease and/or the associated microfiliaria of Morgellons, and to instead jump to an entirely different and wrong conclusion. Howcome you're not willing to even answer or mention Dr. Bransfield's viewpoint, or the fact that the Lyme association with Morgellons is common knowledge among LLMDS, since they're on the front lines treating the emerging epidemic and they talk to each other and share information on appropriate medications. Further skeptics should read http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207001958/fulltext, in response to Dr. Koblenzer's delusions-of-psychiatry http://www.physics.smu.edu/%7Epseudo/MorgellonsCommentary.pdf ). Also http://www.cherokeechas.com/gregs.htm http://www.thenmo.org/RWud0607.pdf .... psychiatric diagnoses are misdiagnoses if they miss an underlying disease-cause of the disorder. Lyme is widely known to produce psychiatric issues, and Dr. Bransfield knows this area well. In the "Psychology today" article it says ( http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070227-000003&page=3 ): "New Jersey psychiatrist Robert Bransfield, who has a number of Morgellons patients, agrees. "They don't start out difficult to deal with," he says. "But when it progresses, it can result in quite extreme paranoia, even delusions." Others have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, ADHD, autism, and even atypical Parkinson's as a result of their personality change." In other articles, he talks of the mental deterioration caused by Lyme disease ( http://www.canlyme.com/cog.html )... again... this is happening also in Morgellons patients and the underlying disease -- Lyme -- is being missed. DOP is a misdiagnosis here... to claim otherwise is like claiming the earth is flat even after viewing pictures of it from space... Nielsp 07:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between belief and information that can be verified using reliable sources according to Wikipedia policy. Thatcher131 11:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The three opinion pieces from the derms in the treatment section are not verified, nor are they anymore reliable than the articles that Nielsp sites above. I think that the treatment section should go and the lead needs to be modified because it is inaccurate to imply that the MRF is the only ones who believe that morgellons is new disease. The statement that most doctors believe that Morgellons is DOP is not verified either -- it's just an opinion. No one has actually surveyed the doctors and determined exactly how many believe it. Pez1103 11:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Harvey letter is cited. Stuff on advocacy web sites is almost never considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies, the MRF is only allowed to be cited here to be able to accurately report their position on the condition they named. Only MRF-associated doctors have published pro-morgellons articles in the medical literature. Remember that "neutral point of view" does not mean reporting all sides equally, it means reporting all significant views that are verifiable using reliable sources and without giving undue weight to minority views. The idea that there should be no treatment section because "no one knows what Morgellons is, so no one knows how to treat it" is very definitely a minority view. I don't know how Drs. Stricker and Harvey are spending their time, but if they want real mainstream support for their ideas, they should publish some actual research conducted according to rigorous scientific standards, not just opinion articles and unsupported assertions. Thatcher131 11:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement that most doctors believe that Morgellons is DOP is not verified either -- it's just an opinion. No one has actually surveyed the doctors and determined exactly how many believe it. (1) Check the coverage in medical textbooks and the medical literature. Not just the main letters that come up on a keyword search for Morgellons but other recent articles on DP (PMID 17671278). If more doctors beleived in it they would be writing, researching and publishing it. (2) The Psych today and Nature Med articles say "a majority believe..." and we can quote those as reliable sources; the alternative is your personal opinion. (3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thatcher131 11:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority view (that the psychological symptoms of Morgellons are similar to DP) is very well documented in highly authoritative sources, and there is no suggestion that this is not the majority view. Even members of the MRF accept this is the majority view, as their most common complaint is that people who self-identify as having Morgellons are usually diagnosed with DP.

Just because the Wikipedia article is describing the majority view, it does not somehow meant the article is endorsing that view, or claiming it is correct. For example: an article on God might report that most doctors believe in God. That does not mean the article is saying God exists. It is simply reporting the various viewpoints, and their distribution. Herd of Swine 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This notion of "majority opinion" is ridiculous. If this were cancer, what you're doing is akin to asking a GP to diagose and cure a rare form of cancer -- it's ridiculous -- that's what oncology is for. Among Lyme doctors, and overall within the membership of http://ilads.org , (which is not an advocacy group, it's a professional medical specialty society.) the majority of doctors will recognize morgellons as a symptom or coinfection of Lyme disease, and if Lyme is diagnosed, would treat appropriately. The issue is that mainstream medicine is ignoring http://ilads.org and putting forward a view that Lyme is "hard to catch/easy to cure" ... So issues w/ morgellons won't even begin to get solved until issues like Connecticut attorney-general Blumenthal's anti-trust/corruption suit against the IDSA for their Lyme recommendations adopted by the medical mainstream and the CDC. Most Lyme doctors recognize morgellons (some say "10% of Lyme patients have morgellons") whereas most GP's wouldn't know Lyme if a tick bit them in the ass. So how are they, or even worse, the glorified cosmeticians in dermatology, going to be able to diagnose or treat morgellons if they can't even recognize the other 90% if lyme patients? And by ignoring Lyme, they're ignoring precisely the etiology that is leading to their DOP misdiagnosis. As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Bransfield knows this area well. In the "Psychology today" article it says ( http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070227-000003&page=3 ): "New Jersey psychiatrist Robert Bransfield, who has a number of Morgellons patients, agrees. "They don't start out difficult to deal with," he says. "But when it progresses, it can result in quite extreme paranoia, even delusions." Others have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, ADHD, autism, and even atypical Parkinson's as a result of their personality change." In other articles, he talks of the mental deterioration caused by Lyme disease ( http://www.canlyme.com/cog.html ) Nielsp 23:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV treatment section

NPOV "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." [16]

The present wording of the treatment section does not comply with this guideline. The statement, "conventional medical treatment for Morgellons is the same as that for delusional parasitosis." is an opinion, and the wording "Conventional medical treatment" infers a bias of correctness to DP treatment of Morgellons. "Alternative medical treatments" (this particular wording has a negative bias in itself) associated with infectious process treatment infers a bias of inferiority.

It should be enough to say, "Most dermatologists treat Morgellons as if it is a form of delusional parasitosis"..... Etc. Literature supports that most dermatologists treat Morgellons but not most medical professionals. Dermatologists are the doctors most Morgellons patients consult due to the skin condition.[17]"Because skin symptoms are often the most visible aspect of this disease, dermatologists are usually the first to be consulted. Most have no doubt that what they're seeing is delusional parasitosis."

Then, "Some medical professionals treat Morgellons as if there is an underlying infectious process..... Etc.

Most dermatologists treat verses Some medical professionals treat is the NPOV comparison that should be presented. The bias injected by "Conventional medical treatment" and "Alternative medical treatments is not an acceptable NPOV". Ward20 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Add "of Morgellons" for clarity.Ward20 17:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ward's changes above. I also had some concerns about "Other skin conditions" "In these cases, while there is still a delusional component (the fixation on bugs crawling under the skin, the production and collection of fibers, and self-mutilation), there is also an organic component that can be treated by conventional means." This is describing DP, not morgellons. The symptoms of Morgellons do NOT include fixation on bugs crawling on the skin. The CDC and the MRF definition only include the sensation of crawling, which can be caused by many things. Self mutilation is NOT a symptom of Morgellons. It is a symptom of DP. This whole section is biased and describes DP and assumes that DP and Morgellons are the same thing. 204.115.33.49 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the only publications in support of antibiotic treatment have been an opinion article by Savely Laieto and Stricker and a letter to the editor by Harvey, neither of which cited any data, I think the conventional vs. alternative is appropriate. There are approximately 10,000 dermatologists in the U.S. [18]. Even if 100 are willing to treat Morgellons with strong antibiotics, I don't think 1% would constitute as "some". Thatcher131 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does a book count as a publication? If so, then add this one to the list of books suggesting long-term antibiotics and antiparasitics: http://www.healingresearch.org/new.html "Lisa's Disease, Fiber Disease, Also known as Morgellon's disease: Origins, staging, clinical course, treatment, case histories, decontamination of house--much more !!!" "Finally!! The most complete and authoratative book about Morgellons, Lyme and other parasitic diseases. Global warming and increased pollution are creating a Northern movement of what were formally "tropical" diseases. New information, including effective medications, procedures that work and useful products!" Other books authored by Dr. Schwartz http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Practice-Emergency-Medicine-Schwartz/dp/081211373X http://www.amazon.com/Geriatric-Emergency-Medicine-Gideon-Bosker/dp/0801618088 Nielsp 23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and vanity press books sold only on the author's web site do not count as reliable sources. Thatcher131 02:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to 204.115.33.49, self-mutilation actually IS a symptom of Morgellons, it's listed on the MRF case definition [19] in the very first primary symptom as "self generated [skin lesions]". It's also quite clear from looking at photos of these Morgellons "lesions" (See 5th pic here: http://www.cherokeechas.com/CDC-px01.htm) that they are exactly the same as self generated neurotic excoriations [20]. The same comparison was made in the Nature Medicine article with side by side photos captioned "Skeptics say lesions in Morgellons disease (left) are similar to those caused by patients' neurotic scratching and picking" [21]. But it's not just skeptics who say it, the MRF says it. Herd of Swine 14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

