Talk:Morgellons/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

morgellonswatch.com

I have spent some time looking over morgellonswatch.com and the MRF website. It strikes me that to allow one and not the other is arbitrary. Although morgellonswatch is a blog, and the authors are not identified, it is well-argued and discusses the sources in reasonably balanced tones. MRF is, let's not forget, a group campaigning to get their self-identified illness recognised. I would say that under the circumstances, and with due regard to the balance of sources available, we should probably, on reflection, include that link in external links. I know it's not a source, and we should not cite it as such, but it is no more personal opinion than MRF is personal opinion, and it reflects the mainstream POV, so it balances the uncritical view put forward by MRF, which is linked. By including only MRF I believe we are falling short on NPOV. Or can anyone find a more authoritative sceptical resource? Guy (Help!) 20:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if the views on morgellonswatch are truly of the mainstream then finding a better, non-blog source with topic expertise should be easier to find. What would be inconsistent would be to allow this blog by an admitted non-expert be included as an external link. This goes against Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the MRF site is also largely by unqualified people, isn't it? And the majority opinion is that Morgellons does not exist, so it's not covered in the mainstream sources, which is the problem. Do feel free to propose a better sceptical site. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. I don't know much about this topic at all. Just what I have read here. I can do some research though. Again, I don't think we should make an exception for a WP:SPS non-expert blog for the sake of NPOV. The article makes it abundantly clear that the mainstream opinion is that this disease is fictitious. I don't think that a lack of a non-supportive external link makes much of a difference. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that policy states "Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the mainstream sources that do the criticizing." then morgellonswatch essentially meets two of those three criteria, and differs little from the MRF in this regard; it is at least as visible as the MRF (a google search on "Morgellons" will show this), and given that most of the public awareness of the MRF is also similarly web-based, it is nearly as notable as the MRF itself. The remaining problem is that it is indeed "by an admitted non-expert" - but, realistically, as Guy mentioned, there are no dermatologists among the MRF's ranks, and that raises the question as to whether they can simply declare themselves experts on something that is (by their own definition) a skin condition, first and foremost. In a practical sense, the MRF is also composed of non-experts. The MRF's website is, in all objective respects, no more or less worthy of inclusion as an external link than the morgellonswatch website, and it seems to me that either they are both linked or they are both excluded. My own inclination would be to link them both, since that seems more in keeping with the principles stated in WP:NPOV: "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." Both the MRF and Morgellonswatch are primary parties in the debate, and it does not seem to me inappropriate to include links to them as background. The point can also certainly be made (if it wasn't already obvious enough) that since Morgellons is demonstrably considered "fringe" by the medical community, it is not surprising that there are relatively few non-blog sources that discuss it at length; but the policy principles expressed in WP:FRINGE certainly indicate to me that the absence of lengthy and detailed critiques from the mainstream should not be portrayed as tacit acceptance of a fringe theory, and (more to the point) the absence of lengthy and detailed critiques does not mean that the WP article should by default be skewed towards the fringe side of the debate (see also WP:UNDUE), which it certainly has been in the past (moreso than the article's present incarnation). Morgellons is not the only fringe medical theory listed in Wikipedia, and this sort of problem appears over and over - rarely is it NOT a contentious matter - the question is whether articles such as these can be composed and maintained in a manner consistent with NPOV, and the answer appears to be "only with great difficulty". Dyanega (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the MRF's board members (many many many MDs, etc), I'd say that they are much more of a good source (in terms of Wikipedia) than a self-published blog by a non-expert. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an authority fallacy; if someone is a world authority with a Ph.D. in Zoology, and an expert on birds, and you ask them for authoritative statements on mammals or fish, would they still be considered an expert? Obviously, a Ph.D. doesn't automatically make a person an expert on ALL topics related to their field of specialization - and if you ask this same ornithologist about 18th-Century literature, the fact that they have a Ph.D. should not lead anyone to assume this person's opinion is more authoritative than anyone else's (especially someone whose Ph.D. is in, say, literature). Similarly, having an M.D. does not automatically make someone an expert on skin conditions or parasitology. Even more damning to this fallacy is that expertise in a field of enquiry can be possessed by individuals who have no professional degree or credentials at all. A degree does not grant exclusive access to expertise. Yes, there are M.D.s working for the MRF, but they ARE non-experts with regards to the topic of dermatology and parasitology. From WP:RS: "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". They fail that criterion. Or are you claiming that the subject at hand does NOT specifically involve dermatology or parasitology? Dyanega (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
PS - I just read the MRF article on Wikipedia. Their press notoriaty also lends to their status as a good external link. This is not some single-person, self published site. Regardless of its POV vs. MorgellonWatch's, the two sites are not in the same category in terms of WP:EL. MRF is clearly acceptable; whereas, MorgellonWatch is not for reasons already mentioned. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The MRF's website is not single-person, but it IS quite demonstrably self-published, and thanks for reminding us. Let's not lose sight of that, please. Wikipedia's policies regarding self-published sources make it clear that things produced by the MRF need to have appropriate caveats, if they are to be included at all. Right now, the Morgellons article includes SEVERAL such references. If you believe self-published sources don't belong here, then would you approve of all such being removed from the article? If not, you're evidently saying that the MRF's self-published statements merit inclusion, but no one else's do, and that would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Remember, the MRF represents a "tiny minority" viewpoint, not the mainstream. Again, from WP:NPOV: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics". Aside from being the only source providing support for these exceptional claims (when multiple sources are considered desirable), I fail to see how the MRF's website could be considered high quality or reliable, nor how anyone could consider it superior in either respect to Morgellonswatch. They are ultimately both sites where people express opinions, and, having examined the content of both sites, the latter site is the only one of the two with links to peer-reviewed medical publications cited in support of the opinions expressed (the MRF website has not one link to a peer-reviewed clinical study) - which clearly gives Morgellonswatch the superior degree of reliability, in the sense that Wikipedia defines it. About all that this discussion is making clear to me is that the MRF's website really is NOT suitable for inclusion; it has visibility and notoriety, and that's about all that can be said for it. Dyanega (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Above you state that I said that MRF is an SPS. It is not. It has an editorial board of professionals. Therefore I think it does qualify as a good link per WP:EL. However, I don't think MorgollonsWatch as a self-published blog with no known expertise passes the rigors of WP:EL. -- Levine2112 discuss 09:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
RSs do say the MRF have experts on Morgellons: [1]"Savely, who is considered one of the few Morgellons experts. She has about 125 patients at her San Francisco practice." [2] "Morgellons & Lyme disease expert Ginger Savely."
Posted at MRF website page:
Morgellons disease: the mystery unfolds
Virginia R Savely and Raphael B Stricker
Expert Review of Dermatology
October 2007, Vol. 2, No. 5, Pages 585-591
(doi:10.1586/17469872.2.5.585)
The Mystery of Morgellons Disease:Infection or Delusion?
authored by: Ginger Savely, NP, Mary Leitao and Raphael B. Stricker, MD
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
2006, Volume 7,
National Nursing Publication's article on Morgellons Disease
authored by: Ginger Savely, FNP-C, and Mary M. Leitao
Advance For Nurse Practitioners - May 2005
The Mystery of Morgellons Disease:Infection or Delusion? is a peer reviewed journal article. I don't know for sure if the article in Expert Review of Dermatology is peer reviewed, but articles of that length usually are. These Dermatology Journals must believe these MRF members are expert enough about dermatology and Morgellons in order to publish the articles they wrote. These articles appear to be the only articles published in medical journals that talk exclusively and extensively about Morgellons disease. Since they are written by MRF members, the articles directly support many of the MRF website positions.
WP:SPS Self-published sources (online and paper) states:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Since the MRF website is not a personal website, nor a blog, and has established experts on the topic of the article (even invented the disease according to some) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, the MRF website would seem to be an acceptable source for the Morgellons article. Ward20 (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course the MRF web site should be mentioned in the article, since it's essentially the primary source of both the existence of both the "Morgellons" phenomenon, and much of the republished information on Morgellons (such as the "case definition").
Morgellons Watch, on the other hand, is a response to the MRF site. While there are many interesting and informative articles there about Morgellons (most of which I wrote), they are probably not suitable as references under a strict interpretation of Wikipedia rules. One would not, for example, say "The MRF notes that some fibers fluoresce under UV light, but skeptics point out that most clothing fibers fluoresce under UV light [3]". This is perhaps unfortunate, since the UV thing has been breathlessly repeated in the press many times.
But I think the question is more if Morgellons Watch should be included in the "External Links", as an additional source of information that is not suitable for inclusion in the main article. Herd of Swine (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that MRF has all the world's experts on Morgellons on board, since they seem to be the only people who actually recognise it. That is not the same as saying they have recognised experts on dermatology. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, you have failed to refute what I wrote: "the MRF website has not one link to a peer-reviewed clinical study". The three papers cited contain no clinical data whatsoever; all three are OPINION papers, not clinical studies (the most recent one, for example, is in the "Perspectives" section of that journal, which is categorized separately from "featured journal articles": "in addition to the Review program, the journal will regularly feature Drug Profiles, Perspectives and Meeting Highlights" - the editorial policy also states that articles are subjected to peer review, but it does not say that "Perspectives" papers are). Anyone can write and publish an opinion paper in those journals. The MRF still has no peer-reviewed clinical studies linked on their website. Dyanega (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove MRF from the external links... I see that it is used in the article as a source and I am firm believer that Wikipedia is not a link farm. So if you are hellbent on finding grounds to remove the link from EL (and thus eliminate the whole EL section for now), try "it is because the site is cited in the article already" on for size and see how that flies. WP:EL doesn't expressly disallow a link to be both a source and an external link; however, one can infer from the policy that keeping the ELs and sources distinct is preferred. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a few observations:

  1. Dyanega has shown some very clear thinking in this debate and makes some excellent points that are being ignored;
  2. Dyanega has been misunderstood and an inaccurate statement resulted: "Above you state that I said that MRF is an SPS." That is not true. Dyanega was only reminded of the issue because Levine had mentioned it.
  3. MRF is essentially driven by one woman, a non expert, who has coined a name for a condition. She has then surrounded herself with other non-experts who have a financial interest (they are treating these people!) in perpetuating this particular definition of the condition. They are thus unreliable as experts.
  4. This article is just as much about the controversy, as it is about Morgellons, Leitao, Savely, and the MRF. Therefore the parties to the controversy deserve mention and morgellonswatch is a major player and should be linked in the external links. It is the only one of the two source that cites peer reviewed sources (the MRF does not), and they are the expertise which the site provides. To make it even better it has no financial interest in the matter.
  5. If we consider Leitao and her cohorts legitimate experts in a condition of their own invention (the definition), then any third grader or quack who invents and promotes definitions for some bizarre and imaginary condition (that is provably nonsense and impossible - and I'm not saying this applies to Morgellons) is also an "expert" by default, since no one else believes it. Hulda Clark comes to mind. She's an "expert" in her particular, well-proven, scam, and she has a financial interest in her scam, just as the MRF has a financial interest in promoting their ideas, which makes them very suspect. Such expertise is not what we need here.
  6. The MRF website, even though unreliable in the normal sense, should be linked according to the rules here, which allows such linking when the website is owned by the subject of the article. It's opinions should also be quoted, since that's all it has. It is not an accurate and unbiased source for scientific research on the matter, if it had such research, which it doesn't. The significant opinions on Morgellonswatch could also be quoted as the opinions of a major player in the controversy, but it, just like the MRF, cannot be quoted as an independent scientific source.

Now it appears that we have a consensus for inclusion of morgellonswatch in the external links, there being only one objector, whose arguments are unconvincing. -- Fyslee / talk 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are more than one objector. Kindly look at previous discussions. Thanks. We will not violate WP:EL and include a non-expert blog. Your description of MRF above could easily be a description for Quackwatch (opinion piece website driven by one man with various experts who have a financial interest...). It seems to me to be a tad hypocritical that you want to remove MRF here when you have fought so hard to make others believe that Quackwatch is a WP:RS throughout Wikipedia. Please step back and consider that personal POV may be distracting objective adherence to a basic Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I am not advocating removing MRF, just trying to note its unreliable role, and that morgellonswatch is even more reliable. There is no comparison with Quackwatch as there is no financial COI, and its numerous writers, editors and experts are real experts in their subject areas. Quackwatch is a RS for the opinions of skeptics and mainstream opinion, not for scientific research, except where it hosts such research. It's not a black or white issue, and I have never advocated such a position. As far as POV, we are both in glass houses....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch's financial COI is just as you say MRF's is. Where you say MRF's interest is in promoting a disease which they claim to treat for profit, Quackwatch denigrates medicines and doctors which are their direct financial competition. Just like Quackwatch, MRF seems to have numerous board member who claim expertise in their subject area. Fictitious disease or not, the point is that they - the board members of MRF believe it (or that they are out-and-out liars - something you seem to hint at but have no proof of so we must AGF); and we well know that true believers (or true disbelievers inthe case of Quackwatch) can be a reliable source of their opinions. I really have no POV here for or against Morgellons, MRF or MorgellonsWatch; I know virtually nothing about Morgellons apart for this Wiki article and have not formulated my opinion on what I believe here. Being a true skeptic, the jury is still out for me until more research becomes available. From what I've read, I really don't think anyone can truly be 100% certain either way when it comes to Morgellons just yet. So you see, I am really quite neutral here. And from an NPOV outlook of this topic and Wikipedia policy, MRF seems to be an acceptable resource in terms of WP:RS and/or WP:EL; whereas MorgollonsWatch is clearly unacceptable. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch is a website and a non-profit corporation. They make no money from fighting quackery. On the contrary. As far as the MRF board goes, I don't think they are liars. They seem to really believe their theory, and that's all it is. That's also where they go wrong, in treating a theory as proven fact and fighting any accomodation for other explanations. We have seen this happen right here by someone who volunteers for the MRF who has tried to keep out all other possible explanations. I, like many others here, am also awaiting more information as to the true nature of Morgellons. I don't care one way or the other, just hope that more light will be shed on the subject. If this really is a new and emerging disease, then it needs to be proven before making a profit on it. Right now we have to use the existing sources for this article, and they are essentially sources that document a controversy and all sides need to be heard. -- Fyslee / talk 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. But those sources must pass the rigors of WP:RS if we are to use them as such. Oh, and just like Quackwatch, MRF is a non-profit organization. The organization makes no money from promoting Morgellons awareness. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
They are both RS for documentation of conflicting opinions on the subject. Unlike Quackwatch, some of the board members of the MRF are deeply financially involved in this matter in a very direct way (not in some very distant manner as you propose with mainstream scientific opposition to unproven medical claims). They are treating precisely these patients. Their promotion of their definition is essential to their very income in private practice. It's as direct as one can get. Even if they are sincere, it is still very dubious. They are not in a position to even consider that they might be wrong, as that would be financial suicide for them. Thus they are not RS. -- Fyslee / talk 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And Quackwatch has direct financial interest in keeping their competition down. Even if Quackwatch were sincere, it would be financial suicide for them to even consider that they are wrong. Seems just as dubious as me. But let's digress and stay on topic. Clearly, MorgollonsWatch can't be used in this article. MRF can be used, but references should note that we are dealing with expert opinion here, not necessarily scientific fact. Is there anything else to discuss or shall we move on? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As Fyslee observes, and has been mentioned before (numerous times) they DO make money from Morgellons awareness, directly, since the board members of the MRF are virtually the only people in the world that diagnose and prescribe treatments for it (I say "virtually" because there is also the "New Morgellons Order", a splinter group apparently composed mostly of former MRF affiliates who have diagnosed themselves with Morgellons). The NMO is not nearly as prominent as the MRF, but they engage in many of the same activities, including treating (and profiting from) the condition, and trying to "Force" the CDC to investigate Morgellons. Besides which, as you well know, the technical definition of a "non-profit organization" is such that the folks involved are still getting their salaries (and many expenses) paid out of the donations - sometimes very LARGE salaries and expenses. There is a world of difference between an NPO and a volunteer organization. Let's not conceal the reality of the situation. Simply put, these folks make a living off of Morgellons - this is undeniable - and are not unbiased sources. They are also NOT "expert" opinion. That means we need to be especially careful about allowing the WP article to serve as a vehicle for their propaganda. Dyanega (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of this is speculation fostered by deep-rooted and strong opinion for the subject matter. The MRF's POV is clearly noted in the article as their opinion. If they are as you say - the only ones in the world treating this condition - then I would have to say that their opinions are in fact expert - not right or wrong, but expert (lord knows that an expert opinion is still an opinion and can certainly be wrong or else we would cease to call it an opinion). With no judgment of whether they are right or wrong, the MRF's opinion on this subject is notable and verifiable, and reliably sourced as their opinion. I don't think that this article reads MRF propaganda at all at this point (perhaps it may have in the past and you all fixed that - I haven't been here that long). But as the article stands now, I think the use of MRF as a source is well within the acceptable source usage policies of Wikipedia (i.e WP:RS, WP:V, et cetera). -- Levine2112 discuss 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If there is any speculation going on, it is you as a self-admitted newbie on this subject and article. This has been discussed many times here and is well documented. These people are the ones who make a direct living by convincing people they are indeed worthy of treatment by themselves (members of the board). This undermines their status as independent experts. They have a direct, proven, and significant direct financial interest in this, a very, very, very direct interest. It's on a one-to-one basis = "MRF-board-member-convinces-and-then-treats-patient" directness. That invalidates them as reliable sources. -- Fyslee / talk 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. The MRF is perfectly suitable source for how they are being currently used int his article. It is clear that when they are cited in this article that the material attached to the citation is their opinion, and does not represent scientific fact. No one is claiming that they are independent experts. Putting money in your pocket by hurting your competition is just as direct as a COI as making money by promoting awareness of problem which you can fix; thus your arguments here can easily be applied to your arguments for using Quackwatch as a reliable source for anything more that their POV opinion. I hope you can see the one-to-one comparison here and step back and take a neutral POV in terms of MRF and this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Here, let's try a simple analogy. I have a Ph.D. (this is true, but irrelevant). Suppose I publish a "new language", complete with all the necessary elements to define it. In principle, then, I am the only expert on that language, and everything I say about it - including my claim that it is NEW - is my "expert opinion", and I can wave my Ph.D. around to impress people. The plain and simple fact remains that I am not a linguist, and that is not what my Ph.D. is for. If, after I publish my new language, a dozen linguists come forward and point out that my "new" language appears to be Old Norse (a very old language, though not in use) with a few spelling changes and word substitutions, is it my "expert" word versus theirs, or is it a NON-expert (me) versus a pile of actual experts (them)? That is EXACTLY what is going on with Morgellons - MRF doctors who are neither dermatologists nor parasitologists are describing and treating what they claim is a new and unknown parasitic infestation of the skin, and the dermatologists and parasitologists who have examined these patients are all saying that none of them have any new or unknown conditions. The MRF's doctors are NOT experts in this field, any more than I am an expert in linguistics. Dyanega (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your analogy is entirely apropos. Here's a more direct comparison using your theater: You have a PhD in general linguistics and then you discovered a new version of the French language which you call Morgellon French but only you recognize it to be a language. French linguistic experts regard the "new" language merely to be DOP French, an existing colloquial version of French. However, you disagree and think that Morgellon French is entirely new and distinct from DOP French. Regardless of your opinion being right or wrong, you would be considered an expert in the language which you dubbed Morgellon French simply based on the work and research you put into it. Remember, Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about knowledge. The MRF has notable knowledge on the topic which they have dubbed Morgellons. They have perspective on it which others may disagree with, but it is a notable perspective nonetheless. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Your modified analogy violates the central premise, because a person with "a PhD in general linguistics" is a great deal more likely to be considered an expert in a discussion of French linguistics than a pediatrician who is discussing parasitology! As for the comment "you would be considered an expert in the language which you dubbed Morgellon French simply based on the work and research you put into it" I beg to differ: you would be classified by Wikipedia as a fringe viewpoint, since all the other experts disagree publicly with your claims, and that is entirely different from being considered an expert. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So all of the MDs on the MRF board are pediatricians? MDs have general expertise of the body and disease (thus in our analogy they are equivalent to a general linguistics PhD). Your analogy had a deception that the PhD had nothing to do with linguistics; whereas in reality a general MD is more qualified to diagnose skin conditions that say a doctor of children's education (analogy equivalent to a PhD with nothing to do with linguistics). I think it is too early to determine what is and what isn't a fringe viewpoint in terms of Morgellons; and I also think that Wikipedia's policy on fringe viewpoints isn't fully defined yet. Still, someone can in fact be an expert (for the purpose of WP:RS) in even a fringe topic. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Many NPO's including the MRF pay no salaries. This link states: "The Morgellons Research Foundation is operated by an all-volunteer, unpaid Board of Directors and officers." The financial statements are on the same page, no one is getting rich off MRF donations.
Please read. By analogy to the arguments above, do you believe the doctors mentioned who were treating, researching, and publishing papers on diagnosis and treatment (some of it conflicting) of a devastating illness with exotic unexplained symptoms, (new they believed, but had actually been around for a number of years), should not have made a living treating patients? Or the publications, practitioners, organizations, and calls for CDC investigations and research (pre HIV understanding) concerning the illness were automatically suspect because the concerned parties worked or had personal interest (some were sick) in the field of the illness? There is no proof the MRF organization is different than others that organize to try and find answers to unexplained controversial medical problems. You try one hypothesis after another until one fits. You take a position and hope it is correct. If it is proved wrong you go one to the next. Some people disagree with you. The MRF's position may be wrong or may be right. Speculation and innuendo on motives of the people compromising the MRF in order to disparage their opinions is WP:OR and counterproductive. Ward20 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that, the point remains that they still get rich off treating Morgellons patients. Charging 500 dollars an hour for phone counseling is not exactly an act of charity. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Move above arguement below mine, so it does not split my arguement in half and make it hard to follow. Ward20 (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"There is no proof the MRF organization is different than others that organize to try and find answers to unexplained controversial medical problems." Yes, there are two very important differences, and these cannot and should not be overlooked: (1) they have specifically proposed a tangible physical symptom - specific and remarkable types of fibers - which should, according to their description, be easy to detect, sample, and analyze, yet in over 5 years, no one outside of the MRF community has ever managed to detect, sample, or analyze any novel or remarkable fibers in any of the patients they've examined. These other ailments that the medical community did not accept initially had NO SUCH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that was claimed to exist in association with the disease. If the MRF was claiming that Morgellons was a neurological disorder, or even a bacterial infection alone, that would be different (though bacteria are not that hard to find and identify), but they are claiming that there is a physical manifestation of this ailment, and have yet to demonstrate any physical evidence to back up the claim. That certainly puts Morgellons in a very different category from these other illnesses. (2) The advocacy of specific unproven treatments is NOT universally true of "others that organize to try and find answers to unexplained controversial medical problems." They are not simply trying to find answers - they have made specific and unsubstantiated proposals as to the what those answers are, made specific recommendations for treatments, and are going ahead and treating people using demonstrably untested and unapproved techniques. That is NOT how other organizations work, with the possible exception of ILADS, which is also (coincidentally?) run by Raphael Stricker, and is also mired deep in controversy specifically because they treat people using methods that the medical community has not approved. Trying to compare that to the history of AIDS is inappropriate, and you appear to be arguing that we should treat the MRF as experts because they might prove to be right. To quote: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". It isn't about who is wrong or right, as you note, but it IS important not to give undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
All very good points. Thanks, Ward20 for the perspective. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the record, my opinion is simply remove Morgellons Research Foundation from external links and leave it bare.Ward20 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I suggest above. I am of the mindset that if a source is used in the article as a ref, then it is unnecessary to link to it as an external link. While this isn't necessarily a rule, it can be pretty much inferred from WP:EL. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
We are not required to WP:AGF of the Morgollons Foundation board, especially when it's improbable. In this case, the physicians "treating" "Morgollons" had (note the tense) exotic (and previously untested) treatments for the disease before they had Morgollons patients to treat, for which they now claim effectiveness. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this true? Where do you get your information. If what you are saying here can be documented with a reliable source, I would think that it should be in the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Im curious.Ward20 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect what Arthur is referring to, and you are asking about, is linked extensively at Lyme disease controversy. The treatment that Stricker and Savely are using for Morgellons patients is the treatment they developed for "chronic lyme disease". This is referred to in the "The Mystery of Morgellons Disease:Infection or Delusion?" paper you yourself cited above. Dyanega (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the big deal is then. Doctors tried an existing treatment for another disease to treat a theoretical new disease? Please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
An untested, unproven, and unapproved treatment for a different theoretical new disease the medical community has yet to acknowledge. Calling it a remarkable coincidence that two diseases, neither of which has been proven to exist, happen to respond to the same treatment, also "coincidentally" designed by the same two doctors who originally described both diseases, and coincidentally promote via two non-profit organizations run by the same two doctors, is an understatement. This is about as extraordinary a claim, and as unfathomable a coincidence, as has ever appeared in the annals of medicine. It would be nice to see some extraordinary evidence to go with it. Dyanega (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
See Lyme disease controversy, also specifically Forbes [4] and the NEJM [5]. Briefly, the majority of doctors feel that there is no evidence that Chronic Lyme exists, and that the Doctors who treat it with unproven concoction of antibiotics are at best misguided, and at worst exploitive. Stricker is a major player in both Chronic Lyme and Morgellons, and has a somewhat dubious background. Herd of Swine (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there is little doubt that Lyme disease does exist. With all due respect, Dyanega, I think you have a strong POV on this topic. This is fine. It's is okay to have a POV on topics you are editing. However, in my opinion, you are allowing this POV to affect your clarity on some basic Wikiepdia policies. I came here just to discuss the inclusion/exclusion of certain sites and I have done just that. Anything further or deeper on this topic, and I don't think I can help. However, please note that Wikipedia is not a place to speculate about conspiracy theories based on coincidences - even remarkable ones. I am going to move on now from this discussion, as I believe my points - as far as WP:EL and WP:RS goes - have been made. To summarize my position: 1) The use of MRF as a source or an external link is justified. 2) The external link for MRF however is a bit redundant and can be removed. 3) MorgellonsWatch, as a WP:SPS blog written by a non-expert should not be used as either a source or an external link per WP:RS and WP:EL. I wish you editors luck on this article and would suggest that you limit your discussion to Wikipedia policy rather than arguments about the topic itself. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you need any further guidance/opinions from an outsider. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It is about Wikipedia policy - there is a disagreement among the editors here as to which policies are to be applied; I maintain that WP:FRINGE, WP:SPS, and WP:UNDUE apply, others are disagreeing. It has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories". Please also note that the medical community does not dispute the existence of Lyme disease; Stricker and Savely described, promote, and treat "Chronic Lyme", which is not recognized by the medical community. The point about Morgellons and Chronic Lyme both being traceable to the same pair of doctors is to highlight that it is essentially the word of these two individuals against the remainder of the medical community in BOTH cases, which is about as textbook a definition of "fringe" as one imagine. Dyanega (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


The EL to MorgellonsWatch had been re-added despite still no consensus to add a link which clearly violates WP:EL for it is a WP:SPS, a blog, and written by an admitted non-expert. If we are to change the rules of WP:EL for this article, then we must change it for all. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the amount of discussion indicates it is NOT clear that it violates WP:EL, particularly as it seems to fulfil: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." WP:SPS is not really relevent, since it's not being suggested as a source, but rather as an External Link (WP:EL), which says to link: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Based on the Content of the site, does it not meet that criteria? Perhaps you should take a vote. Herd of Swine (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
From WP:EL Links to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
From User:Heard of Swine (owner/author of MorgellonsWatch- a blog/personal web page): 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.
Enough said? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No, not enough said. It's "Links normally to be avoided", not "Links that shall be forbidden". If a site offers a lot of interesting and useful information on a subject, then how exactly is it important that I'm a retired computer programmer? I've been writing about Morgellons for 18 months now, and Morgellons Watch is the second highest ranking Google result for "Morgellons". Herd of Swine (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not relevant that you are a computer programmer; nor is your site's performance on Google. Yes, it is "Links normally to be avoided" and I don't believe that any extenuating circumstance have been demonstrated here which would qualify this as anything but a normal situation.
Further, I am going to suggest that you (Herd of Swine) are contributing with a Conflict of Interest here; maybe not with Morgellons in general (though quite possibly), but definitely with regards to the advancement of the inclusion of your blog as an external link. I think it wise that you step back from this particular discussion. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I don't want to be lobbying for the link, I just think that your stated rationale for removal was specious and I could not resist pointing that out. My piece said, I'll bow out. Herd of Swine (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope now you recognize that my rationale is anything but specious, but rather genuinely aligned with Wikipedia policy. For other editors, please recognize that in order to include this non-authority self-published blog in the list of external links, we will have to demonstrate why this is an extenuating circumstance, as on the surface it truly appears to be a "link normally to be avoided". -- Levine2112 discuss 22:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I know the linking and sourcing policies pretty well. We're not using it as a source, only as a link. Blogs are links to normally avoid, but this blog provides information not available elsewhere and does so in a careful and reasonably thorough way; I spent at least two hours reading round that blog and it is very plain that the writer is well-informed and qualified to comment. We are not required to slavishly interpret "normally avoid" as "always exclude". Guy (Help!) 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I continue to disagree with this. It would be one thing if the blog was written by a known authority; otherwise there is no precedent or policy in Wikipedia which I have been shown to support inclusion. We are dealing with a cut-and-dry case of links normally to be avoided. Are you saying that this isn't normal because even though this blog is non-authoritative, it does contain information which can't be found anywhere else? I think I could point to a lot of partisan blogs which fit that description which certainly would not be allowed as an external link on any article. We have a pretty clear policy and I see no reason to break it here, especially without consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