user:Thatcher131 deleted this, claiming "advocacy"... how much harder can you keep your heads in the sand??

Please read this again more carefully, it is more than advocacy, it goes to the heart of the matter as to why morgellons was so rapidy declared "DOP" on the basis of doctors who don't even do a proper medical exam on their patients before misdiagnosing... Mainstream medicine is doing everything it can to not find any answers on this, and perpetuate a barbaric status quo that misdiagnoses and mistreats ALL morgellons patients. The bottom line here is that the Morgellons=DOP is the same camp that also says Chronic-Lyme=psychosomatic/post-lyme-syndrome ... and this is a longstanding schism in the medical community -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease_controversy , morgellons being a new arrival to the long list of disease first ridiculed, then grudgingly accepted by mainstream medicine.

ISN'T WIKIPEDIA ABOUT PRESENTING THE TRUTH?? -- this isn't an opinion poll. These are supposed to be enclyclopedic facts, true for all time. If there's a controversy, then all sides need to be presented, this even includes the nano-chemtrails-tinfoil hat crew... The diversity of opinion has you all cowering instead of searching. Why aren't you people even willing to talk specifics, as I am... waving your arms around and going "DOP" isn't convincing when you can run the tests I and others outline, and see anomalous results in a majority of morgellons patients given these specific and not oft-given tests. Oh, and a majority of Lyme doctors believe Morgellons is not DOP... listening to "regular doctors" for opinions on the cutting edge of a specialty -- lyme disease -- is as foolhardy as getting treatment diagnosis and treatment advice on cancer from a general practitioner. Nielsp 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving rant to subpage at Talk:Morgellons/Nielsp. It's a quote from somewhere, probably from "Nielsp", but it's not a reliable source in any sense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And... Wikipedia is NOT about presenting the truth. It's about presenting what is verifiable, true or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got a real epistemological connundrum on your hands there, pal. Might want to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "epistemological conundrum" if it's worded correctly: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

treatment of DP

Th psychology today article states: "Craft says that he, unlike many doctors, always examines these patients." I think that the current language which implies that derms always perform a thorough examination is inaccurate so I am changing this. According to Craft, this is not the norm Pez1103 12:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The literature on DP specifically talks about a thorough examination as do the two references specifically cited for that sentence. One doctor's opinion, especially in the context of a newspaper article where he is saying "I'm better than other doctors because..." does not outweigh that (and is not cited in that section). We should report what the medically agreed standard of care is, not individual opinions. (It is also true that some very vocal Morgellons patients say they have not been examined, but we don't know how many that really is, or how many were examined thoroughly but claim they weren't because they didn;t like the diagnosis. We should stick with the mainstream medical literature here rather than anecdotal personal experience. Thatcher131 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

treatment

I read the article that was cited. "Meanwhile, she says she is plagued by tiny dark specks and fibers that infest her house. She's paid for exterminators, taken antidepressants, bathed in Borax and spent hundreds on vitamins, garlic pills and other potential remedies." This doesn't support the existing language that sufferers "often" resort to dangerous remedies. There are many, many websites offering advice on morgellons treatment -- many are very safe and non toxic. I think that the existing language is not NPOV.

The other medical treatment section should be written to follow the DP section above it. Other medical practitioners treat Morgellons as an infectious disease.... The part about Morgellons sufferers not believing they are DP was already stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The same article also says: "Some people will biopsy themselves, or seek large quantities of antibiotics, herbal remedies, industrial bug killers and other expensive and potentially harmful treatments". Again though this is just a representative article. You know there are many more that discuss similar things, such as Koblenzer: "the patient will have resorted to the most extreme measures both to eradicate it and to prevent contagion.", or [22] "follows doctors' advice to bathe in bleach and vinegar baths" (no doctor is going to tell you to bathe in bleach). Or Dr Greg Smith, former medical director of the MRF, [23] "Many have lost faith in our medical care system and have turned to alternative medical care or self treatment. Descriptions of their self treatments are frightening. The treatments have included not just topical application but oral ingestion of insect sprays!". There are lots more similar references, but one will suffice, because it's not really something people dispute. Herd of Swine 19:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There are both safe and unsafe treatments. Use of words like "often" is biased because no one really knows how often a safe vs unsafe method is used. And the article only mentions those treatments which are harmful and not the others. It doesn't mention vitamins, herbs, salt baths, vinegar, dandruff shampoo, natural oils, etc. Pez1103 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

History section biased

The history section wastes significant space and diverts attention from reality by providing undue coverage to the ongoing government coverup and denial to Morgellons/Lyme:

"That same day the Los Angeles County Department of Health services issued a statement saying, "No credible medical or public health association has verified the existence or diagnosis of "Morgellons Disease", and "at this time there is no reason for individuals to panic over unsubstantiated reports of this disease".[13]"

In contrast, recent articles on Morgellons state the CDC's position as follows: http://www.ktvu.com/health/13810037/detail.html

UPDATED: 10:22 am PDT August 4, 2007

OAKLAND -- KTVU Channel 2 has learned the federal Centers for Disease Control has asked Kaiser Permanente to begin the nation’s first epidemiologic study of "Morgellons Disease," a mysterious ailment that the government terms an "unexplained and debilitating condition that has emerged as a public health concern."

...

The CDC for the first time publicly says Morgellons is "an emerging public health problem."

But of course, it would violate the egregious bias already presented in this wikipedia article to actually report fairly on the current understanding of the disease... why do that when there's at least a hundred years of psychological quackery that satisfy wikipedia's ridiculous (as practiced here) notions of verifiability, citability and credibility. Let's just ignore the fact that medicine and psychology/psychiatry have completely different standards, to the point where people call psychology and psychiatry "pseudo science". Let's just completely muddle the two and hope nobody notices, right?

Why not have a medical discussion based on proper evidence based medicine? Because of the incredible confusion you can bring to any subject, through handwaving such as "DOP" "delusional" and insisting on descriptions like "bug like crawling/biting" when very few morgellons patients even talk about bugs, and if they do, it's because of language limitations in discussing hard-to-describe symptoms, and not a delusion or hallucination...

This wikipedia article is biased. It embraces a cop-out of the medical mainstream that has proven its contribution to the morbidity and suffering for many patients, by increasing profits and denying coverage to patients who have a guaranteed right to medical treatment that they've paid for. By "psychologizing" and ignoring every new emerging condition, medical coverage can be avoided, through ongoing scientific and medical fraud. Even trivial medical issues today -- ulcers caused by helicobacter pylori -- were long thought to be caused by "stress" and not treated appropriately.