← I know you disagree. The blog is not being represented as authoritative, it is there to provide background which is absent from the other sources; it is a uniquely informative resource. Absent some other website which addresses the issue in so much detail and with so much evidential discussion, I think it adds measurably to the article. And I do not say this lightly, since I am normally dead against blogs. As I say, I spent some hours studying it, and while I'd not promote it as a cited source it provides much-needed background. it explains many things within the article which are otherwiuse puxzzling or counter-intuitive, and also contains a very good description of why DP is not an "imaginary" disease. We have the highly partisan MRF, we need this one for balance because the mianstream is essentially not discussing Morgellons. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If your definition of "consensus" is "unanamity", then, due to your own objections, consensus is impossible. If, on the other hand, consensus is "the majority of participating editors", then there IS consensus to allow the link. Dyanega 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be many more who object to this link being included. Please kindly see past discussions. I don't think we have the sources to determine what is mainstream and what is not. Sure MRF may be partisan, but that does not give us a reason to break a longstanding Wiki policy. That being said, I highly respect JzG's opinions and his analysis of MorgellonsWatch is does have me reconsidering. However, I am not fully convinced yet that there is reason enough to include a a non-authoritative blog in the external links. Let me ask this: if a site was found which does represent the views of MorgellonsWatch which wasn't a blog or did not otherwise violate WP:EL, would you agree to include that link while leaving MorgellonsWatch out? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There might seem to be, to you, but not to me and not to Dyanega. You are applying an absolutist judgement - "blog = out" - when (a) WP:EL does not make any such absolutist judgment and (b) several of us have reviewed the site in detail and taken a view based on the specific link itself, not on the general rule that we don't normally link blogs; it doesn't "violate" EL since EL is a guideline not a hard and fast rule. I said above if we had a better source which reviewed the evidence as thoroughly as morgellonswatch then I'd almost certainly prefer that, but we don't. It seems to eb the noly place that has systematically studied and discussed the non-MRF POV. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There are three editors above who don't think this link should be included. There are three who believe it should. Hence, no consensus. Your analysis of the blog is persuasive to me, but your edit warring is not. Please discuss. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The balance of evidence seems to me to favour inclusion. And you're at three reverts, by the way. It takes two to edit war; you actually started it by reverting the link . Guy (Help!) 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please show me the policy which supports your "balance of evidence" proposition. P.S. I am not at three reverts for this 24 hour (or even this 72 hour) period. I am at two. You, OTOH, are at three reverts. Please recount. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the inclusion of morgellonswatch.com is reasonable. Not a traditional reliable source, perhaps, but then neither is the MRF. Neutrality is well served by including both. Friday (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I ask the question: If a more traditional source is found which serves neutrality, could it be there in place of the blog?
Another suggest to achieve balance. Remove BOTH external links; MRF and MorgellonsWatch. If they are both questionable, then why keep one just to balance the other. How about that? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just so it's explicit, I wasn't referring simply to those who had chimed in on this latest iteration of the discussion; I was referring to the opinions and positions taken by people who have been regularly editing the article over the last several months - until you removed the morgellonswatch link, even the pro-Morgellons editors here had virtually all accepted its presence in the article, even through some of the most contentious periods in the article's history. It's a pretty recent and small-scale dissent when viewed against the history of the article, and the VAST interval of time over which that link remained uncontested and uncomplained about offers little in the way of evidence to suggest that any editors have argued that it needed to be removed. If it will resolve things by eliminating all links, I would not object to that, as stated earlier. Dyanega 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As previous, yes, if a better source can be found which covers it in the same depth then obviously we'd use that instead. This is about balance, and about lue rather than vote counting or slavish following of guidelines. The site is if anything less polemical and more analytical than MRF, thoguh the comments drag it down a bit at times. we can't exactly take both out since MRF is the sole source of "truth" for the disorder, and is also Wikilinked anyway, so that would not serve balance. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Then let's take them both out of the External Links section, since we are in agreement. I would be happy to oblige this request but fear breaking 3RR. I think JzG is in the same boat. Dyanega, the ball is in your court to fulfill this results of this agreement. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Morgellons Watch is not written by a doctor. I wrote the vast majority of the articles there (as "Margellons", for historical reasons), and there were a few other guest posts, a couple by an actual scientist [6] (and 13,000 comments, mostly noise, but a few useful perspectives in there as well). I've edited the link accordingly, without prejudice. Herd of Swine 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Herd of Swine. I also put the ball in your court , if you agree with us about both External Link being removed, feel free to do so. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that the MRF link should be removed, as the MRF is 75% of the actual story, and hence you would expect a link to it. It's also linked several times in the references, so removing it from EL is not an effective compromise in the need for balance. It should stay regardless of whether the MW link is there or not. Herd of Swine 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If MRF is reffed several times in the article, then there is no need to link to it in the External Links. I don't know if this is a policy, but it is common practice not to include External Links which are used as refs in the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the statements on "evidential discussion" and "it explains many things within the article", the evidential discussion and explanations by the website publisher/computer programmer is original research not published anywhere else and should be avoided according to, [7] "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"."

MorgellonsWatch's opinions may be accurate or inaccurate in its evidential discussions (no one has studied the evidence thoroughly), but MorgellonsWatch's opinions are unverifiable research. Below is a quote from this discussion page indicating unverifiable research is presented on this website.

  • "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 [124]. I also do various experiments like replicating Morgellons photos [125]. 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)"

If a person reviews the MorgellonsWatch blog they will also find in the comments section other people giving abusive opinions of Mogellons.

  • [8] "Do you mean that if I really had Morgellons, I would be talking crazy like you and the rest of the Morgies?", and [9]"I don’t care what kind of tests the Morgies have, as long as they aren’t being paid for by insurance. Insurance rates are high enough already, and if the insurance companies have to pay for these foolish tests, rates will certainly go up. I do have reasons not to stand with the Morgies. They are endangering everyone with the misuse of antibiotics. Many of them also abuse their children, spouses, and pets. The belief in Morgellons is ruining a lot of lives and putting everyone at risk. And the things that Morgies are taking a stand for are lies."

There are many more assertions such as those above in the MorgellonsWatch blog comments sections.

By reason of unverifiable research and the abusive languge in the blogs alone, I don't believe MorgellonsWatch is a suitable link. Myself and others have tried to remove it and it has been reinserted several times before this episode.

Additionally, these mainstream citations of Morgellons articles are already in use in the WP article, Mayo Clinic, Nature Medicine, Am J Psychiatry, Centers For Disease Control, Psychology Today, ABC News Primetime, New Scientist Magazine, San Francisco Chronicle, J Am Acad Dermatol, Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, Atlas of Human Parasitology, The Times, J Invest Med., Arch Dermatol, Popular Mechanics, Los Angeles Times, and Discover. I do not believe a link to MorgellonsWatch is necessary to offset a lack of discussion in mainstream WP:RS.Ward20 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Ward20 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion, so we do not beat this to death any more, why not add Morgellons at Wikipedia:WikiProject External links Articles that need external links cleanup. For description say, Please see [10] for extensive debate about article external links. Ward20 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Go for it! -- Levine2112 discuss 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Ward20 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure if some random user with a very short (yet professional) edit history coming along and just deleting the links without discussion was exactly the "consensus" people were hoping for. I'm assuming good faith, but I though there might be a little discussion. Or was the process supposed to be: "whatever the first person who comes along thinks"? Herd of Swine 06:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I put the two links up again with the template being more specific about reading the discussions and commenting on the talk page. Ward20 07:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a new editor and apparently I'm also "some random user" according to a person writing a couple paragraphs above here. That description implies my input won't have much weight here, so I'll make this quick and not waste your time or mine. I've read the five pillars of wikipedia and the page telling me to be bold in making edits. That's why I deleted the links instead of writing on this page first. I put my reasons in the edit summary box: "delete two external links per template & WP:EL - one is a blog or forum, and the other is redundant because it's a cited source." Both of those reasons I got from the page that clicking on the template lead me to: WP:EL and from reviewing the arguments on this page and the other pages that are referred to here, WP:RS and WP:SPS. It looks to me that the user discussing above, Levine2112, is correct and that both of the links should be removed. --Jack-A-Roe 09:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if unverifiable researech is the criterion then we need to delete the article, as MRF is also punting unverifiable research. But no, I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is keeping morgellonswatch as the most comprehensive critique we currently have, unless and until some better source comes along. Morgellonswatch is not overtly polemical, it makes a good fist of referencing the mainstream view, and it states its case is reasonably balanced tones. I'd rather we had review articles in JAMA debunking the whole thing, but those do not yet exist, so we must play the hand we are dealt. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Jack-A-Roe, I appreciate your input above. "some random user" was simply meant as an observation that you were the first person to come across this after it was flagged, and presumably did so at random. You are clearly a highly adept editor, and your input has as much weight as any editor contributing here. Herd of Swine 17:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Very well put. Ward20 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Herd of Swine: thank you for clarifying your note and that you do not intend to discount my contributions. As it happens, I did not come across this article randomly, I found it by following a link in an article about a bacteria used to transfer DNA for genetic engineering of plants.
Reply in general in regards to including the links: It appears that the question has already been discussed in detail, and that each side of the debate are pretty much decided in their positions. I doubt that anything I could write would change anyone's mind, and probably most of the information has already been dug up already. It appears to be just a question of waiting for more people to come along and offer their opinions about it to break the tie. The posts by Levine2112 seem to me to adequately cover the way I understand the situation, in particular his or her summary at time stamp 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (not regarding the first part of that paragraph that replies to the other editor, but specifically the second half of the paragraph, following "To summarize my position"). So in determining consensus at whatever point in this process that happens, my recommendation is that both external links be removed. --Jack-A-Roe 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't "break the tie", we don't do these things by vote counting. The case for linking is that there are no better sources for this, the only other source discussing Morgellons in detail is MRF, which invented the whole thing, and the site is reasonably sane. The case against is that blogs are usually to be avoided. The case for seems to be stronger, at least until more evidence or a more authoritative rebuttal becomes available. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand this is not a vote. I've read the consensus policy. Maybe a better phrase than breaking the tie would be to "break the logjam". What I meant is that because there is only a small number of people expressing their opinions on this decision, and it is obvious that the positions are entrenched, therefore more people are needed to get to the point where a consensus can be formed.
This appears to be a conversation, but each side has been repeating their viewpoints, and even when someone adds supporting information or new logical arguments, it can't make any difference because there is no receptivity by the other side. Each side has made up their minds and are not going to change. That's why I'm not listing arguments here. I referred to a paragraph written above by Levine2112 because he already stated the reasons clearly. There's no reason for me to repeat them.
What is the procedure for finding out if there is consensus? I see several people on this page who do not agree with you that the blog external link should be kept. Since there's no voting, who gets to decide? --Jack-A-Roe 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed error in last reference in CDC investigation section: [19]

{{editprotected}} When some cited text was removed from the lead it exposed an existing error in the last reference in the CDC section. The lead text and the CDC section text had the same reference and name but different attributes. After the lead text reference was removed it defaulted to the CDC section ref [19]. The link in ref [19] is no longer valid. Please replace with this reference [1] which documents the purchase request and omits the outdated link. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Haemo (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

CDC in lead

I have added mention of the CDC investigation to the lead. I believe it is a significant enough event that it belongs there. -- Fyslee / talk 03:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Herd of Swine (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Morgellons article needs to be greatly revised--it's hijacked by extremists

The scientific consensus is that Morgellons disease is not a new condition, but an existing one. The lead of the article should reflect this fact more prominently, preferably in the first line. Why should we give equal footing to extremists, when in other matters (e.g., evolution) we firmly side with the mainstream scientists? The article consistently tries to undermine the consensus diagnosis of delusional parasitosis by frequently referring to the Morgellons Research Foundation and mostly fringe doctors, while giving only passing mention of the majority that refutes Morgellons as a real disease.

Exeunt (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is that very few mainstream medical authorities have yet to come forward and explicitly publish statements declaring their opinions regarding Morgellons - as you'll note from the refs, there are only a handful of definitive primary sources, such as the Atlas of Parasitology quote, and lots of secondary sources. For the time being, at least, there are some editors who take this lack of mainstream rebuttal as evidence that Morgellons is not a fringe theory, and that's the source of most - if not all - of the dispute regarding this article. At this stage, it seems that the future of this article will hinge upon the outcome of the CDC investigation: if it concludes that there is something legitimate to the MRF's claims, then the article will, obviously, change accordingly, but if it concludes that Morgellons is nothing new or unknown, then the article will, obviously, change to reflect THAT. Dyanega (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome

Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome (NCS) is a syndrome that is predates Morgellons by several years, yet is basically identical, with the same neurological, dermatological and systemic features, including fibers, lesions and crawling sensations[11]. The main researcher into NCS, Omar Amin, says on his web site[12] that NCS is "also known as Morgellons Disease". Amin has published sveral articles on NCS, two of which are listed in PubMed[13]. I'm reluctant to include it, since it's an odd theory (leakage from amalgam filling causes immune system and neurological problems resulting in opportunistic infections), but it's so closely related to Morgellons, and predates it, so perhaps it deserves some mention, like in a "similar conditions", or "other theories" or something. Herd of Swine 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Interesting.

Neuro-cutaneous Syndrome (NCS): A New Disorder[14] Copyright 2000 by Omar M. Amin, Tempe, Arizona (Published in Explore! Volume 10, Number2, 2001) Seem to me most interesting in that it predates MRF entirely.Ward20 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the actual article in "Explore" magazine [15] (although the photos are in B&W for some reason). Note that Explore is a rather fringe publication, focusing on "Alternative" medicine. The NPA (National Pediculosis Association) is mentioned and they predate the MRF by 20 years or so, they mostly focus on headlice in kids, but have long acted (since 1994? [16]) as a support group for people who think they are infested by something, but are diagnosed as delusional. They have a slightly obscure Morgellons style registration page [17] which lists the following symptoms (Biting or Stinging, Black Specks, Crawling Sensation, Fibers or Fuzzy Artifacts, Itching, Lumps on Head, Salt-like Crystals, Scaling Skin, Scarring, Skin Discoloration,Sores or Lesions)
Even earlier, the national Unidentified Skin Parasite Association, that way back in 1998 was describing something very like "Morgellons" [18]:
Rashes, lesions, itching, burning sensations, track marks, scratches, and papules appear from nowhere on the surface of the skin, along with burrows under the skin, containing what the sufferer describes as "eggs". Some people complain of having symptoms in only one spot on the skin ( i.e., scalp, face, rectum, groin area) while others are infested from head to toe. Acute insomnia can also be a symptom of this disease
Black specks, iridescent crystals, microscopic hairs, wormlike creatures, hairlike creatures (the size of an eyelash to several inches long, and colors ranging from transparent to shinny black) "lintlike balls" bloody and/saltlike granules and threads, have all been described as emerging from the lesions.
Interesting stuff. Obviously the same thing, predating Leitao's Morgellons. How to mention these in the article? A "Similar conditions" section? Herd of Swine 21:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm uneasy. If Omar Amin tried to write an article here on "Neutrocutaneous syndrome" it would be challenged as fringe/alternative with no reliable sources. The Journal of the California Dental Association is not exactly high profile. (It's not fillings, but of dental sealants PMID 15553959). Omar M Amin has a long publication record involving parasites of freshwater fish (PMID 16025206, PMID 12652074). He only has two other papers dealing with human health, both involving identification of intestinal parasites taken from stool samples sent to him by other doctors (PMID 12224595). My guess is that some people with secondary or opportunistic parasite infections were referred to him, and he somehow made the deduction that the underlying cause was a "neural cutaneous syndrome" caused by dental sealants. Another issue is that "neurocutaneous syndrome" is a general term already in use (PMID 17660941 and see Phakomatoses.) (Which I think shows that Amin is not a physician and not working with physicians on this.) And Morgellons is not really a phakomatosis because those are birth defects and/or inherited. Thatcher131 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you guys aware that the term Neurocutaneous syndrome has been used for a long time to describe genetic disorders affecting both the skin and the nervous system? The best known is neurofibromatosis; there are many more. I don't know what this Amin guy is talking about, but he shows little respect for medical nomenclature. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

reply to JzG about the content of the Mayo clinic quote

JzG, when you reverted the following edit:

...you included a request for citation detail in your edit summary for the revert:

In response to your request, here is the exact quote from the Mayo clinic reference, found by clicking the link in the footnote and scrolling approximately halfway down the page:

Current attitudes toward Morgellons disease fall into various categories:
  • Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research.
  • Some health professionals believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by another condition, often mental illness.
  • Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.