The existing "History" section is like explaining the Iraq war by showing the "bush mission accomplished" photo. Years later, the reality on the ground is clearly much different, and the current state of this wikipedia article will be as risible as that photo-op. But instead of actually paying attention to the voices crying that Morgellons is a real disease, you people are too busy counting how many DOP angels can dance on the head of a pin. You can find lots of reputably published articles that fit into the angel-pin-dancing that you're doing here with respect to citations and verifiability. Similarly you can find reputable, verifiable citable documents stating that thalidomide is good for unborn babies, that DES is good for unborn babies, that silicone breast implants are safe, that artificial transfats are "good" while natural fats are "bad", that AIDS is caused by drug abuse and the "gay lifestyle" and not by a virus, etc. It's just a matter of how foolish you intend to look in the future, as to your positions on morgellons today...

Nielsp 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NOT. Specifically, WP is not a soapbox (WP:SOAP), and WP is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL). Your comments are entirely out of place here on both counts. As it says in the guidelines: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Dyanega 04:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic changes to MRF case definition

There have been some odd changes today to the case definition [24] and the FAQ [25] at the Morgellons Research Foundation's web site [26]. Basically they now strongly suggests that Morgellons is caused by an infestation of horse worms (Onchocerca cervicalis) and various other similar "zoonotic filaria" and also other worm type parasites such as Onchocerciasis. They also say the fibers are manifestations of Actinomycosis. They claim to have unequivocable clinical evidence of this, based on "11,400 patient parameters" and "400 data points per patient" (which I'm thinking translates to 29 patients). They claim they will publish soon in a peer reviewed journal. They also see to suggest that CFS may have similar causes (see section 6 of the case definition). I'm thinking this should at least justify a new section under Proposed causes? My worry is: is it notable now? The sudden and unusual nature of the edits at the MRF site seem very out of keeping with the previous drift of the MRF members, who all seem to have proposed a Lyme based cause. It's frankly quite bizarre that they suddenly switched to parasitic horse worms. Maybe we should just wait a few days until things settle down? Pez and Ward - you both are associated with the MRF, can you throw any light on the subject? Herd of Swine 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate to note this, as the MRF web site would be considered a reliable source for what the MRF believes. Rather than create a separate section for the new theory it might be better to rearrange or reword things to say "doctors associated with the MRF have previously asserted...bacterial/Lyme; recently the MRF website was changed to claim that the MRF has clinical evidence of zoonotic infestations and states that a peer-reviewed clinical report is forthcoming." I wonder if the actinomycosis is a secondary opportunistic infection in a weakened or stressed person; it seems unlikely that both zoonotic parasitosis and actinomycosis are primary. Agree that we do not need to rush on this and that Pez and Ward's thoughts should be heard. Thatcher131 12:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

They actually removed a lot of it today. See [27] Herd of Swine 16:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then best leave it unsaid and rely on what has been published outside of the MRF's web site. Thatcher131 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But we should check the current article to see if there are any references to the MRF site that now need changing. Herd of Swine 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following from my supposed "rant" moved here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgellons/Nielsp
(4) According to Dr. George Schwartz, author of "Lisa's Disease, Fiber Disease, 
Also known as Morgellon's disease: Origins, staging, clinical course, treatment,
case histories, decontamination of house--much more" -- testing for microfiliaria
should be done via microscopic examination of a peripheral blood smear.
.
My own research indicates that "ONCHOCERCA VOLVULUS" and it's Blackfly vector may
be present in areas considered Morgellons endemic and may be a significant aspect
of morgellons etiology. In Florida, this is backed up by Trish Springstead, RN,
who appeared on a recent Florida News segment on "Body Bugs" (
http://www1.wsvn.com/features/articles/investigations/MI46364 ). In California,
Morgellons endemic areas such as Los Angeles county have had longstanding problems
with blackfly: http://www.lawestvector.org/black_flies.htm
.
Although it is repeatedly claimed that onchocerca volvulus is not found in the
USA, there are scattered reports in the medical literature indicating otherwise.
Furthermore, the presence of Morgellons in Blackfly endemic areas of the United
States, indicates that these claims need to be updated for the 21st century.
.
Thus in addition to standard peripheral blood smears for microfiliaria, blood
collection should occur through a "bloodless skin snip" as suggested by
http://www.mssushi.com/stuff/medschool/notes/micro/other/GKHelminths.doc .
That document also suggests "microfiliaria migrate through dermal lesions"
therefore the skin snip and blood collection should probably occur from a
morgellons lesion and not uninfected skin.
.
There is also a Lyme connection to Microfiliaria. After all Dr. Burgdorfer 
discovered borrelia by accident while investigating microfiliaria in ticks:
.
> A microfilaria of exceptional size from the ixodid tick, Ixodes dammini, from
> Shelter Island, New York Beaver, P. C.; Burgdorfer, W. 1984
>
> Journal of Parasitology 70(6): 963-966
>
> Thirty or more microfilariae 0.70-1.32 mm in length were recovered from the
> haemocoel of an unengorged adult tick, Ixodes dammini, that was collected from
> vegetation on Shelter Island, New York, USA. Among approximately 500 I. dammini
> collected from the same area only one other was similarly infected. Outstanding
> features, in addition to size, were absence of a cephalic space and the presence
> of nuclei in 2 or 3 irregular rows extending to the end of a bluntly rounded
> tail. The microfilariae apparently were ingested in a blood meal that was taken
> when the ticks were larvae or nymphs, and had persisted alive without
> development.
.
For more info, see http://lymebusters.proboards39.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=rash&thread=1186564783  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsp (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 

I want to be clear. I have no inside information concerning the MRF or what they do concerning their website and organization. I had never known or communicated with anyone from the MRF until a few weeks after I started editing this article. I contacted one person associated with the MRF at that time to verify a few points from sources by phone a few times. I also discussed with this person my personal experience concerning the medical community and emerging diseases. I have e-mailed (twice) one other person who is no longer associated with the MRF in order to clarify content of material that is available on the internet.

From previous knowledge, here are some sources that may or may not give some context to some of the new information from the MRF website. Herd of Swine may already be aware of this information, some may not. If you do, I hope I don't bore you too much. There is a huge overlap of symptoms between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Lyme disease, and many CFS patients test positive for Lyme. Some doctors believe there could be a direct connection.[28] Dr. Lawrence Klapow has been researching a roundworm (Cryptostrongylus pulmoni) for a number of years with a possible link to CFS.[29][30][31] To my knowledge, Dr. Klapow has never associated Cryptostrongylus pulmoni with Morgellons, but others have.[32][33]. The mention of colors is interesting, but the scale of size is off by several factors to Morgellons fibers compared with the organisms Dr. Klapow has found. There is a lot of conjecture here, and I only bring this up for informational purposes.

I think the removal from the MRF website of speculation on etiologies and information that will be submitted for future publication was wise on their part. As far as the article, there is still a lot of published material that needs to be discussed and refined. Ward20 07:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the changes to the MRF web site were removed yesterday, so I guess nothing needs to be reflected here. Still rather odd though. Herd of Swine 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not also remove speculation on etiologies from this wikipedia article? After all, it's a bunch of speculation from doctors that have never properly examined patients, but rather diagnosed DOP as a form of discrimination against the patient. They therefore have the motive to continue the ruse of DOP long after plenty of evidence indicates otherwise. That the delusions they speak of are also being seen by doctors, photographed by patients and doctors, and all look remarkably similar, should be a huge alarm-call that this is not DOP. Doctors who are treating patients w/ some success are saying "infective", and their opinions are being published, but you're still busy counting dop-angels-on-heads-of-pins. I'm sure there was plenty of published speculation among the flat earthers on how to get to the new world, but it was all nonsense. And so is most of the DOP talk in the literature. It is legal-ass-covering for doctors that have tortured many patients over the years and a medical system that doesn't want to recognize, acknowledge or pay for any new disease until at least a generation of patients lives' are destroyed in the process. ........ In this WP discussion, I notice a quick willingness to drop any talk of infectious etiology, and yet you all continue to waste time talking about DOP... Morgellons is not DOP... the CDC's Morgellons study is with "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED)"... they no longer list a DOP page on that site

Removed: Delusional Parasitosis | CDC Division of Parasitic Diseases
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/delusionalparasitosis/default.htm - 10k

how much more of a kick in the head do you need before you wake up??? Why would the CDC spend a bunch of taxpayer's money launching an investigation over a delusion? Such blatant bias in the face of reality is present among the majority of authors active here... Nielsp 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons ~ Agrobacterium ~ Monsanto Patents

I have not read all the letters on the topic of Morgellons on this page.