The first item in the Mayo Clinic list above was omitted in the article, as was the reference to mental illness; those are the points I corrected with my edit.

Since you reverted my edit that was based closely on the reference, I would appreciate it if you would please restore my paraphrase. If you don't feel that I paraphrased it correctly, please feel free to improve it. But the reverted version should not remain because it's incorrect.

Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again... Since there has been no reply or objection after a couple of days, I've restored the corrected paraphrase of the sourced material. If anyone does not agree that the new text is more accurate, further comments are welcome. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The problem here is that the "some" in the first instance appears top refer to the MRF. We seem to be double-counting. I see no evidence that the number believing it to be a new disease is more than a handful. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern, but I figure it's not our job to decipher what the Mayo Clinic might have meant by their statement, we should accept it as they wrote it. They're a reliable source, totally mainstream, to be reported accurately. That's all I'm trying to do. I'm not taking sides in the Morgellons debate - this article is the first time I heard of it, so I don't have an opinion of if it exists or not. I'm trying to following the NPOV and Verifiability policies, and after reading those several times, Mayo seems like a clear example of a reliable source that should be used. Leaving out the first point of their three item list, as was done in the prior version of that sentence, would not be an accurate reporting of what they published. That's where I'm coming from on this, just reporting what the reliable source stated. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but equally there's no evidence of any support outside of the MRF, and we should not actively participate in confusing people on that. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
More to the point, the statement about that webpage being "a reliable source, totally mainstream" is itself self-evidently not true. Consider the following quotes from that webpage: "The Morgellons Research Foundation lists six primary signs and symptoms of the condition:" "Today, the Morgellons Research Foundation doesn't claim that the disorder described by Browne is the same as Morgellons disease. Rather, the foundation adopted the term as a convenient label for a set of signs and symptoms." "The Morgellons Research Foundation reports no known causes of Morgellons disease and no successful treatment for the condition. Whether Morgellons disease is contagious remains a mystery." From these statements and others on that page, it is quite clear that much of the content is based on information supplied by the MRF. That webpage is a secondary source, primarily reporting what the MRF says, and as such, it is no more "reliable" or "mainstream" a source than any of the numerous magazine articles, newspaper articles, or TV reports on Morgellons which are cited elsewhere and also quote the MRF. You may also note that the statement "The Morgellons Research Foundation reports no known causes of Morgellons disease and no successful treatment for the condition." is distinctly at odds with the present content of the article, which gives citations to claims by the MRF regarding both causes and treatments. If the Mayo Clinic page is wrong about something so fundamental, why is it being treated as a reliable source? Dyanega (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The Mayo Clinic article as a WP:RS has previously been discussed here at the end of this section. They used a number of sources along with their experts to produce the article, and the Mayo Clinic assertions used in the article were not attributed to the MRF. They stated, "In general, it is our editorial policy to cite organizations within articles when information is attributable to a specific organization. Non-attributable statements of fact generally have been synthesized from a variety of sources. All statements are reviewed by our experts for medical accuracy. Before producing this health topic, the product development team collected and reacted to ideas over a period of multiple months using a number of sources." (Italics mine.) The Mayo Clinic contact and correspondence reference number are there so that anyone can verify the correspondence.
This sentence from the Mayo Clinic, "The Morgellons Research Foundation reports no known causes of Morgellons disease and no successful treatment for the condition." is not at odds with the MRF, the present article, or reliable sources. The MRF has not reported any known causes of Morgellons disease. The article states, "Morgellons disease may be linked to an undefined infectious process," and reports certain pathogens have been detected in Morgellons patients. The wording, "successful treatment for the condition", is subject to interpretation and ambiguous (anywhere from helpful to curative). The article says some treatments used by MRF associated heath professionals cause symptom relief or remission of Morgellons symptoms in most patients and in specific cases, "if the treatment is discontinued the symptoms return". I don't see the statement as being wrong, possibly ambiguous as to treatment, but the article is not using this attribution.
The Mayo Clinic statement, "Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research." is actually pretty general, it is inclusive of the MRF hypothesis of an infectious process, and the hypothesis discussed under Environmental toxins. It also is would also be compatible with this specific hypothesis by Koblenzer that, "...morgellons and delusional parasitosis are identical, but that they are more than mere delusion....Others, of which I am one, believe that there is indeed an altered sensation in the skin, probably triggered by neuropeptide release, usually associated with stress of some kind or depression, which the patient interprets in terms of parasitic infestation..."Ward20 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) The letter you quote gives no internal evidence that it is anything other than a boilerplate/form letter response. (2) Even if we assume it applies specifically to the Morgellons webpage, it states only that they used a number of sources (nowhere does it say anything about experts WRITING the article, just reviewing it - the authors were "the product development team") - it is thus by definition a secondary source, exactly as I stated above. (3) Citovsky and Kilani have both issued reports on the MRF website claiming they believe that Morgellons is caused by a bacterium (Citovsky) or "fungus, algae or a novel parasite" (Kilani). If these are not claims of causation, then why are they being cited as such in the article? (4) If the quote "some Morgellons patients who test positive for Lyme disease obtain symptom relief using aggressive, long-term antibiotic treatment" does not EXPLICITLY indicate that the MRF considers antibiotics a treatment for some Morgellons patients, then why exactly is that quote included? In other words, if you believe the quote "The Morgellons Research Foundation reports no known causes of Morgellons disease and no successful treatment for the condition" is an accurate and succinct portrayal of the facts, then why don't we eliminate all the other MRF-supplied citations and just use that one quote? (5) Ever since DP was first described, it was known that many cases involved "an altered sensation in the skin" that had a non-psychological cause - just look up the WP entry, under "secondary organic". NO ONE has ever said that the only manifestation of DP is the type that is purely psychological, and there is nothing in Koblenzer's statement that lends any credence to the claim that Morgellons is a NOVEL or an UNKNOWN medical condition. You appear to be interpreting the Mayo Clinic quote as implying the latter (novel and/or unknown), and then trying to draw a parallel to a statement that includes neither of these implications. All Koblenzer's quote is pointing out is the exact same thing that I have pointed out to you and Pez over and over through this whole debate - that DP often DOES have legitimate organic causes, that everyone has known this for decades, and that this is not a difference between DP and Morgellons, but rather a very dramatic similarity. Trying to portray DP as "It's all in your mind" and then pretending that Morgellons is an "alternative" which is NOT "all in the mind" is a straw man fallacy which serves only to prey on the insecurities of the people suffering from the condition. Dyanega (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1.) The Mayo Clinic letter said, "Before producing this health topic, the product development team collected and reacted to ideas over a period of multiple months using a number of sources."
2.) OK, as you point out, the Mayo Clinic experts reviewed for medical accuracy statements produced from ideas the product development team collected and reacted to over a period of multiple months using a number of sources. Sounds more, "reliable or mainstream a source than any of the numerous magazine articles, newspaper articles, or TV reports on Morgellons." According to WP:NOR it could be a secondary source or a tertiary source.
3.) They did not report any known causes of Morgellons disease and the WP article more clearly reflects that now.
RB Stricker, V Citovsky, The Contribution of Agrobacterium To Morgellons Disease: "Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that Agrobacterium may be involved in the etiology and/or progression of Morgellons disease. If these results are confirmed, it would be the first example of a plant-infecting bacterium playing a role in human disease." Wikipedia article says: "Five skin samples of Morgellons patients contained evidence of DNA from Agrobacterium, a plant-infecting organism which is known to produce cellulose fibers at infection sites within plant host tissues."
Kilani, A., Investigation of Novel Organism Implicated in Morgellons Disease. The cite states, "The information available today is limited and does not provide an answer to what the causative agent of Morgellons could be." Now the Wikipedia article agrees. Thank you.
4.) Do my statements, "successful treatment for the condition, is subject to interpretation and ambiguous (anywhere from helpful to curative)." and, "I don't see the statement as being wrong, possibly ambiguous as to treatment" sound like I believe the phrase, "is an accurate and succinct portrayal of the facts"? It is a moot point. Successful treatment for the condition is ambiguous wording subject to interpretation, and the proposal is a hypothetical case not used in the article.
Will address other concerns later. Ward20 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
5.) Many issues are discussed. I will try to address specifically the statement,"Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research.", and Koblenzer has discussed Morgellons in a way that is also compatible with that statement. Note, I am agreeing "altered sensation in the skin" has non-psychological causes, but also tring to show sources indicate all causes of those altered sensations are not known in Morgellons or DP. I do think Koblenzer's statements are compatible with "Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research", but I understand the counterview. I think this is another moot point, and it would have nice if Koblenzer had been more specific. She stated:
  • "Unfortunately, since we do not know the cause of the symptoms.. .there are differences of opinion as to how to approach these unfortunate patients," she said. "Many dermatologists feel that it is `all in your head' or `imaginary' and tend to dismiss the patient. Others, of which I am one, believe that there is indeed an altered sensation in the skin, probably triggered by neuropeptide release, usually associated with stress of some kind or depression, which the patient interprets in terms of parasitic infestation; that is, the basic change is in the skin, and this must be addressed appropriately, in addition to treating the thought disorder."
In another article in the same journal Koblenzer responds to a question:
  • "What would you do to help a patient who tells you he or she has morgellons disease?", she states, "You know, it is a difficult topic because we have no absolute proof of what is going on..." "We do biopsies, we do blood tests, all those things that would rule out the extrusion of any foreign material, whether it be living or nonliving. So what I try to say to patients is, `We have no evidence... however, we do have medications [that can help].'" She added, "I think it is heartless to tell the patients that it is all in their head because I have no question that something is going on...."
In the article Morgellons, Real or a state of mind, by Melissa Healy:
  • "Craft of Harbor-UCLA believes that the CDC must investigate Morgellons, if only to help quell the groundswell of believers. That may be a hard sell among sufferers, who have come to distrust the government and medical community for writing them off as mentally ill, Craft says. But only the CDC has the resources to begin to unravel this mystery.
"And for all we know, it [the illness] could be real," Craft says. The CDC, for example, could discover that this is an outbreak of delusional parasitosis brought on my some common exposure, such as a neurotoxin. Delusional parasitosis is often seen in recreational drug users (especial those using methamphetamine), victims of stroke and other neurological diseases, as well as in patients with certain vitamin deficiencies. Perhaps, Craft says, some exposure common among Morgellons sufferers may be causing neurological changes that have brought on a common delusion." Ward20 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, that would be delusional parasitosis, then, a well-documented extant condition, not a new one. Albeit with a new common trigger. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying that would be a "specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research." Ward20 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That's like saying dermatitis caused by exposure to diesel fuel is a separate condition from dermatitis. It's never been disputed that DP might have organic causes, only that the parasitosis is delusional - that is, there are no parasites. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is somewhat hypothetical, so probably we now are arguing about who is more stubborn, if you let me have the last word I am. If it helps, I think I'm older :) Ward20 (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

propose Morgellons external links be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

It has been over a month since the external link tag has been in place and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject External links. It has achieved only one new opinion. I rechecked the backlog at WikiProject ELs and it appears there is little hope of them addressing Morgellons in the near future. IMO the crux of the argument for removing morgellonswatch from external links is that it is a not an adequate RS according to WP:EL standards. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems to address things fairly quickly, maybe input from them would help resolve the issue. I am posting the proposal for comment here so there is no forum shopping issues. Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This is called forum shopping. As you note in the Wikipedia:WikiProject External links posting, there has been extensive debate. This is a fringe topic and is not addressed by mainstream sources; no better source for the (default and dominant) skeptical view has been proposed, so per WP:UNDUE we have the two links as a temporary compromise until better ones exist. The fact that you don't like the content of one of them is a matter of record, and does not need to be brought to wider notice. It is not a source (so inappropriate at the RS noticeboard), it is an external link. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
My PVO does not discredit me, I don't care if it is brought to a wider notice. We all have POVs. I believe the link is inappropriate because WP:EL states in Links normally to be avoided, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". It is entirely appropriate at the RS noticeboard. If weight is a problem then both links can be removed. Ward20 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it seems quite fair. The Foundation probably doesn't meet WP:EL standards, so it certainly doesn't meet WP:RS standards, and we'll need to remove all the Morgellons-as-actual-disease sections from the article. However, it is forum-shopping, and should be discouraged. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you are discussing removing? If there are other passages what are they? Thanks:

According to the Morgellons Research Foundation website, MRF board member, Dr. Ahmed Kilani CEO of Clongen Laboratories, and a microbiologist with a Ph.D. from Stanford University Medical School, observed structures from a number of Morgellons patients microscopically, along with their clinical profiles. He believes this organism is not a bacteria, and hypothesized this organism "is a more complex fungus, algae or a novel parasite." The fibers resemble "aerial hyphae observed in many fungal species". The webpage also states, "The information available today is limited and does not provide an answer to what the causative agent of Morgellons could be."[36]

Such treatments may include vitamins, herbs, epsom salt baths, vinegar, antifungal soaps and shampoos, and natural oils

External links
Morgellons Research Foundation
Morgellons Watch, a skeptical blog following the Morgellons debate.

I was not sure how my prosposal would be viewed, that is why it was a proposal. Ward20 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be be pretty much it. The website can be used as a reference about the organization itself, even if not reliable. It might make it difficult to discuss the (apparent) fact that all the productive (whether or not accurate) research results are coming from the MRF, which probably also needs to be noted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The fundamental problem is that it is a polemical site which presents only one side of the story. As per the discussions above, morgellonswatch presents the other half, and makes a pretty good fist of balancing. To cite one and not the other, biases the article. Neither is a reliable source regarding the disease, the MRF is a reliable source about the history of their claims and organisation and nothing more. The sources we should be using are secondary ones, not MRF, not morgellonswatch. The only primary source which we should consider reliable in this context is probably CDC. If you read back you'll see that pro-MRF editors have wanted morgellonswatch out from the second it was linked, presumably because it apppears to blow their house of cards over. I'd call myself unconvinced by MRF, and I found morgellonswatch of considerable use when assessing the biases which obviously exist in the MRF site. One without the toher looks, to my eyes, anyway like a failure of NPOV, but neither is or should be regarded as a source, and so the RS board is not the place to go. What we need more than anything else is publications, even letters, in the medical journals. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed both links (and thus deleted the External Links section). If we all agree that neither link meets WP:EL then there is no reason to keep either. If there are suitable External Links to add, please feel free to do so and thus reinstate the section, but I move to keep these two links out. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

delusional parasitosis - ref material

While I have no vested interest in this condition - apart from a professional one - and neither have, as yet, come to any conclusions as to whether this is a "real" illness with some physiological/bacterial/immune/etc cause or a purely psychosomatic one - the references given as evidence to it being a delusional parasitosis are weak at best and need either replacing or removing.

For example:

The statement: "A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis." is support by two references. this are from, Nature - an non peer reviewed journalistic article which does not actually name its source for these "majority of health professionals" No survey of said professionals is quoted.

the second reference is from Am J Psychiatry.2007; 164: - not a "bio-medical journal" (apologies to those in this field)and the article is actual titled "Diffuse Pruritic Lesions in a 37-Year-Old Man After Sleeping in an Abandoned Building. Any reference to A majority of health professionals, that might exist - is again not cited.

The sentence: "A majority of dermatologists view Morgellons as a new name for an old condition, Delusional parasitosis." is taken from an article called: "A Medical Mystery: Delusional parasitosis Frank X. Mullen Jr," From the Reno Gazette-Journal, May 8, 2004. Which is not only not a pear reviewed medical journal but appears to be a newspaper!

The sentence: "Dr. Noah Craft, a dermatologist at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, has seen a handful of Morgellons patients and biopsied their skin lesions, but found only normal skin and inflammation, as one would find in a bump that has been picked at" Again is not taken form a medical journal but, what i believe are known as "pop" psychology magazines. This one being Psychology today described by wiki as "is a bi-monthly magazine published in the United States. It is a psychology flavoured magazine about relationships"

There are more examples but I won't bore you. If this is to be a serious reference point to this "disease2 - what ever it's cause either physiological or psychological - then surely statements regarding its pathogenesis should come from more reliable sources? That there is an argument that it may very well be an expression of delusional parasitosis then surely more reliable evidence can be found to support such a statement? It is certain at the moment that a large amount of "headline" space is given over to this theory. I personally feel that such emphasis may stop people attending their Doctors for fear that they will be thought of as "time wasters" or that they are purely suffering some psychosomatic illness - when their maybe other causes. Some of us studied when medical textbooks such as Kumar and Clarke stated that nearly all digestive tracts ulcers in those under the age of 40 were no doubt psychosocial in origin and did not warrant further investigation such as barium swallow, meal, etc. Opinions? Really2008 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Really2008 (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, you seem to be ignoring the following passage entirely:

The 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology states:

Many dermatologists refute the suggestion that this is an actual disease but instead indicate that many of these patients have psychological problems or other common skin disorders. Given the large numbers of individuals who feel that they have this affliction, it will be most helpful over the coming years to have a valid scientific assessment of Morgellons disease and its possible etiology (or etiologies). One of the chief criticisms by many patients has been that they feel the medical community and other scientists consulted have not been open to the idea that there is possibly an as yet undescribed infectious or physiologic causation for the disease. However it is certainly true that in fact many expert parasitologists, medical entomologists and other microbiologists have in fact carefully examined fibers and other materials expressed or extracted from such patients and found that biological organisms are not present. Although an apparent association of the condition with the presence of Lyme disease has been reported (Savely et al, 2006, Am J Clin Dermatol, 7:1–6), 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.[2]

That's a pretty definitive summary of mainstream medical opinion, which is why it is figured so prominently in the article. You should also acquaint yourself with WP:FRINGE and the principles regarding evidence and rebuttal of fringe theories. To give a simple example: let's suppose a doctor publishes a book in which he claims that the consumption of 12 ounces of fresh panda pancreas every day enables a person to live forever without aging. How many doctors are going to publish a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed medical journal? The burden of proof is on the claimant, not on those who would rebut their claims. More to the point, would the absence of peer-reviewed rebuttals in medical journals mean that Wikipedia editors could ONLY include the "pro-immortality" comments, even if there were numerous quotes in the mass media from medical professionals, all saying it's ridiculous? No. The guiding principle is that Wikipedia editors must work to accurately represent both sides of a debate, using the best sources available. If one has to look in newspapers to find representative examples of the mainstream opinion, then that's what gets quoted here. Besides, if peer-reviewed clinical studies were a requirement for something to be given as a source in a medical Wikipedia article, then we would have to eliminate every one of the citations to the MRF in the Morgellons article, since none of them are peer-reviewed clinical research. For you to suggest that citations from the MRF's website are fine but articles in Nature Medicine are NOT is a blatant double-standard. Dyanega (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The first example brings up a good point. The sentence that starts with, "A majority of health professionals" is written as a global generic statement, see Attribution and citation and Attributing and substantiating biased statements. The sources of this opinion are one Nature magazine author, and three authors of the Am J Psychiatry article. If the Atlas of Human Parasitology is to be used (right now it is not sourced for that passage), who are the author(s) that give this opinion and what is that based on? As the article is now referenced, there is a lot of weight given to the opinion of 4 authors. If a source had a survey to cite, "A majority of health professionals believe X" that might give the weight to make a sweeping statement. Right now what is missing in front of "A majority of health professionals" is "according to who". Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Ward20: You highlight perhaps my main concern far better then I have. You are completely correct. To correct this statement it would need to state the names of the theorists - and as there are so few their professional capacity. This constant use of "MANY" is deeply concerning. In my country MANY dermatologists I have spoken to today have Hadley heard of it (another oddy mainly American "disease" it would seem) never mind have come to any conclusions on it's pathogenesis. Really2012 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dyanega: I'm afraid your logic is flawed and you have obviously never had the misfortune to mark undergraduate essays. The point of references is that they support your argument with VALID and RELIABLE sources. Whether a source used is in a peer reviewed source is of little consequence if that quotation comes from an editorial or indeed the letters page, Throughout this article it sates MANY dermatologist, etc, maintain that this disease is a delusional parasitosis - despite this the article is unable to quote even a small survey among est dermatologists. I am not against this argument being made or the notion that this is a psychosomatic illness - however, i am deeply disturbed when this argument is supported with such weak references. As you quote "Atlas of Human Parasitology" (I am assuming form an Amwerican Society? I assume you are student in this area - this does look after all like a book used mainly by undergraduates or the newly qualified depending on your field. - perhaps you can produce some better references from your own studies. As to using Atlas of Human Parasitology as a references source then again - given the readership that this article will be mainly aimed at - I would have the same reserves as using the Oxford handbook or Kumar and Clarke - but would far from exclude it's use.

However, I will repeat, i cannot see how how an article such as this can only support the possibility of this "disease" being "a" delusional parasitosis by using editorial comments in nature and in the main - articles form "pop" psychology magazines and articles in regional newspapers. While I believe the reasoning behind citing delusional parasitosis as a possible diagnosis is valid - both because of a probability and the need to reduce any further cases which result from "mass hysteria" generated by ill conceived - if well meant - websites and articles - surely it is possible to use more reasoned references to support it?

As to "You should also acquaint yourself with [[WP:FRINGE)" I would much prefer not to waste my time but for the editors of the article to use common references rules. My experience of fringe theories is that if they are not valid - and are observable by scientific methodology - then they are easy to disprove and equally any counter arguments to them can be easily support by VALID and RELEVANT research in the journals. Really2012 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I should point-out - least I become associated with the "lunatic-fringe" that I do not support some of the extrema theories on the net that this is some sort of "alien" (as in UFOs) introduced disease or that it is the result of "nanobot infiltration". I am open however to the possibility that this maybe delusional parasitosis, a new strain of bacterial infection, etc, etc.Really2012 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bohart Museum of Entomology has a great online article about Delusional parasitosis. My favorite passage, under the Clinical Manifestations tab :

The Sufferer:

  • Consistently and fiercely rejects negative findings or any that deviate from their perceptions of the infestation.
  • May exhibit the "matchbox sign", where sufferers deliver or mail containers holding samples consisting of dust, lint, skin scrapings, toilet paper, dried blood or scabs, hair or other pieces of human tissue.

If it sounds familiar, it's because it is. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Emm said "If it sounds familiar, it's because it is." Thats good then - wont need any further investigation - no ned to waste resources, yes. And that HIV too - has symptoms the same as a number of other illnesses so all thatr research to find an alternative cause most have been a waste of time also. Thank goodness for that :-) Really2012 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Histological and electron microscopic appearance of skin biopsies?

I am a pathologist with a special interest in skin diseases. I found out about this disease today. I am particularly puzzled by the absence of histological images. Dermatologists routinely take biopsies of puzzling skin conditions, so there must be many biopsies of these lesions. The biopsies are examined by us pathologists. We frequently see fibers of all kind under the microscope and most of us are quite good at telling foreign from natural structures. Electron microscopy would be essential here. Could someone direct me to images or descriptions of the fibers under the microscope? Emmanuelm (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut & paste from my user talk page; this discussion belongs here:
See here [19]. I would be very interested to hear your take on these images. There is some rebuttal here [20] Herd of Swine (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Herd, these SEM pics are useful. My opinion is that some pictures, especially picture 3, show foreign fibers. Picture 2 shows a mineral particle (grain of sand). The others are not useful; foreign bodies rapidly get covered by gunk in the body, which is why SEM is not the most useful technique here. TEM or histology would be very useful as they look at the cut surface of the fiber, and hence its interior. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Other images [21]. Ward20 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ward, I had seen these images. By microscopic, I meant much higher magnification to evaluate the structure of the inside of the fibers. One particularly useful technique in this context is polarized light, which requires thin sections.
These low-power images, however, are very telling. They show unmistakable lint. The fluorescent image is textbook synthetic lint. The second pair of photos, however, is puzzling. It seems to show the lint under the epidermis (to be confirmed by histology; again, where are the pictures?). My understanding of this disease is that the fibers are going into the skin, not coming out of it. I think they get stuck on a sticky scab caused by scratching, then get incorporated when the skin re-epithelializes. This would explain the wide variety of material extracted from the lesions (fibers, sand), all foreign-looking.
Such an incorporation of foreign material is abnormal; normal skin excludes foreign objects from a healing ulcer. I therefore see this disease as an uncommon manifestation of a common condition, intractable itching. Instead of waisting their time on epidemiology, as the CDC just announced, researchers should experiment on patients to identify the sequence of events leading to the skin lesions. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your view is that of the majority of the most dermatologists, but wrongly or rightly the origins of the fibers are contested by some medical professionals. This section and references discuss the differing opinions. Ward20 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes - medical professionals who happen to be past or present board members of the MRF. Let's not pretend that these are people who don't know which side their bread is buttered on. Dyanega (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to discuss from "a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". Ward20 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and we've been over this before ("verifiable" and "reliable" are not synonymous) - I maintain that a medical professional who has been sanctioned by the U.S. Public Health Service's Office of Research Integrity for falsification of data is not a reliable source, and you've disagreed. I maintain that Morgellons research is fringe science, and that the appropriate WP policies apply here, and you've disagreed. And there is a difference between discussing such things here on the talk page, as opposed to editing the article, when it comes to needing to adhere to NPOV. So it goes. You're no less guilty of personal bias than anyone else here - you yourself have made this clear: "I do have a chronic illness that for 20 years has been controversial. I would rejoice to take a psychotropic drug and have my illness go away. I have, it didn't. Many emerging diseases have been claimed by the Psychiatric community. The most famous recent one is AIDS. There were others, epilepsy, diabetes, tourette's syndrome, autism. What happens is a fight over turf and jurisdiction with science taking a back seat over politics, sometimes for decades. That is exactly what is happening on this topic and it should stop for the sake of science and suffering patients. Be objective, people's lives and futures are literally at stake here!" Given that your apparent definition of "objectivity" is "actively rejecting anything the medical establishment says", we clearly have a fundamental disagreement - going even so far as to what constitutes "science". Dyanega (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your passionate debate confirms what I am saying : objective, high quality research is urgently needed to establish the sequence of events leading to the skin lesions. This research is time-consuming, both for the scientist and the subject, but not costly. There is no good reason to avoid doing it -- stop arguing and speculating, start experimenting! Emmanuelm (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

William Harvey in the Washington Post

William Harvey is the Chairman of the Morgellons Research Foundation. In today's Washington Post Magazine [22] there is a very long and detailed article on Morgellons. In it, Dr Harvey goes into detail on his theory of what causes Morgellons:

Harvey hypothesizes that a type of nematode, a wormlike parasite that lives in the soil as well as in the guts or lungs of about half the animals on the planet, mutated somewhere in the 1970s in Southeast Asia and jumped from animals to humans. The parasite is easily spread through the fecal-oral route if someone, for example, is out working in the garden, fails to wash his or her hands thoroughly and then eats an orange. Or it gets into the lungs by inhaling sputum or by kissing. The worm then takes up residence in the colon, Harvey theorizes, and the body's immune system holds it in check.
But when the immune system falters, the worms swarm in the body. That's what happens, Harvey hypothesizes, after a human is infected with a strain of bacteria first reported in 1986, Chlamydophila pneumonia. These bacteria like to live in immune cells, Harvey says, and they feast on those cells' energy. With the host's immune system compromised, the mutant nematodes begin reproducing exponentially, Harvey suspects. They burrow a hole in the wall of the colon, then usually travel at night through the bloodstream or the lymphatic system or crawl in hordes between the layers of the skin, like other species of nematodes are known to do, to the parts of the body with the most blood flow: the face, head and nose. There, a cranial nerve leads right into the brain. A pileup of worms could jam blood and oxygen flow to the brain, Harvey says. "That may explain the psychological symptoms," including the hallucinations, he says.
[...] The fibers, according to Harvey's theory, are really the hard shells, which he calls cuticles, that these worms shed at five stages as they grow from egg to larvae to adult. The red fibers are the males, he says. Blue fibers are female. "Using a 2,000-power microscope, you can see inside them," he says. "They look like little stovepipes to me. I can tell the blue ones are female because there's a kink in the middle for the sexual organs and some kind of pouch. And we have pictures of them laying thousands of eggs.

This obviously sounds rather far-fetched. But should it be reported in the Wikipedia article? Given that we currently have The Bug Man's theory on pesticides in there, it seems more notable than that, with Harvey being chairman of the board of the MRF. Herd of Swine (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so that you guys know, we pathologists are familiar with nematodes on histological sections, including the cuticles of the dead organisms. If you want to see for yourself, here is a Google Images search for Dirofilaria, an important genus. I have seen a case in a skin biopsy : from the first look, it could not be confused with textile fibers. For the third time now, where are the photos comparing Morgellons lesions with known organisms?
As far as anyone here can see, there are none, never have been; but various editors here have pointed out that simply because no one here can find such publications is not proof that none exist, so this cannot be mentioned in the article - even the phrase "There have been no clinical studies" (of Morgellons disease) was rejected until a source could be found for the quote. We, as editors, are not permitted to point out any of the numerous shortcomings of Morgellons research until and unless someone ELSE publishes such criticisms somewhere else, otherwise we violate WP:NOR restrictions. Dyanega (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

CDC Section

Look on the Charles E. Holman Foundation website for some really good clips to add to morgellons. What happened to the LINK Tab? were it had a list of other places on the internet to go to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.188.211 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links as to what is acceptable to link. There probably is some accurate information from WP:RS on that site, but per links to avoid, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"." In particular on Charles E. Holman Foundation website the links Classic Quotes and Cindy's Diary clearly are problematic and there are probably others. The MRF and Morgellons watch have also been not linked due to the same argument. Ward20 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering, in light of the recent announcement regarding the investigation, whether the following paragraph still has any relevance and whether it should be included. It doesn't help or hurt either "side" -- it is just outdated:

75.30.198.27 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)I disagree with the above statement - "I was wondering, in light of the recent announcement regarding the investigation, whether the following paragraph still has any relevance and whether it should be included. It doesn't help or hurt either "side" -- it is just outdated:" I agree that this does not hurt or help either side, but, it is applicable to the history of the disease\illness, and therefore should included in the section.75.30.198.27 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Earlier, prior to June of 2005, "Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), asking whether the organization had investigated the illness. The answer was no. "Our laboratories are available," said CDC spokeswoman Jennifer Morcone. "But we need a clinically appropriate sample." So far, she said, they've only received samples sent in by patients."[15] This statement is at odds with a 2006 report in Time Magazine from Greg Smith, a physician with Morgellons, and former Medical Director of the MRF, who attempted to send samples from his own body to the CDC, but stated that the agency "blew it off." The MRF also attempted to share the findings of their OSU research team with the CDC, but the CDC said "it would conduct its own research first, then vet the findings with outside scientists".[16] Pez1103 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)"

I agree, the paragraph is outdated, and adds nothing. Herd of Swine 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I believe the lead in should include some info on the planned CDC Study....