I have been researching the symptoms of Morgellons and certain "Auto immune" diseases because of the devastation to mine and others health here in Hawaii, of the sores, pain, fatique.

Three years ago I made up my mind that I was going to find out, before I died, what was the cause.

I had no agenda, religious or political, I just wanted to know what was killing me and my friends here and elsewhere.

What at one point seemed like a "No Brainer", lead me into an environmental disaster beyond my comprehension and a very deliberate action to misled the American public, allowing 100,000's to suffer and die a slow and excrutiating death.

There HAS been a major break-through with Morgellon patients, they have been found to have a GMO-Pharmicutical (Monsanto) patented material in their bodies, when their sores have been biopsied, Agrobacterium, has been used by the BioPharmicutical companies for 25-50 yrs. Look it up!

Monsanto has been raising corn and other crops here on Maui for 10+yrs. in secret, open field experiments, non-contained, supposedly creating Pharmicuticals. I think we have found the "Smoking Gun" OTC Now 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source. Thatcher131 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, perhaps; how does Agrobacterium, which is present in essentially all the soil on the planet and has been there since before humans evolved suddenly, in your opinion, qualify as a "patented material"? That's like saying that if Monsanto filed for a patent for navel lint, that its presence in your navel means that Monsanto PUT it there? Dyanega 07:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back through this talk page you will see assertions that Morgellons is late-stage Lyme disease, that it is caused by secret spraying of nanoprobes (chemtrails) and now Monsanto-engineered Agrobacterium. I'm sure you can see why articles must rely on reliable sources. Thatcher131 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for your info, agrobacterium aren't part of field tests. They are used to transform plant but once you have the transformed plants, you don't need the agrobacterium anymore Nil Einne 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But don't the transformed plants in the field (and their gametes) contain stably inserted agrobacterial DNA with a selectable antibiotic resistance marker? I read that only some antibiotics are successful at treating these symptoms - I'd be curious to compare that list to the common Agro-vector list before I completely wrote off the idea. As for the patent comment, the method of using agrobacterium as a transformation vector, and the various genetically modified vectors are patentable (it really is more complicated than navel lint). Dr d12 01:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the analogy holds; the point is that you couldn't distinguish patented navel lint from naturally-occurring navel lint. Just because Monsanto holds a patent for some specially-developed strain of Agrobacterium does not mean that all of the Agrobacterium in the world now belongs to Monsanto. There are patented strains of tomatoes, too - do you automatically assume that when you eat a tomato, it MUST be a patented one? Dyanega 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nanobot infection

I've been getting a lot of sources within the fringe matters/conspiracy theory circle claiming that this is caused by nanobots, and that analysis of the fibres and so on have given evidence toward this argument. Despite the unpopularity of this viewpoint I think it should at least be noted on the main page, because at the moment I can't find anything about it. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the article Mucoid plaque, which no reputable doctor believes is real, and which is characterized as a health care fraud. If there was absolutely no legitimate claim that Morgellons is a real phenomenon, it might get covered the same way mucoid plaque is, listing all the crackpot theories in order to discredit it. However, there are at least a few physicians who take Morgellons seriously as something other than a new and misleading name for delusional parasitosis, and the CDC has opened an investigation. So I think we have some responsibility to treat the subject with respect, and I just don't know how I would include the nanobot conspiracy in such an article. Thatcher131 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia doesn't really exist to discredit anything, and in my opinion the Mucoid plaque article IS definately biased toward that purpose and is not a good yardstick for other "unlikely theories". Nor does wikipedia exist to present information in a manner which is "respectful" to any party. That's the whole point of neutrality. I understand that if we added every crackpot theory that ever existed on a subject, then some pages would be so huge that they would overwhelm the servers, so that brings us down to the matter of notability. Is this theory notable enough to warrant inclusion. I would say that, naturopathic quacks and paranoid conspiracy theorists aside, there has been some very legitmate research projects taken on this particular subject, all of which have legitimate findings, even if their theories about those findings may not be conventional. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

None of them have "legitimate findings" as WP defines them (i.e., none of them are reliable sources). No one's personal opinion as an editor is relevant, and in this case it sounds like you are claiming that what makes these theories notable is that YOU think they are legitimate - but that is a matter of your personal opinion. What makes scientific theories notable is if the scientific community takes the time to discuss them, and give them "air time" - and they don't. That there are "sources within the fringe matters/conspiracy theory circle" discussing something does NOT make it notable. Dyanega 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I said that I think they are notable because of the research that has been done into it looks to me, in my opinion, to be notable, but that I think it should be discussed, because obviously other people might have different views. I don't know how you took that to mean that I think that my personal opinion on the matter should be considered final, but you can rest assured that was not my intention. I feel I should also point out that WP:RS is NOT policy, but a guideline, and in my experience generally descends into an argument about which sources are reliable and which are not. Also, neither is WP:Notability, which is also just a guideline, and which says nothing about "sources within the fringe matters/conspiracy theory circle" not making something notable - so your statement that those sources are not reliable/notable is actually a statement of your opinion more than anything else. Please refer to the section "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" for why I often disregard the guidelines in favor of gaining a consensus of opinion among editors on the talk page. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 06:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Playing around with the rules is fine on most topics, but NOT when the topic is as contentious and controversial as this one. When both sides of a debate are being accused of lying by the other side, the only viable approach is to force everyone to adhere to the rules as strictly as possible. As for your point about research, there has not BEEN any research done on nanobots - at least not by any normal definition of the word "research". That's why I said it was a matter of your opinion; what you are considering "research" is not what WP considers to be "research". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyanega (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

revision [34]

Question, are you talking about herbal supplements, and light therapy treatment, or am not seeing something else? Thanks.Ward20 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just reverted myself. It's all treatment for infection, whether or not plausibly efficatious. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

treatment for infectious disease

I don't agree with any of the changes Dyanega made (without any discussion on this page). There was no basis to take out "medical" before practitioner -- only medical practitioners can prescribe the meds outlined in the paragraph. This is disparaging of people with the disease and there is no basis for some of the comments. "Patients say that they have an infection" - I have spoken to hundreds of morgellons patients, I've never heard one say "I have an infection." Some say that they have lyme disease and seek treatment for their lyme disease -- is that what this is trying to say? Almost every single new disease was dismissed as psychological. If you had lupus 30 years ago, and you saw a doctor and he said that you were imagining your symptoms, what would you do? Would you say that you had an infection and seek out a practitioner who would treat your symptoms as product of an infectious process and specify what drugs that you wanted? Or would you just know that your symptoms weren't delusional and seek help. Some doctors are treating Morgellons with antifungals, antiparasitics and antibiotics. It is the doctors prescribing the meds -- yes, the patient may ignore the advice which says that the disease is delusional if they do not believe that they are delusional, but to go further and say that the patient says that it is an infectious process and to imply that the patient is determining the treatment is inaccurate and unsupported. Patients are seeking help for their symptoms, not specific drugs. The existing language is not NPOV.

I suggest this: People who believe they have Morgellons will frequently reject the diagnosis of delusional parasitosis[36] and, "report that their symptoms are not taken seriously."[2] Some medical practitioners will treat morgellons symptoms as a product of an infectious process, including the use of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications, herbal supplements, and light therapy. Physicians associated with the Morgellons Research Foundation have reported that some Morgellons patients who test positive for Lyme disease obtain symptom relief using aggressive, long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease. However, if the treatment is discontinued the symptoms return.[18][2][19] There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments. 72.231.188.136 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Say" is better than "believe". It is sourced (see citation 36) and NPOV, the word belief (synonym claim) casts doubt on the validity of their mindset (see WP:WTA), say is the correct word in this context)Ward20 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Treatment for Delusional Parasitosis section has text about examination in order to rule out other causes. The infectious disease citations also explain how patients are examined so I am going to include that in the Treatment for infectious disease section.Ward20 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people that I have spoken to go to naturopath physicians who recommend herbs and dietary changes. Many people are reporting success with this. Is there some way to incorporate this? Can self treatment be changed to "other treatment options" ? 204.115.33.45 13:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source for this information (as Wikipedia defines sources), you can merge it into "treatment for infectious disease" and retitle that section. I don't think it belongs in "self-treatment", which probably does deserve a separate subsection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, a new heading could possibly be made for Complementary and alternative medicine but any treatments mentioned should have reliable sources and be notable to Morgellons. It could be a slippery slope to include more controversial treatments without the right context. For example, the dental treatments make me cautious about (NCS).Ward20 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The text "There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments", has a few problems. It is not sourced, it is technically wrong, because peer reviewed studies of long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease have been done. There may be a study in a book or a foreign language for Morgellons symptoms by another name that has not been discovered for all anyone knows. This appears to to a statement from an editor that would be considered original research.[35]"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." Ward20 00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Ward20 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Following the principles outlined in WP:FRINGE, the absence of peer-reviewed rebuttals of a fringe theory should not be held forth as implicit support. If some celebrity were to make a statement that "Eating Roquefort cheese cured my warts", I find it hard to believe that a WP reference to this quote would be prohibited from indicating "There are no studies showing that Roquefort cheese cures warts" simply because there were no peer-reviewed studies of the effects of cheese on warts that could be cited. It's as simple as finding a single peer-reviewed study of the efficacy of one of these treatments for Morgellons; include the cite, and delete the statement. What's so hard to follow there? Dyanega 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that this actually falls under WP:FRINGE because the first sentence states, "This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia, and to an extent how those articles should approach their subjects." Then it states, "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible." These guidelines define Morgellons as mainstream as well as the treatments discussed for treating Morgellons.[36][37][38][39] I need some help with, "the absence of peer-reviewed rebuttals of a fringe theory should not be held forth as implicit support." I can not find where this is stated or paraphrased from in WP:FRINGE, maybe I am just not seeing it. In any case, I don't think removing a non verifiable statement is holding forth implicit support of any treatments we are discussing.

Using the Roquefort example: A WP:RS would have to publish that celebrity X stated, "Eating Roquefort cheese cured my warts" before it can be used in WP. A WP:RS also needs to publish, "There are no studies showing that Roquefort cheese cures warts" before it can be used in WP. Even if a WP editor conducted a "perfect" literature search to demonstrate that no studies showed Roquefort cheese cures warts, without a WP:RS the editor's statement, "There are no studies showing that Roquefort cheese cures warts" is still original research done by an editor, and not acceptable in WP. See, WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.", and also, WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The guideline states the burden of verifiability lies with the editor who added the material.

Besides these basic problems above with the text, "There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments.", I think the statement has other problems. As Dyanega has shown, it lacks the words "for Morgellons". There are peer-reviewed studies of treatments for antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications and chronic Lyme disease. It can be argued that "for Morgellons" is implied in the usage of the sentence, but if that is so then there is the problem of pejorative usage of the phrase. Most dermatologists hypothesize Morgellons is a manifestation of delusional parasitosis and treat accordingly. Some medical professionals hypothesize Morgellons is a manifestation of infectious disease and treat accordingly. The CDC, the Mayo text, and The 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology agree that the cause of Morgellons is unknown. If there are no peer reviewed studies of treatments of Morgellons, that applies equally to all treatments of patients labeled Morgellons. WP:NOPOV To apply the phrase only to treatment of infectious disease is biased. The other problem I have with the statement as written is that it is obsolete. Once a literature search is complete there could be a new study published the second after. So there needs to be text saying, as of this date, X published that no peer reviewed studies...

I am going into this detail in order to talk about a source I did find recently. As of June of 2006, an article in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE reported there have been no clinical studies (of patients labeled Morgellons).[40] To apply this in a NPOV text, I believe it should be added in History[41] right after the sentence, "The first scientific article to discuss Morgellons was co-authored by V. R. Savely, M. M. Leitao, and R. B. Stricker, members of the MRF, and was published July, 2006 by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.[2]", because it it used similarly in the source. And this text and source has some problems because some wording was changed to accommodate these studies, COLLEMBOLA (SPRINGTAILS) (ARTHROPODA: HEXAPODA: ENTOGNATHA) FOUND IN SCRAPINGS FROM INDIVIDUALS DIAGNOSED WITH DELUSORY PARASITOSIS[42], and (maybe), "Amin, O. M. 2004. On the diagnosis and management of neurocutaneous syndrome, a toxicity disorder from dental sealants. California Dental Association Journal 32 (9): 657-663." I am not arguing the quality of these studies and the exact relationship to Morgellons, but only point out that they exist and make the issue more complex.

Based on the above, I think the text, "There are no peer-reviewed studies of the efficacy of any of these treatments.", should be removed and, As of June of 2006, an article in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE reported there have been no clinical studies (of patients labeled Morgellons).[43] be added after the sentence, "The first scientific article to discuss Morgellons was co-authored by V. R. Savely, M. M. Leitao, and R. B. Stricker, members of the MRF, and was published July, 2006 by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.[2]".Ward20 22:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Ward20 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this new external link to Randy Wymore's project acceptable?

A brand-new anonymous editor recently added an external link to a project of Randy Wymore. Since I don't follow this page very closely, does this duplicate something already in the reference list? I didn't want to remove it without consulting first. EdJohnston 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist Article

This recentish (12 September 2007) article by a respected science magazine has probably greatly increased the number of people who have heard about Morgellons. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19526210.700-morgellons-disease-the-itch-that-wont-be-scratched.html)

The article has a lot of up to date information and interviews with scientists. However, you have to have a subscription to read it, therefore I'm not sure if it should be a link. The article raises a few points (not sure if these have been mentioned above), e.g. that the possible infection may eventually cause mental problems, therefore these may be real but secondary rather than primary. That some antibiotics but not others have had good results, suggesting that some specific pathogen, rather than the placebo effect, is at work. 141.5.194.4 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The New Scientist article has been mentioned on the talk page, but I am pretty sure there are no citations to it yet in WP Morgellons. There are already seveal citations to sources in WP Morgellons that have to be payed for or subscribed to, so that is not a problem. I would like to see some NPOV new editors inject some fresh ideas. We have been civil to each other for over a month now, hopefully it will continue, LOL.Ward20 02:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Onchocerciasis: Diagnosis and Treatment

Please consider this recent article for further diagnostic and treatment guidelines, either for morgellons itself, or as a differential diagnosis: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/509325

Title   	Recent Updates on Onchocerciasis: Diagnosis and Treatment
Author(s) 	Don N. Udall
Identifiers 	Clinical Infectious Diseases, volume 44 (2007), pages 53–60
DOI: 10.1086/509325
PubMed ID: 17143815

Copyright 	© 2007, the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Recent progress in onchocerciasis research has led to improved 
understanding of the immunopathology of Onchocerca volvulus, as well as 
improvements in diagnosis and treatment of this morbid disease. This 
article reviews the recent literature, highlighting breakthroughs in 
sensitive means of antigen testing and an unusual new approach to therapy 
that targets an endosymbiotic bacterium required for filarial worm  
fecundity.