The CDC study is the first official US Government attempt to find the root cause of Morgelloms and as such should be mentioned at lead in to the topic as it is a one of the most significant event in Morgellons story. Propose: To clearly put in perspective the current unknown nature of this disease. The CDC has awarded Kaiser Permanente in Northern California a contract to assist the CDC in conducting an extensive investigation of this condition and it is expected the the studly result well become available by end 2008. [User:Zip|Zip22045]] 9:14, 18 November 2007 (UDT)

Possible sources of the Morgellon

I was thinking the same thing about nanotechnology. In a matter of fact I am considering four possibilities for the source of this disease. 1) Nanovirus - man-made nanoparticle created in the lab for the purpose of material creation from a specific substance. And ofcourse, nothing can be confined. Everything leaks, and for some reason that technology leaked from the lab to the environment. In a matter of fact some products we buy are made with nanotechnology. 2) Spider goats - I am sure that some people saw programme on tv about genetically modified goats to produce milk that contains protein found in spider webs. Somehow that goat and milk got into food chain and so on. 3) DNA experiments - we live in the world full of DNA experiments. Naturally, it took millions or even billions of years for a DNA mutations to follow pattern that is stable and much without any oddities in epidemic proportions. Since DNA's are modified at alarming pace today, its impossible to forecast the conscequences. 4) DNA mutations - the way we treat environment, no wonder why mother nature is doing her own version of ethnic cleansing (or natural selection in process). History is full examples of empires taking pounding of death because of fascination and mass producing technologies. There are always an unpredictable consequences that are even beyond grasp of human intellect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaVinciUnicorn (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but please don't pt it on the page, it's original research.

-Luna —Preceding comment was added at 14:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong word. Would "[sic]" be appropriate?

"refute" roughly means "disprove". Should quotes be "[sic]"-ified?

"Many dermatologists refute the suggestion that this is an actual disease but instead indicate that many of these patients have psychological problems or other common skin disorders." Nomorebigots (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the usage here is more "argue against" rather than "disprove". From that I would say that the statement is OK as it is. It is certainly a common statement to see in the press, whether it technically be right or not. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Drafting proposals for new lead

"Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease" is a label that is used for a medical condition by a large number of people who suffer "a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores)...Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision."[3][4][5][6] Medical professionals have also suggested using the terms Morgellons Syndrome and Unexplained Dermopathy for Morgellons.[7][6]

A Nature magazine article, and the 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology, states it is disputed Morgellons represents a new disease entity. Many health professionals, including dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.[8][2] According to the Mayo Clinic, Morgellons disease is controversial, and health professionals are divided in their attitudes about Morgellons: some believe it is a specific condition and expect it to be confirmed by research in the future; some believe it is not a separate condition, rather its symptoms result from other conditions, often psychological; and some do not acknowledge Morgellons disease at all or reserve judgment until more is known about the condition.[9] The U.S government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states it is not known at present whether persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.[6] The CDC has begun an epidemiological investigation of the "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka 'Morgellons')."[10]

Set up a draft above to edit and tear apart to see if a consensus can be found to improve the lead. I tried to be more concise, put in more attribution, moved and framed dispute and controversy higher in lead, substituted a secondary source for a primary source. Please change content above, explain below and give a reasonable edit summary. A number of editors found this method easier than making constant changes to a difficult article. Your mileage may vary, this is a suggestion. Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

report ----> say Ward20 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong ref, change MRF to CDC. Ward20 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Minor word changes. Ward20 (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- say they Ward20 (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
many ---->a large number of, per Atlas of Human Parasitology description. Ward20 (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That sucks quite badly, actually. The present lead is better. It's a term coined by Leitao and latched onto by a frenzy of self-diagnosing Internet users who refuse to accept that anything with "delusional" in the name can possibly describe their symptoms, since obviously it's real. Referring to the number of self-diagnosed "sufferers" gives spurious validity to s disease which is essentially not accepted by the relevant professional community. "Medical professionals" have not suggested that the disease is called that, they've suggested that the proposed condition of unexplained dermopathy be investigated to find out if it is real or not; if CDC comes up blank, it will revert to being delusional parasitosis (which is probably what it was all along). Essentially these folks are trying to reclassify their condition to something with a less pejorative name, but the Morgellons crowd use such an absurdly wide definition that I don't see Morgellons being the name chosen even if they are successful in changing the name of delusional parasitosis. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these people do not believe they are delusional and are using a different label than delusional so they are not dismissed, sounds like common sense doesn't it. We report this and the different views the medical community have on this issue without bias. Putting disclaimers into the views about supporting one position is not NPOV in my opinion. IMO neither is calling a person a a lab technician when a RS says they have worked as an Electron Microscopist and an Immunohistochemist.[5] Is there a RS that says she is a lab technician? Would you call this person a lab technician? Is the degree that relevant if they have done the job?
The draft stated that other terms have been suggested and supplied sources for it. The draft did not even say disease in relation to the alternative names. As far a proposed condition I believe that is not correct either. Whatever condition they have DP, scabies, menopause, or infection it is not proposed, it is a real condition just as the lesions are real. Have you seen the pictures in the sources? Are the lesions and scars proposed? Ward20 (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no evidence (other than her own words) that she's a scientist. I think electron microscopist might be fair. As for "proposed condition", what would you call "reported, but unconfirmed, set of symptoms". That's really all we have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Concerning biologist vs. lab technician vs. electron microscopist or Immunohistochemist, the Journal article which Leitao helped author[5] sources electron microscopist or Immunohistochemist. News articles source biologist[23] and biologist and electron microscopist[24]. I could not find as source for lab technician and none has been supplied per the request for a source. I removed lab technician from the lead as it does not appear to meet BLP requirements, and inserted biologist to agree with two sources and existing stable text in article. Ward20 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
When the Mayo Clinic discusses it they use disorder twice, condition five times, proposed zero times. The CDC January 15, 2008 Morgellons briefing used Morgellons Syndrome twice, unexplained illness three times, and condition about 50 times (not exaggerating), proposed zero times. At the CDC briefing, Dr. Pearson principal investigator for the Morgellons investigation said," First of all, what is very clearly to us is that there are a number of persons who are suffering the condition and the symptoms that we described." Koblenzer, said about Morgellons (not linking full text because of copyright, but a Google search will find it), "This condition has recently reverted to the name given by Sir Thomas Browne in 1674, to an apparently identical symptom complex, Morgellons disease." and, "My own approach has been to explain to the patient that from my examination, biopsy, and tests, I have been unable to find evidence to support any of the possible causes put forth by either the patient or the Web site, though I in no way doubt the patient’s experience."
The causes may be disputed and uncertain, but sources say the symptoms and condition are actual, not proposed. Ward20 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the symptoms are disputed, even as a syndrome (i.e., set of symptoms). The last time I checked, no one has been diagnosed with the syndrome unless first diagnosed by the Foundation or self-diagnosed after reading the Foundation web site. (That's not inconsistent with the CDC transcript above, in that they are even slower than we are to accuse people of fraud, or even of unintentionally inducing psychosomatic symptoms.) And the Foundation had stated that this is clearly not the same as the "original" syndrome. If Koblenzer has a different opinion, that might be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Biologist

After reading the Nightline "article" (transcript? promo?), I find that the fact they call her a biologist questionable. The piece looks like an MRF press release. I realize it probably isn't, but they didn't use any critical material. In fact, I'm not sure that piece is reliable except for reporting on quotes and on the existance of the broadcast. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


why is there such a problem excepting this decease?

Our world has had many changes and new creations. We recently discovered human asian bones in the northwest. This blow away our Christopher Columbus story with the natives here and then our pilgrim rules we eventually coerced them into in some way. No one believed in AIDS at first. If some brave strong soul got to work on that faster many lifes would have been saved. Whats the concensus, is it that we have too many needy people making up problems to get attention or is it we have to many people that would rather close there eyes and hope it washes away. Change will happen it always does. We just need to keep our eyes and our ears open. And also start off believing and listening before disregarding what could be a possible pleage that will harm us or a useful organizim that could have many helpful uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.217.227 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because no experts in the relevant field have ever diagnosed it? It may be true that "no one believed in AIDS at first", but there was no question of the patients or doctors lying. With Morgellons, it's still correct that there have been no diagnoses of Morgellons other than by Morgellons Foundation doctors, and there's little evidence that anyone other than those so diagnosed have the symptoms. Perhaps the CDC study will establish that there's no "there" there. Perhaps it will determine that the syndrome actually exists, in spite of evidence. Who knows? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

California Department of Health Services

"In a letter to the MRF dated June 11, 2003, the California Department of Health and Human Services stated that, "After reviewing your website to gain some information about the patients…the patients appear to have a constellation of symptoms that do not fit any currently definable disease, infectious or otherwise." -It was an e-mail, not a letter. -There's no "California Department of Health and Human Services" -It was from a masters-level public health person in a "Vector-Borne Disease Section" of an "Infectious Diseases Branch" in the Department of Health Services under the the California Health and Human Services Agency. -The quote gets nicely edited to make it say something it doesn't. The whole thing says, I paraphrase, "ok, there are alot of symptoms your describing here but they are really broad so these people need to see some good doctors and we can't make any conclusions about them because we don't see patients here, please send them to doctors. Oh yeah and IF the doctors find something then we will find out about it." -Who knows if the letter is real anyway it is self-published by morgellons, not a reliable source. RetroS1mone talk 02:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

As it stands, this article does not do a good job of presenting the situation in a NPOV fashion, and I have tagged it accordingly. Major problems that I see off the top of my head (this is not an exhaustive list)

  1. Referring to Leitao simply as a "biologist" gives a misleading portrayal of her credentials. It would be better to specifically spell these out - certainly I find it a misleading label for a lab tech with a Bachelors degree.
  2. The lead completely fails to foreground the fact that it is not clear that this is a disease. The fact that this is a controversial subject needs to be in the first paragraph - indeed, the first sentence. To open the article with a description of Morgellons as a "condition characterized by" anything already violates NPOV, since there is no consensus that Morgellons is anything at all.
  3. The description of Leitao's discovery states her findings of fibers and the like as facts. This is, in practice, disputed - especially given that it is arguable that the prevailing scientific consensus is that she is delusional.
  4. The CDC investigation is being presented in a way that lends undue credence to the hypothesis that Morgellons is a distinct disease. Statements like the CDC statement that Morgellons as an infectuous process is a "remote possibility" are needlessly buried in the article, suppressing the importance of this controversy. On the whole, the CDC issue is being used to imply that Morgellons is on the brink of recognition - this runs counter to the CDC's actual process, which is more skeptical and prone to investigating remote possibilities just in case.
  5. The symptoms section treats Morgellons as a real disease.

In short, the article needs to foreground the controversy, and, frankly, the prevailing scientific opinion - that Morgellons is a specific form of delusional parisitosis. This opinion should be represented in the first sentence, and all sections should be framed in terms of the debate between people who claim that Morgellons is a distinct disease and what remains the scientific consensus that it is not. This does not mean that the article should declare Morgellons to be a form of delusional parasitosis - that would also not be NPOV. But it needs to make sure that it is always describing the debate, not explicitly or implicitly taking sides while occasionally reporting viewpoints from the other side. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Leitao has worked as an Electron Microscopist and an Immunohistochemist.[5] Are those terms preferable?
  2. The third sentence in lead states, "A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis".[8][11] I believe these conditions are regarded as disease[25], but the article has tried to avoid using that term so as to not advance a POV.
  3. The description of Leitao's discovery is as the two RS that are cited describes it. I am not aware of any RS that states the prevailing scientific consensus says that Leitao is delusional.
  4. The CDC has not stated what they think it is. Dan Rutz, MPH, a communications specialist with the CDC used the term "remote possibility". The CDC calls Morgellons "Unexplained Dermopathy", dermopathy is a disease of the skin, but the article does not state that to advance a POV either. More than 1/3 of the lead discusses various attitudes about Morgellons from three secondary sources.
  5. The medical journal articles published on Morgellons describe these symptoms.
There are two sentences that describe Morgellons in a relatively neutral fashion before stating, "A majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis." I am not sure why the article needs to frame all sections in terms of the debate. That would give undue weight on describing the debate. Reliable sources have described much more than just the debate. The article is trying to fairly report on the total topic of what reliable sources have stated. Ward20 (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand my objection. I will try again. In practice there are two competing and dramatically opposed viewpoints on this topic - one is that Morgellons is a real and distinct disease, the other is that it is a special case of delusional parasitosis. These viewpoints are diametrically opposed, and short of simple and uncontrovertable statements of sociological fact (i.e. "The CDC is studying X") there is very little common ground of statements, since each viewpoint necessarily denies the premises of the other. Thus a statement like "the symptoms of Morgellons are X" is POV because it de facto assumes that Morgellons is a distinct disease with symptoms. It is just as problematic as a lead that begins "Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis." In a heavily controversial and contested subject, great care needs to be taken to always frame claims in terms of the two opposed sides of the issue. A good start for the article might be "Morgellons is a proposed name for a category of dermatological symptoms including list of symptoms. The identification of Morgellons as a distinct disease is controversial. The prevailing view among dermatologists is that Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis. The Center for Disease control is currently conducting research in this area." And then subsequent sections should be clearly framed in terms of those two conflicting viewpoints. Right now too much of the article is implicitly written from the viewpoint that Morgellons is a distinct pathology. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So that we can move closer to consensus, let me add my thoughts. Although the article may need a few tweaks, I am leaning more toward Ward20's arguments. Here is my take on some of the numbered arguments above:

  1. Leitao: Regardless of whether she should be described as a "lab tech" or a "chemist", she has published in a reputable journal. That gives her some degree of credibility.
  2. The lead makes it quite clear that there is controversy regarding whether this is a physically manifested medical condition or delusional parasitosis.
  3. I agree with Ward20. There needs to be documentation (preferably from a mental health expert) that "the prevailing scientific consensus is that she is delusional". Otherwise this argument has no merit.
  4. I don't think the article " lends undue credence to the hypothesis that Morgellons is a distinct disease". Since this is a matter of opinion, we need more consensus before increasing the weight of argument toward one side or the other.
  5. I disagree with Phil Sandifer. The very first sentence of the section is, "Morgellons is currently not recognized as a unique disorder".