In other words, co-administered antibiotics act as "birth control" for microfiliaria, reducing the overall parasite load. As such "tetracycline" class antibiotics, usually doxycycline, is suggested for co-administration with a microfiliaricide, usually ivermectin, fenbendazole, oxybendazole, moxidectin, levamisole, DEC, etc. I believe new WHO guidelines for treatment specifically recommend co-administering antibiotics. This corresponds to my own remission of symptoms when I'm on oxytetracycline (especially potent but not available for humans in USA -- but w/o a prescription as veterinary medicine), and tetracycline (which amazingly, i was able to sneak out of kaiser despite the tuskeegee experiment they've been attempting on me). Nielsp 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nielsp is NielsMayer, who was blocked. See here: [44] Herd of Swine 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sections

The last two sections were about the subject of the article, rather than leading to anything which might improve the article itself. I'd suggest moving them to another subpage, but I've already done that for this editors contributions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The last two sections are **THE** subject of the article. THey're also a strong indication that this entire wikipedia article on "Morgellons" is complete garbage and needs to be thrown out. Either that, or it should be recast as a historical page accurately capturing the peculiar beliefs of a bunch of scientific flat-earthers who go to amazing extremes to defend the indefensible position that morgellons is not a real infectious disease, but rather a form of delusion, or even worse, a form of internet delusion (ala "Koro" aka "Penis Panic"). In this wikipedia article, most everything needs to go -- medical malpractice is being preached in all sections confabulating this disease with delusional parasitosis, DOP, treatment with psychotropics, and the sections mocking patients desperate for treatment while having their basic human rights violated by doctors. I'd suggest moving the entire wikipedia article to /dev/null and start with a new page based on the appropriate name for this disease, which is "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")" as per http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/ .

Should a more psychologically oriented wikipedia page be needed, please consider the statement from Dr. Harvey:

...we are now certain it is NOT Delusions of Parasitosis. The latter in 
fact, will be the thrust of the paper: the DOP label has resulted in 
inappropriate and incomplete treatment of countless people who never 
recovered. Once the final DNA sequencing is done and the paper completed, 
it will be published with treatment protocol(s) for all clinicians world 
wide to use. Meanwhile, as both primary organisms create brain limbic 
system abnormalities, we now understand that the delusional component of 
the illness is real in many affected (but far from all), so correct 
psychotropic medication can help that component even if treated purely 
independently. Nearly half the Morgellons are bipolar, but became so AFTER 
the parasite infection began. Others have formal diagnoses of extreme OCD 
or ADD/ADHD. The prevalence in children is no different from adults, and 
there appear to be no gender or race differences.

In contrast, the current psychiatric-slant in this article is coming from people, all of whom are not trained psychologists or psychiatrists, who appear to be happily parroting terms used by psychiatrists, without any actual knowledge of what those terms or the treatment entails. Ridiculous clinging to very technical terms from people that aren't even willing to use their real names, or backup who they are with real credentials, and who are unwilling to disclose who they represent. How about finding another group to anonymously persecute through amateur couch-psychiatry?? There is a real suffering patient population here; your ongoing denialism, and the fact that you've all glommed onto wikipedia, forcibly slanted it towards the psychological and away from the medical, and are use this site as an organ to broadcast defamation&lies... is reprehensible. The current wikipedia Morgellons page is causing these patients suffering, and is ultimately libellous, discrimination-inducing hate-speech. Nielsp 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nielsp (t)

Since he was banned for being the sockpuppet of a banned user, should his contributions to this talk page be excised? (At least those which have had no comments by other editors....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally a thread that he started let to something informative, so I suggest you just box up the long rant-like passages using the show/hide templates {{hat}} and {{hab}}. You could also change the section headings he used to something more descriptive and less inflammatory. EdJohnston 15:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. His rants were extremely inflammatory, condescending, and violated a number of policies designed to keep the editing climate here civil. He even directly libelled named persons, which I removed. -- Fyslee / talk 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion of edit [45]

Citation 20 at the end of the paragraph [46] discusses all these treatments for Morgellons by Savely. If that is not sufficient, another key source is [47]"Stricker and other physicians are treating Morgellons patients with a combination of antibiotics and anti-parasitic and antifungal drugs." Then there are [48][49][50]. These are not the only citations for these therapies, just enough to illustrate they are being used by some medical professionals. The only therapy I could not find multiple sources for was the Savely light treatment, if that is not accurate to "some" I will remove light therapy until I find another source.Ward20 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: Citation 20 states: "Savely has developed several cocktails of antibiotics, antifungal, antiparasitic medications, and herbal supplements. She has even tried light therapy (Savely & Leitao, 2005)"; the next one, as you note, refers only to Stricker and Savely. The remaining three citations are as follows: [51] states only that a Morgellons patient "has been taking an antibiotic and an antifungal medicine that has helped heal his sores" - it does not specify who, if anyone, prescribed these treatments, or why. The next one, [52] states: "Dr. (Neelam) Uppal gave the Kochs and fifteen other patients a powerful anti-parasite medicine and antibiotics that helped temporarily." (hardly a ringing endorsement for the treatment, one might note). The final one refers to Savely, Stricker, and George Schwartz. Accordingly, the evidence is that there are only four individuals in the country that are treating Morgellons in this fashion; Savely, Stricker, Uppal, and Schwartz. That is a short enough list that they can be identified by name, and the appropriate citations linked to each one, rather than the implication that there are many physicians who are engaged in such treatments. I have no problem citing the treatments as long as they are linked directly to the individuals recommending them, and I suggest making the appropriate edits to remove the implication that physicians outside of these four are involved. The claim that OTHER physicians follow this practice constitutes an extrapolation from rather little evidence, and as such is "original research" and unverifiable. Dyanega 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The most common usage of "some", unspecified number or quantity.[53] On that basis the present text is correct. There are errors in the statement, "Accordingly, the evidence is that there are only four individuals in the country that are treating Morgellons in this fashion; Savely, Stricker, Uppal, and Schwartz." [54]"Stricker and other physicians" does not support, "refers only to Stricker and Savely" as was suggested. [55] states that a Morgellons patient "has been taking an antibiotic and an antifungal medicine that has helped heal his sores". These are normally prescription medications prescribed by medical professionals, and the article does not indicate otherwise. [56]"Dr. William Harvey,...treats patients with antibiotics -- Rocephin or Zithromax -- and almost always, symptoms subside." [57]Robert Bransfield,...has tried treating Morgellons patients with antibiotics...." [58] Margo is prescribed antibiotics by un-named doctor.

"Some" is normally used to define an unspecified number. There is no "implication that there are many physicians who are engaged in such treatments." The text states, "Some medical practitioners will...treat Morgellons symptoms as a product of an infectious process, including the use of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications, herbal supplements, and light therapy" From the citation(s) it is not 4 medical professionals, but an unspecified number. The citation(s) make it clear some medical professionals use the treatments mentioned and it is not original research.

If you want me to list all the other sources at the end of the paragraph, that is OK, but I was under the impression that was not the correct style. See: [59], "There are lots more similar references, but one will suffice, because it's not really something people dispute.", which talks about cited reference [60] text, "Some people...seek large quantities of antibiotics, herbal remedies, industrial bug killers and other expensive and potentially harmful treatments, she said" supports the article text, "Some treatments are dangerous, however, and have included the use of bleach, veterinary medicines intended for de-worming horses, and industrial insecticides."

To list which sources specify specific treatments by certain doctors for treatment for infectious disease of Morgellons is beyond the scope of this article, and is the same as listing which sources specify specific treatments by certain doctors for treatment for Delusional Parasitosis of Morgellons, which has not been done. Ward20 00:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Ward20 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the quote should be changed; "Those few medical practitioners that believe Morgellons is an infectious process, including several from the MRF, treat Morgellons symptoms accordingly, including the use of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitic medications, herbal supplements, and light therapy" - then list the citations. You've listed four doctors from the MRF, one that believes it's worms, and one who has been condemned by others here as a quack; what they have in common is that each and every one believes and promotes Morgellons treatments; it is disingenuous to phrase your edits as if they are anonymous, unbiased medical professionals. To claim anything more than "a few" is unverifiable; that's what the documented evidence supports, and extrapolation beyond that is inappropriate. Unless you can come up with a concrete argument otherwise, I'll go ahead with this edit tomorrow. If necessary, I can quote the passages you wrote earlier on the talk page about removing unverifiable statements, even trivial ones that most people wouldn't ever bother to dispute. Dyanega 07:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope the doctors do believe in their Morgellons treatments, both for infectious disease and Delusional Parasitosis. It is not acceptable to regard doctors that believe in one theory differently than the ones that believe in the other theory. WP:NOPOV "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." There are few or some (however you determine the few to some demarcation) dermatologists that are actually quoted in the literature as treating Morgellons patients, DP patients yes, Morgellons patients no. [61] Every doctor (both sides) believes and promotes according to their beliefs. It seems as if the argument is being made one group of medical professionals is unprofessionally biased and not the other. To my knowledge, no sources have stated that. And I would thank you not to call my edits disingenuous. I have not characterized your edits with terms such as that.

Again, some is an indeterminate number as in "Some treatments are dangerous, however, and have included the use of bleach, veterinary medicines intended for de-worming horses, and industrial insecticides." Few is less accurate than some.[62]"Stricker and other physicians are treating Morgellons patients with a combination of antibiotics and anti-parasitic and antifungal drugs." How many other physicians? few, many, or some? It is indeterminate, some really is the best fitting word.

I want to move on, in order to compromise I am going to uncouple the treatments with "some doctors" that your are objecting to and put the citations after the sentence. Any interested party can look it up and form their own opinions.Ward20 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Those few medical practitioners that believe Morgellons is an infectious process, including several from the MRF, treat Morgellons symptoms accordingly" is NOT pejorative, and does not assert whether they are correct or not - it points out that they represent the minority opinion, which IS demonstrable, has been quoted verifiably elsewhere, and follows NPOV guidelines, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE, as well; it is also WP policy not to represent a significant minority viewpoint as if it were mainstream, and statements and opinions OF minority groups should always be noted as such. If the reader is not aware that the opinion presented is that of a minority group, then they are NOT being given the necessary information to "form their own opinion". As for bias, most medical professionals are NOT board members of advocacy groups, nor do they solicit charitable donations from the public for the same organization which funds their work, or sell self-published books of their theories, or run commercial websites. These are rare and exceptional practices in the medical community (no one claims they do not occur, but it is certainly a small minority), and each and every individual known to be treating Morgellons as an infectious disease falls into at least one of these categories. Couple that with their viewpoint being at odds with the majority of the medical community, and there is ample reason to treat their opinions with GREAT circumspection. Dyanega 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying and understand your points. Pejorative can be choice of wording too. I have pointed out Morgellons is not WP:FRINGE according to WP guidelines, and is also considered mainstream under WP guidelines, "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications."

MRF is a non-profit organization trying to raise awareness and money for research. Many many non-profit groups do that and have medical professionals on their boards and medical staff. For example: on the American Cancer Society front page: Donate, Participate in events, Volunteer your time, Advocate for change.

Board of Directors:
Briggs W. Andrews, Esq
Donald Anthony, MD
George W.P. Atkins
Ermilo "Milo" Barrera Jr., MD
Kathleen Bond
Nancy Brakensiek, CPA
Sally West Brooks, RN,
Tim E. Buyers, MD, MPH
Gena R. Carter, MD
Carmel J. Cohen, MD
Vincent T. DeVita Jr., MD
Audry B. Douglas-Cookie, RN,
R. Daniel Duquette, PhD
W. Phil Evans, MD
J. Michael Fitzpatrick, PhD
Elizabeth "Terry" T.H. Fontham, MPH, DrPH
Harold P. Freeman, MD
Laura J. Hilderley, RN,
Elmer Huerta, MD, MPH
Juan D. Johnson
Lila R. Johnson, RN,
Anna Johnson-Winegar, PhD
Douglas K. Kelsey, MD, PhD
Robert T. Kendall III, Esq.
Robert Kugler, Esq.
Cynthia Marie LeBlanc,
Rosemary Mackey,
Mario A. Mendez, MD
Pamela K. Meyerhoffer
Karen A. Moffitt, PhD
Marion E. Morra, MA, ScD
Edward E. Partridge, MD
Gary M. Reedy
The Honorable Paul G. Rogers
Carolyn D. Runowicz, MD
Christy A. Russell, MD
David G. Seaman
Jonathan W. Simons, MD
Patricia E.Swanson, RN
Stephen L. Swanson
Eric Taylor, MD,
William Todd
Alan G. Thorson, MD,
Richard C. Wender, MD
Van Velsor Wolf Jr.

The MRF's viewpoint may be treated with GREAT circumspection by the media, but not by WP editors. WP:NOPOV "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better." Ward20 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as do mainstream journalists, about the MRF's purpose. They are trying to raise awareness of Morgollon's as an infectious disease and to money for research to establish that. As no one denies that cancer exists, references to the ACS are inapposite. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You quote WP policy: "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." EXACTLY MY POINT. Accordingly, that there are only a few people who believe Morgellons is an infectious diseases can and SHOULD be mentioned, and we can and SHOULD discuss them by name and affiliation, and we can and SHOULD expressly indicate that their view is not the popular one. Accordingly, the edit I suggested is perfectly justifiable, as written. Also, you may "point out" your belief that Morgellons is not fringe all you like, but that nonetheless puts you in a minority, as well. All but one of the other editors that has participated here recently do not agree with you, and the one who DOES is an admitted advocate for the MRF! You can turn a blind eye to it, but BY DEFINITION, those who consider Morgellons to be a distinct and novel condition are following a "significant minority" viewpoint, that fits all of the criteria for "non-mainstream" as set forth in WP. The very statement you quote: "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications" is violated in the present case: the idea that Morgellons is an infectious disease is clearly NOT accepted, nor even discussed as plausible, in these publications - you may wish to argue about it, obviously, but discussion would imply that someone outside the MRF has explicitly acknowledged that the MRF's theories about Morgellons are plausible, and no one has yet gone out on that particular limb. All of the discussion to date has been pointing out that the majority opinion in the medical community is that Morgellons is NOT anything new, which runs counter to the MRF's theory. In other words, it is discussed, in the literal sense, but as being IMplausible rather than plausible. WP policy indicates: "if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play" - and all of the citations and references which claim that Morgellons is a "newly-emerging, infectious disease" come from the MRF and its board members, which is precisely what this caveat warns editors to AVOID promoting. Much of what the WP:FRINGE guidelines refer to is determining notability, and Morgellons has more than adequately demonstrated that it is notable - but there are PLENTY of fringe theories which are highly notable; this does not mean they are not "fringe". As the guidelines state: "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia" and "Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. Many ideas widely believed to be incorrect are nonetheless notable, and the claimed correctness of an idea does not confer notability."

As one other point, to follow up Arthur's comment, you'll note that I had already acknowledged that there are medical professionals who are on the board of advocacy groups, so there was no point in your giving evidence that this occurs; their mere existence does not mean that they are NOT among a minority of medical professionals, however. Further, you say the "MRF is a non-profit organization trying to raise awareness and money for research." The MRF is different from other non-profit organizations in that the only researchers supported are individuals who are board members and ex-board members. Furthermore, raising public awareness of cancer is VERY, VERY unlikely to result in a significant increase in the number of patients the actual board members of the ACS are going to examine; they do not personally stand to profit from any such advocacy (in fact, unless you look up the ACS page, it's nearly impossible to know who such people are, let alone how to seek them out so they can be your personal physician). The ACS board members are NOT the only doctors in the world who believe that cancer exists, or who claim to know how to treat it. The MRF's situation is the exact opposite; any increase in public awareness of Morgellons (as defined by the MRF) will directly, personally profit the MRF board members, since they are effectively the only doctors in the world that explicitly treat Morgellons - a prospective patient has NO ONE ELSE they can look to for the sort of treatment they desire. Trying to compare the MRF to the ACS is an absurd extreme of "apples versus oranges". Dyanega 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Post Oct. 30. 2007

Institutional Review Board approval for a CDC investigation into Morgellons is scheduled for October, 30 2007.