So far we only have three opinions here. If others don't weigh in, we might need an RfC to get more opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Note: It is coincidence that two editors in this discussion have usernames Ward20 and Ward3001. If there are doubts that we are separate people, I invite an administrator to verify this. Ward3001 (talk)

I have no problem with verification. Ward20 (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, my issue is not weight of argument, but rather explicitness of presentation - I have no problems with the balance of information, merely how it's presented - Pro-Morgellons claims should be clearly attributed as such, as should anti-Morgellons claims. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think explicitness and attribution would improve the article. I believe I understand your concerns in your paragraphs above. Some of your suggestions certainly could be utilized. I believe the situation is a bit more complex in many cases, especially perhaps two competing and dramatically opposed viewpoints on the topic. But there were a lot of arguments and compromises to get the article to this point and there is certainly room for improvement. I will try to write more comments tomorrow for discussion.
I will talk about one concept tonight that is not well developed in the article. It illustrates why there are actually more than two views. That is the "known skin conditions" section. The editor Dyanega has been saying this for some time. I hope this does not dredge up old wounds as Dyanega and I differed on what weight to give the view of a new and unknown cause of Morgellons.
Most of the article as it exists now was developed last fall. Perhaps there are better articles about that concept now. I am not sure if there were not good articles then, or if it got overlooked or buried when editing was running swiftly last fall. Ward20 (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure proposed is accurate. The name was used as a temporary label and stuck. [3][4] I had/have no objection to dropping Leitao's name from the lead, but other editors wanted it there so readers would know the medical community had not established the term Morgellons. Ward20 (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's important to have the word "proposed" there somewhere to note that there is not consensus about Morgellons, but you're right, the name is set - perhaps proposed condition? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree about dropping her name from the lead. I would also strongly advocate dropping "delusional parasitosis" from the lead--even given that it is the standard explanation, its presence there does affect the NPOV because of the implications of "delusional". And I agree with Ward20 that a new search should be conducted for later material--the " (multiple) known skin conditions possibility" is a very real one.DGG (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with DGG on both. 1) Leitao is Morgellons, without her it is not called that, there's no MRF, there's no CDC investigation. 2) Unless some one publishes in the peer review literature and convinces lots of doctors, and I don't mean a letter to the editor or a review, the mainstream view = Wikipedia view, DP is Morgellons. DP is described more then 100 years, identical to Morgellons in symptoms except comorbities MRF says are from Morgellons and doctors say are common in DP patients. RetroS1mone talk 13:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Organic versus psychological

OK I know it is a common way to put things in neat categories that some doctors still use but it is 2008. The more people find out about psychological disorders, they turn out to have organic causes. A patient thinks it is insulting when you say oh you just have a psychological disorder. It means the way most people talk, you are just crazy, your making it up! Maybe not waht the doc means, but it's what people hear. People that talk about Morgellons patients like this are not being sensitive, maybe not accurate either. Or they are trying to put words in the mouths of doctors so patients will listen to them instead (and pay them)! Can we stay away from saying stuff like "Some cases of delusional parasitosis may have organic causes", thanks. RetroS1mone talk 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There appears to be use of wording in the article that advance the point of view that Wikipedia shows doubt regarding Morgellons, see WP:WTA. Claim, purport, proposed, however, etc. are being used to cast doubt on the statements or opinions of Morgellons speakers or content. This appears to be confined to the arguments of Morgellons sufferers or supporters. Dermatologists statements, opinions, or material that support other positions have not been reworded like this, nor should it be. Positions should be worded fairly so chosen words should not subtly promote a point of view or be pejorative.

Disclaimers should not be put after studies or statements by Morgellons supporters unless sources can be found that address that particular point, see WP:OR and WP:SYN. Disclaimers have not been inserted after opposing positions without sources, as is proper.

The sentence, "Despite the lack of evidence that it is a distinct condition, or any agreed set of diagnostic symptoms, a large number of individuals have self-diagnosed with the condition and, motivated by a widespread lack of acceptance in the medical community, have used political means to attempt to have the condition recognized." is nether WP:NPOV nor accurate. There is an unknown condition that has pictures of lesions and artifacts published in medical journals and in television news broadcasts. Conclusive proof is lacking, but lack of evidence is incorrect. A large number of people that self identify as having the illness (CDC terminology), but to say they are motivated by a lack of acceptance by the medical community to use political means to have the condition recognized is WP:POV and WP:OR. Ample references exist (for example) that people suffering with symptoms and their doctors want the medical community to research and be aware of the illness so they can be properly treated (NPOV). Ward20 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement in question is almost certainly accurate. Perhaps the "motivation" clause should be scratched, although there is a "widespread lack of acceptance in the medical community", but there's no question about the rest of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A major problem with the content is, "have used political means to attempt to have the condition recognized." That gives the impression of trying to force acceptance by the medical community through political means. As far as I know the only politics has been to try to make the medical community more aware of Morgellons and to urge reseach to investigate it. Ward20 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that we have any way of telling, as the existence of people who actually have the syndrome is still not verified by medical practitioners not affiliated with the Foundation. The phrase I restored seems the most neutral available, under the circumstances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow, please elaborate how "people who actually have the syndrome is still not verified" relates to the NPOV discussion, and what phrase was restored? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Should have been the phrase sentence I restored. I removed the "motivation" clause, as noted above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand how "people who actually have the syndrome is still not verified" relates to the NPOV discussion, and there appears to no source that states morgellons pateints "have used political means to attempt to have the condition recognized." The citation provided does not verify the material. Ward20 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation provided refers to the first clauses in the sentence (in particular, the statement "a large number of individuals have self-diagnosed with the condition"), while this citation later in the article supports the claim of political action. There USED to be a citation to one of Pez1103's Morgellon's support group newsletter postings specifically telling sufferers to help with the letter-writing campaign, but that was removed as being an unreliable source. Perhaps it's simplest to just add the Time citation to the end of the sentence in question. Dyanega (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree political action and letter writing has been used to ask for more awareness and research for Morgellons. Yes, the citation later in the article would be better for the statement, and it says:
  • But Smith and his fellow sufferers are itching for answers. That's why they've pressured the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to assemble a team of scientists who will determine whether this disease is in fact for real. The 13-member team is expected to share their findings within the next two months. "We're not ready to concede there's a new disease," says CDC spokesman Dan Rutz. "But the volume of concern has stepped up because a lot of people are writing or calling their congressmen about it because they're frustrated that there's been no organized way to deal with their suffering."
I have not seen documentation of any political action asking for medical recognition of Morgellons. It would not make sense to do so, as it seems there is no agreed clinical definition by any medical organization. We are discussing semantics to an extent, but IMO the present text subtly mis-represents the patients. The cdc's Michele Pearson, principal investigator for the CDC investigation in the press release covers most if not all of the content of the statement including what the patients want. I will try to put a proposal based on that source on the talk page.
Concerning the disclaimer, "but did not provide evidence for these claims", it is factual but it is not NPOV to put a disclaimer that casts doubt on the statement. No disclaimers follow Dr. Noah Craft's statement about fibers or Robert Bartholomew's statements, and they provide no data or evidence. An article could be skewed by selectively putting a pejorative disclaimer after many such statements. Ward20 (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Some people are making extraordinary claims others are not. Its not pejorative when you say someone made an extraordinary claim and they didn't give evidence it is just a fact. RetroS1mone talk 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's more than just that issue, even if it is mentioned in WP guidelines; there is a fundamental asymmetry here, which it is certainly possible to represent accurately. Namely, a doctor who says "I have seen no evidence that there are any disease organisms in these patients" explicitly indicates there is no evidence for them to provide, and no "disclaimer" is needed for readers to come to that conclusion. A doctor who SPECIFICALLY says "I have hard evidence that this is a real disease" and then fails to provide that evidence is a very different matter, because the absence of the claimed evidence is NOT something a reader will be able to determine unless they examine the original source. It would misrepresent the source by implying - incorrectly - that the source provides evidence. As such, failing to mention the omission of evidence is failing to properly summarize the content and nature of the source. If Harvey had claimed to have evidence that he was the first man on the moon (and no one bothered to deny his claim), would it be fair to just cite the claim at face value and NOT indicate that he offered no actual evidence? One should not misrepresent sources that way, especially when the topic is this controversial. It's not that hard to understand. Heck, we just revised the intro because a citation didn't say what it looked like it was being cited for; if misrepresenting the content of a source is a bad thing, and we can agree on that, then NOT telling people that Harvey's publications contain no evidence is also a bad thing we should agree on. Otherwise, it's a double standard. Dyanega (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a double standard about properly summarizing the content and nature of the source. This source terms Leitao a biologist and a stay-at-home mother, another source a biologist. She graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Massachusetts at Boston with a BS in Biology. She has worked at Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center as an Electron Microscopist and an Immunohistochemist. It is deemed she should be termed a stay-at-home mother? A person with which background would be best suited to give an opinion about an unexplained illness? Humm.
Because the article does not indicate Harvey offered no actual evidence it would misrepresent the source by implying - incorrectly - that the source provides evidence?
From the article:
  1. "Dr. Noah Craft, a dermatologist at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, has seen a handful of Morgellons patients and biopsied their skin lesions, but found only normal skin and inflammation, as one would find in a bump that has been picked at." Source offers no actual evidence.
  2. Extraordinary claim: "Dermatologists say any fibers are from clothing embedded in self-imposed sores, and the fibers patients bring in bags are textile in nature." Sources offer no actual evidence.
  3. Extraordinary claim: "Robert Bartholomew, a sociologist who has studied the Morgellons phenomenon, states that the "World Wide Web has become the incubator for mass delusion and it (Morgellons) seems to be a socially transmitted disease over the Internet." Source offers no actual evidence.
  4. "It is common for patients who believe they have Morgellons to reject a physician's diagnosis of delusional parasitosis. It has been suggested that the term Morgellons should be adopted by dermatologists to enhance their rapport with their patients, allowing them to overcome this resistance." Source offers no actual evidence (but one source not listed talks about one patient)
  5. Extraordinary claim: "Although most Morgellons symptoms are well-known and characterized in the context of other disorders, "reports of the strange fibers date back" just a few years, to when the MRF first became active on the internet." Source offers no actual evidence. Note source misrepresented, "Widespread reports of the strange fibers date back only three years, to the time they were first described online". "Widespread" is omitted and that's important. Also note, if someone does the math the source was published June 2005 minus three years gives 2002 which I believe is the actual date the MRF was founded and had a web presence (check the MRF site and the The Wayback Machine site.
It would be appreciated if RetroS1mone stopped adding words to avoid, and errors into the article. Thank you.
Ward20 (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
From WP:WTA: "In some cases, these words and constructions do not presume guilt, but simply note that a party makes an assertion known to be incorrect or without consensus. Including them may be acceptable when describing unproved or disproved ideas, fringe theories, and other uncontroversial situations." Morgellons is unproved, is considered a fringe theory by the medical community. MRF and Ward20 could be completely right about everything and if they get proven right then Wikipedia should show that. Today it is still a fringe theory, not a violation of WTA to use words emphasizing Morgellons is not considered a seperate condition. Plus WTA is a guideline not a handcuff.
About Leitaos profession, she was a stay-at-home mom when she claims she found fibers in her son. She says she worked in labs for a few years after getting her undergrad degree in biology in Mass. She became a stay at home mom, she had three children, how long since she worked in a lab? Saying "Biologist Mary Leitao found x" implies she came home one night from looking at emerging disease samples at lab and found one in her son. It implies a levle of expertise she may not have, just like capitolizing Electron Microscopist and Immunohistochemist very fancy sounding names for very routine techniques done by lab technicians. ILADS btw is not a reliable source is it. There is nothing wrong with being lab tech or stay at home mom. It is not pejorative.
About extraordinary claims, the Internet theory is in the proposed explanations. It is proposed. You can verify it is proposed with the sources, you don't need evidence it is true. There is support for it like the Pop araticle but its not needed. When a doc says I didn't find any evidence this baby is a re-incarnation of Alexander the Great its like, duh. When a doc says this baby has never even heard of Alexander the Great but they're acting like him in their crib, then yeah let's see some evidence.
Date of founding MRF, the Psychology Today is about the most comprehensive article, it says March 2004. Also when Leitao called it Morgellons. Thats verified, 2002 is not.
About Munchausens by proxy, Mary Leitao says about this in interviews and gives it as a reason for starting MRF so it is relavent. The doc at John Hopkins that saw them didn't see anything wierd about the son, saw this huge file, and his expert opinion was the mother had a problem not the son. No implication he diagnosed her, it was just his explanation and every one including Leitao agrees he said it and its important. It is sourced ok and doesn't violate WP:BLP and it is a important piece of information when you evaluate the whole Morgellons phenomeneon. RetroS1mone talk 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The quote RetroS1mone used from WP:WTA is irrelevant to the words disputed in the article, only admit, confess, and deny are addressed by the quote.
RetroS1mone wrote, "Today it is still a fringe theory, not a violation of WTA to use words emphasizing Morgellons is not considered a separate condition." Using words described in the NPOV tutorial and the guideline Words to avoid: that introduce bias in attribution to emphasize a POV is just wrong.
RetroS1mone wrote, "MRF and Ward20 could be completely right about everything and if they get proven right then Wikipedia should show that." Insinuating that my own views coincide with the MRF's views is a dubious and incorrect proposition.
The internet theory has some problems. According to this article Morgellons and mass hysteria are only connected by the author's words and unnamed experts. Gary Smalls said nothing about Morgellons in Hillary Rhodes' article, “Mass hysteria is technically defined as an outbreak of physical symptoms that spread by sight or sound or both, and they have a psychological cause,” said Gary Small, a psychiatry professor at University of California, Los Angeles, who has researched the subject. “Now we’re finding other forms of communication, and I’m not surprised the Internet is getting involved. The Internet increases spread by logarithmic scales. It’s just so quick and worldwide.”
The mass hysteria hypothesis should be near the bottom of Proposed causes and pathophysiology. The other proposed causes have medical journal sources and medical experts in their sections. The mass hysteria section has no medical experts on Morgellons or journal articles. The Popular Mechanics article is misquoted about the fibers and is wrong.
The extraordinary claims argument is unacceptable because of a double standard. I believe all the contested statements are in the Proposed causes section. For example, the statements, "Morgellons lesions" have been found on infants' bodies in locations that the infants cannot themselves reach to scratch" and the statement, "World Wide Web has become the incubator for mass delusion and it (Morgellons) seems to be a socially transmitted disease over the Internet" should be treated equally. By disparaging one point of view with disclaimers, debates within topics are engaged in and is not NPOV
About Leitao's profession, the source that calls her a stay-at-home mom also calls her a biologist and a medical researcher in various contexts in the article. The source used medical nomenclature when she was considering samples from her son. The source used the stay-at-home mom description when she was working from home to contact and organize the symptomatic patient community. Electron microscopists and immunohistochemists positions in hospital laboratories can be anything but routine. Expertise in preparation, analysis, and handling of biological specimens and controls used in these professions are relevant to Leitao's ability to judge what she observed with her son. In the context of the WP article, the stay-at-home mom description is a less relevant pejorative POV wording of her expertise compared with electron microscopist and immunohistochemist. ILADS is a WP:RS. The Lyme disease, Lyme disease controversy, and Erythema chronicum migrans articles use ILADS as a RS many times, and The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ published their persistent Lyme disease guidelines.
The date of founding of the MRF is 2002. Read the links to the MRF site and the The Wayback Machine site. Here are more sources, ".Morgellons Research Foundation, the nonprofit organization that Mary Leitao founded in 2002", "A South Carolina woman who founded the Morgellons Research Foundation came up with the name for the condition in 2002", "The Morgellons Research Foundation began accepting registrations from people with symptoms of this unrecognized disease in 2002", and "2002, when the "Morgellons" was selected by Mary Leitao".
About Munchausens by proxy, I found no RS stating, "Mary Leitao says about this in interviews and gives it as a reason for starting MRF" The infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University did not even see her according to the citation, so there is only unfounded speculation at best according to Psychology Today. In no source did I find that "Leitao agrees he said it" or that she said it. The only way it is important is to discredit her. There is another source that says something a little different. Possibly the same Johns Hopkins doctor did see her and her son, but it is unclear if it was the same doctor, and it does not state conclusively he saw them. The statement, "I found no evidence of [anything suspicious] in Andrew," could have been concluded by looking at medical records. IMO the Munchausens by proxy material is certainly a BLP violation. Ward20 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Ward, WTA is a guideline not a hammer and Morgellons is a fringe theory. Words like claim and proposed etc are ok here.
I didn't say you were in MRF, if what I said was misleading to you I am sorry.
I don't see the problems with the mass hysteria hypothesis, they are reliable sources.
Mass hysteria is in the right place just after delusions bc it complements it may be we could combine them?
Extraordinary claim is not a double standard. Mass hysteria is a hypothesis. Infants with sores is not a hypothesis it is a medical observation by a doctor that doesn't report it in the literature.
Mary Leitao was a stay-at-home mom when she says she saw the fibres, do you dispute that. She got her undergrad and worked in a lab for a few years and then raised her kids at home, her youngest one was two when she saw the fibres. Would you say "historian George W. Bush said this or that about Iraqi history," No because he got his undergrad in history but he is a politician now not a historian. Say its routine or not routine whatever, how do you know Leitao when she worked as lab technician had "expertise in preparation, analysis, and handling of biological specimens and controls" do you have a rs for that.
The date of founding makes the most sense in the extensive context of the Psych Today a rs. But your right there are contradicting sources prob because they got their info from the mrf website. So there is a conflict, we could update the article to say there is a conflict. Do you know may be Leitao started a website in 2002 and then officially started nonprofit in 2004. That makes sense but is there a source, we would need that.
Munchausens by proxy, I am surprised you did not read those interviews, I can give you the link later. RetroS1mone talk 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think 2002 is the correct date for the start of the MRF, in addition to it being widely reported as such, here's a dated post (7/2/2002) from Leitao, discussing the work of "The Morgellons Foundation": [26] (quite an interesting read there). --- Herd of Swine (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right Herd of Swine I wonder if its Leitao did the web site in 2002 and did the official non profit registration in 2004, does any one know? Interesting read!! electromagnetic fields and 8 dollar microscopes!! RetroS1mone talk 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ward20, "Possibly the same Johns Hopkins doctor did see her and her son, but it is unclear if it was the same doctor, and it does not state conclusively he saw them." Here it is from the source, Post-Gazette, "On the advice of Dr. Frac, Drew and Ms. Leitao drive to Baltimore to visit the Hopkins expert, Dr. Heldrich. He forms his own conclusion about proper treatment of Morgellons. 'I found no evidence of [anything suspicious] in Andrew,' Dr. Heldrich wrote to Dr. Frac after the visit. Then he added: 'Ms. Leitao would benefit from a psychiatric evaluation and support, whether Andrew has Morgellons disease or not. I hope she will cease to use her son in further exploring this problem.'" Ask any doctor what "visit" means it means they saw the doctor. Ask any doctor, a mainstream doctor or some one on MRF board like I dunno Dr. Raphael Stricker. Visit means visit.
Ward20, "I found no RS stating, Mary Leitao says about this in interviews". Chicago Tribune and Texas Monthly not RS? There's also some of Morgellons advocate sites with it but I guess they are not rs. RetroS1mone talk 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the visit: The Post-Gazette reporter wrote Leitao drove to Hopkins to visit Dr. Heldrich, and that Dr. Heldrich wrote after the visit[27]. The source did not actually say there was a face to face meeting. If the the source had indicated the doctor said there was a visit, I would assume there was, but visit is the reporter's statement and may not be accurate. RetroS1mone, you edited the content from two sources[1} [13] to indicate the doctor from Hopkins is Dr. Heldrich, but the Psychology Today article says, he "refused to see her". There is uncertainty between the sources on what happened. The edits do not reflect the uncertainty on the BLP matter.
RS's: Correct, I found no sources. I was not aware of the paid access Chicago Tribune and Texas Monthly text. I still do not have access to the Texas Monthly content. By the way, I don't believe source[14]]www.naturalnews.com/023181.html [unreliable fringe source?] meets WP:RS, as it seems to be a advertisement based website with a questionable www.naturalnews.com/021982.html [unreliable fringe source?] editorial policy]. Ward20 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The full letter from Heldrich to Frac was published on ABC's medical mysteries (in video form) Aug 9, 2006, and reads "I enjoyed the opportunity of seeing Andrew with his mother and am enclosing a report of his visit with this letter." It's quite clear that Heldrich met them and examined Andrew (Drew), found nothing wrong with him, and felt that Andrew's mother's actions were harmful to him. This is basically what has been reported elsewhere, and I'm not really sure what Ward20 is arguing here. Herd of Swine (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The two citations used for the article material disagree if Heldrich saw them, and it is a BLP issue. If the medical mysteries source clears up the uncertainty great. Ward20 (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a link for the video? Ward20 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Ward is saying the Psychology Today doctor, infectious disease specialist, is not Heldrich, pediatrician, so two John Hopkins doctors said DP. One saw Drew and Leitao, Heldrich, and the other one, un-named, just reviewed history. I didn't think about it that way but I guess its possible, but if you think about it that way then Heldrich said DP and saw her, and other doctors plural said DP and wouldn't see Drew from Leitao's quote in Chicago Tribune, so at least three doctors maybe more said DP.
"The edits do not reflect the uncertainty on the BLP matter." That is right, the article right now says at least one doctor Heldrich, saw Drew and Mary and said DP, may be more from Leitao's quote. Change the article to reflect the uncertainty but likelyhood from Ward's observation there is another John Hopkins doctor, that is more doctors on DP, why would Ward20 want that? Now I am too confused. RetroS1mone talk 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I changed it to reflect the uncertainty it could be one or two doctors now. RetroS1mone talk 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am saying, Heldrich may or may not be the same John Hopkins doctor in the Psychology Today and Post-Gazette articles. One of the articles may be wrong about the details of the event and the present material is quoted from those articles. This is a serious WP:BLP matter, and WP should be cautious and make sure such details are correct. "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." Ward20 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
So put Heldrich and Post-Gazette and ABC aside, theres four sources now and more if we could use pro-Morgellons ones saying one or more doctors thought there was contributing Munchausens. Quotes from Leitao herself. Munchausens is sourced, no BLP violation. Or are you talking about Heldrich? I changed the article to reflect uncertainty and also Heldrich is no longer living I am sad to say. RetroS1mone talk 02:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
RetroS1mone, I don't think this is NPOV per WP:WEIGHT, and violates WP:BLP since the accusations are unproven in any case. Ward20 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Posted at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Ward20 (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ward nobody made any accusations and nobody says Leitao has Munchausens. Leitao says doctors didn't take her seriously and said she was "neurotic" or had munchausen by proxy. Multiple resliable sources say this, it is important for the history. RetroS1mone talk 03:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
RetroS1mone, these are accusation(s) by doctor(s) her son saw. We do not know if these doctor(s) are experts in munchausen. The way the sources are written it is not clear if this is one or many accusations. The way the article is written now the reader would be prejudiced that she did abuse her child. Ward20 (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's video of the letter, and Leitao saying the doctors said she needed a thorough psychiatric evaluation [28]. It's a low resolution video, but the letter is still mostly readable. I submit this is a fair-use excerpt of the show. There's a DVD available [http://www.amazon.com/ABC-News-Nightline-Morgellons-Disease/dp/B0016NMW8I] if you really wanted to verify it. Herd of Swine (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Morgellons Research Foundation article to be merged here