So what happened? Anyone know? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link to www.morgellonswatch.com?

Per this edit, User:Levine2112 removed the link to www.morgellonswatch.com from the article.

The link was originally added to the article here on 9 June 2006, and has survived in the article through thousands of edits, leading me to believe that it has consensus support among editors. The language in WP:EL is only that blogs are 'normally to be avoided.' Since Morgellons Watch provides close scrutiny of the statements at www.morgellons.org and helps give balance to the pronouncements of that site, I can see its value and recommend that it be kept. EdJohnston 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there WAS consensus to leave that link, and it should be restored. Dyanega 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the site appears to be accurate, it is a blog, and the creator (perhaps justifiably) refuses to identify himself or his credentials. I really don't think it's an exception to the "normally to be avoided" language in WP:EL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that this site is not being used as a reference for any statements, but is just included under External Links. The topic of Morgellons is hotly contested, and there should be some way of alluding to the opposing points of view. How about adding some indirect language to the text of the article, like 'a web search for Morgellons will find sites critical of the statements of the Morgellons Research Foundation?' I agreee that the case for including the site explicitly would be stronger if the site operator were identified. EdJohnston 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the site operator. Identifying myself would not help, as I have no credentials or experience in this subject beyond the content of my "blog" (I'm a retired computer programmer). Hence there is no real authority behind the articles I write, in the sense that Wikipedia normally looks for. I would note (as others have) that it's just a link, and not a reference. Morgellons Watch is really the only source of detailed skeptical analysis of Morgellons, and I do think it's quite a useful resource, with over a hundred articles. It ranks quite highly in Google results, and has been reference in numerous media articles, including New Scientist [63] (quote: "Most of the ideas and research have yet to be formally published, leaving believers and sceptics to slug it out on websites such as Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia"), Psychiatric News [64] (Quote: "More information is posted at <www.morgellons.org> and at <http://morgellonswatch.com>".), the Dallas Observer [65] (Quote: "One of the most popular Web sites on the disease is Morgellons Watch, a blog dedicated to poking holes in every known theory on the disease."), and in several other places. Herd of Swine 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The web references you mention I don't find convincing, and I was actually going to suggest that the banner at the top of this page, with the 'press mention of Wikipedia,' should be deleted as too minor to include. Literally all that Elkan says about Wikipedia in the article in the New Scientist that you mention is one sentence about 'slugging it out at Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia.' I hope we don't treasure that as a testimonial to our work here, since it notes the arguments that took place here but says nothing about the scientific value of the results. EdJohnston 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no illusions of MorgellonsWatch being declared a Reliable Source, but rather that it is useful reference (or, at least, counterpoint) to anyone looking at the subject. I think the problem is partly that everyone can SEE that it's a useful external link, but it's disqualified because of the guidelines excluding blogs. I don't think it meets any of the other 13 exclusionary guidelines. I also that it DOES meet #4 of the |What should be linked guidelines: "4: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.". And also "links to be considered" #4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Herd of Swine 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for studying WP:EL in such detail. I'd give my support to including the link here if the owner were identified. Otherwise, I'd rather include it indirectly with a phrase like what I proposed above, 'a web search for Morgellons will find sites critical of the statements of the Morgellons Research Foundation.' I hope we will get comments from other long-time editors of this page before reaching a conclusion. The case might be different if morgellonswatch could serve as an actual reference for the article, or if it were judged notable enough to receive a couple of sentences of discussion in the article itself. If third parties had commented on actual reportage by morgellonswatch, that might be enough to justify a comment. If it does nothing but helpfully gather links to other sites, the case is not so strong. EdJohnston 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to identify myself, because I've had death threats (of dubious seriousness, but still...). I think MorgellonsWatch does more than "helpfully gather links to other sites", and most of what I do there is critically examine scientific claims of the MRF, for example they often talk about fibers fluorescing under UV, and so I write a short article about how this is not unusual [66]. I also do various experiments like replicating Morgellons photos [67]. But I totally understand that the guidelines are the there for a reason, and if it's felt the link should be removed, I'm not going to campaign any more for it's reinstatement. Herd of Swine 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to open up such a can of worms here with my random spam link search. In general, blogs are listed as the kinds of external links normally to be avoided. The caveat is: except those written by a recognized authority. Since MorgellonsWatch's author is not a recognized authority, the link should be kept off the article either as a source or as an external link. I understand Herd of Swine's desire to have privacy, but he/she must accept that given this wish, authority cannot be recognized for this source; further, given that Herd of Swine recognizes that "there is no real authority" behind the article on his/her website, clearly then it cannot be used here. Again, I apologize for opening the apparent can of worms. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree with this. Reluctantly because having read the blog it is well-argued, clearly well-informed, and offsets the fact that most of the credible sources treat the existence of a self-diagnosed disease with such diffuse and inconsistent symptoms with quite understandable scepticism, leaving the field pretty much to the quacks. But blogs is blogs. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Template:press mention of the New Scientist article

In a fit of boldness I removed the following item that was at the head of this talk page: {{press}}

I won't feel bad if someone wants to revert my change. The reasons are personal; I went to the trouble of getting hold of that issue of the New Scientist, and then found that the ENTIRE mention of Wikipedia was this one sentence:

Most of the ideas and research have yet to be formally published, leaving believers and sceptics to slug it out on websites such as Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia.

To see other places where Wikipedia is cited in the regular press in a more substantive manner, open this what-links-here search to find other uses of the {{press}} template. As I said, I won't feel bad if anyone wants to revert. EdJohnston 02:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked/banned editors

Some editor who have posted on this page have been blocked and/or banned. Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/c 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{edit protected}}

The last line of the lead referring to and IRB approval, should be removed. An IRB is merely a panel that reviews proposed human subjects studies to make sure they are safe and ethical. All this factoid means is that the CDC investigation, discussed in its own section, is moving forward. IRB approval will have absolutely no bearing on the question of what Morgellons is, and to cite it in the lead is therefore misleading. Note that protection was largely due to edit warring by IPs and new SPAs, not the "regular editors." Thanks. Thatcher131 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tend to mildly disagree with the removal because IRB approval is necessary for the study to actually start enrollment of human subjects. As I understand it, IRB approval is the last administrative process before the study can be started. It is just a milestone in the study so no big deal.

I request the CDC study be mentioned at the end of the lead as it is a very significant event in the Morgellons story. Propose: To learn more about Morgellons, the CDC has contracted Kaiser Permanente in Northern California to assist the CDC in conducting an epidemiologic investigation of this condition. Thanks.Ward20 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. I made the edit Thatcher requested. Ward, you are a single purpose account with no history outside this subject, your comments are being given less weight than comments of long-standing editors with a wide-ranging edit history. We do not engage in special pleading. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I also WP:BOLDly tweaked the lead as it was disjointed; there were proposals and rebuttals mixed, and it used some unacceptable language - you can't talk about "persons who suffer from this unexplained condition" and then go on to clarify that actually the condition might not exist at all and that the symptoms are generally accepted as being something else entirely. That's not only a failure of WP:NPOV it is also self-contradiction. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes my interest is in Morgellons, and I guess I am a single purpose account. I never saw that term until you posted it. WP:SPA says, "But for this reason many 'single purpose accounts' and 'brand new users' may be treated as having less 'say' at the start of their editing careers, until they have somewhat established themselves with credibility." I have been editing since june of 07 and have 264 Morgellons edits, 103 Morgellons talk edits, 7 Morgellons Research Foundation edits, 7 Morgellons Research Foundation talk edits[68] and some other misc. stuff, when does "the start of their editing careers" cease to become relevant? Also please explain what you mean by "We do not engage in special pleading." Thanks Ward20 (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and your input has been consistently entirely one-sided, insufficiently critical of the pro-Morgellons camp and has served solely to advance a point of view. See also special pleading. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)