The Morgellons Research Foundation article should be merged here as there is not enough content or notice to justify separate articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support merge. The foundation article has a fair amount of material redundant with what we have here already. The rest could make a small section on this page. Antelantalk 15:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...somewhere in the archives of this talk page is the major debate the editors here had which provoked the removal of all the stuff about the MRF to its own article. I think a fair summary of the bottom line (why it was decided to create a separate MRF article) is that the details of what the MRF is, its history, its advocacy role, etc., are all peripheral to the issues surrounding Morgellons, and the Morgellons article has enough in it without further distracting the reader. I will note, for comparison's sake, that there is no section in the Lyme disease controversy article that discusses the history or role of ILADS, the main advocacy group for "chronic Lyme" - and which also happens to be led by Dr. Raphael Stricker of the MRF. In fact, there is no article in Wikipedia for ILADS. I do not support the idea of a merge - if other editors don't like the MRF article, then improve it however you see fit, but please do not cram it in here. I'd be tempted to say simply delete it, but in all fairness, the MRF does fulfill the criteria for a notable organization. Dyanega (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

It is not good to edit war so I will step back for a second. Some people think I am giving the mainstream position to strong but I just thought it was Wikipedia's position to take the mainstream medical view as its view. We all need to be careful on this topic to be sure sources say what we think they do, me included, for example I screwed up with the Heldrich coverage assuming it was Heldrich in Psychology Today and the Post-Gazette when Ward20 might be right and their are two doctors from Johns Hopkins. It goes for Wikipedia too, Ward20 has posted to two noticeboards about me which is fine but it is good to not mis-represent what those noticeboards say. Here Ward20 says the noticeboard supports taking out reference to Leitao's microscope, what she used to analyze the first fibers. The noticeboard doesn't say that. I think taking it out is like taking out Benjamin Franklin's kite and Leitao's microscope is sourced better then that kite! A toy or whatever you call it for NPOV like the kite or the microscope can be used to make an important discovery, that microscope is important in Morgellons history weather Leitao is proved right or wrong in the end. The microscope is reported by RS and by Leitao, both "sides" agree its notable. Ward20 also took out the laboratory technician that was actually supported in the noticeboard.

There's also Natural News. Natural news has an editorial policy, it has an advertising policy, it does not sell things itself. It is an independent journalistic site with oversight. Start deleting all sites with advertising and there is no New York Times references any more! Ward20 deleted the reference saying it is not RS. I think it is RS and it is a good source because it gives the natural health alternative view on the issue. We also have alot of references probably more then there should be by WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE to morgellons.org and now ILADS that are advocacy groups for conditions the mainstream medical disagrees with and alot less independant on Morgellons then natural news. RetroS1mone talk 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, WP is does not take a particular position in an article. Please read WP:NPOV.
  • The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. 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.
My apologies on the edit summary, it should have had an and to separate out the two changes in the edit. I should have written, "Per Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. And it does not matter what she saw the fibers with, others have now looked at the fibers". The use of Laboratory technician to describe her experience had not been not sourced and was too vague. Almost anyone that works in a lab can carry that title, from Monster. A more concise description was provided for her experience at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[29], so I changed it to reflect that source. The change about the microscope on this edit was done because it does not matter that at one point in time in the article she was using a radio shack microscope to examine fibers. The article also states she used a biology lab to continue her studies, she found that the fibers fluoresce under the proper light, and in 2006 two OSU physicians found fibers under her children's skin. The Radio Shack microscope is not a significant detail, and it also under-represents other work done on the fibers.
Why I do not believe Natural news is a reliable source: their www.naturalnews.com/021982.html [unreliable fringe source?] editorial policy] in part, "These stories are published underneath a Google Adsense banner belonging to the reporter.", and "You must have high quality writing and editing skills that allow you to submit ready-to-publish article content. NaturalNews does not provide intensive editing services, and we will reject articles that contain too many errors. Writing quality must be highly professional, which usually means you must have experience or training as a professional news writer in order to participate." There is no mention of fact checking. Ward20 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ward20, thank you for your reply. I am worried you have some mis-conceptions about Wikipedia and science. Wikipedia always tries for "a particular position in an article" a neutral position, and the neutral position is defined for the mainstream view in science. Wikipedia does not say its position is always right, it can be wrong, paradigms can shift, when it happens Wikipedia wants to be updated. WP:FRINGE gives example of plate tectonics. Per FRINGE, Morgellons is a fringe theory, notable because of the media but not accepted by science. Morgellons is notable since it has been reported by the news media and the MRF campaign got the skeptical CDC to investigate. It does need an article. Morgellons is not accepted by science. So far it has been rejected. What are fringe theories in Wikipedias view?

  • "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study" The idea of Morgellons departs from the prevailing view in medicine including dermatology and psychology. It is the hypothesis that many very different cases of what most doctors have called DP for many many years is a parasitic or environmental disease.
  • "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus" Scientific consensus is the "collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time." Morgellons purports to be a scientific theory, that is a reason to call its advocates as a Biologist and Immunohistochemist but it is not part of scientific consensus. Dermatology and psychology say the common Morgellons symptoms are DP and common comorbities of DP. Very few scientists even talk about Morgellons in the literature, the ones who do reject it or they say the Morgellons can be used as a "rapport enhancing term" but not to say there is infection.
  • "Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations" Morgellons is still a hypothesis.
  • "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." Today anyway no peer reviewed research supports Morgellons. The Savely, Leitao, Stricker article is a review, it proposes the condition, it doesn't have peer-reviewed data. Harvey's is a letter to the editor, no peer-reviewed data. The Stricker and Citovsky in J Investig Med is not on PubMed. If it has any peer reviewed data it is two patients, not conclusive. If Morgellons boosters had peer reviewed papers that still doesn't mean acceptance certainly not consensus. "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." The mainstream classification of Morgellons, delusions of parasitosis and related conditions have hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. Case reports other data from hundreds of patients. There are trials saying antipsychotics treat the condition effectively like Meehan WJ et al Arch Dermatol 2006 and the comment by Koblenzer in the issue that Pimozide is effective for Morgellons.

Ward20 has a long history of promoting this fringe theory on Wikipedia, that is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and it does not serve patients either when Wikipedia does not reflect the mainstream view. Ward20 is welcome to edit like s/he wants but lets stop being so over sensitive people, step up and tell it like it is. RetroS1mone talk 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't worry, I have no mis-conceptions about Wikipedia and science. I am sorry if you mis-understood my statement, "WP is does not take a particular position in an article. Please read WP:NPOV", to mean not WP:NPOV. I seriously believed it was apparent that what I meant in other words, WP must refrain from asserting which view is better.
NPOV=SPOV has not reached consensus at WP, but Morgellons has been neither rejected nor accepted by science in any case. There has been not enough research conducted or published on Morgellons for science to conclude anything one way or the other. There have been few or no peer reviewed journal articles that have stated without qualification Morgellons disease is identical to delusions of parasitosis, and none that I know of have published any research data to show it. That is why the CDC says, "The cause of this condition is unknown, and the medical community has insufficient information to determine whether persons who identify themselves as having this condition have a common cause for their symptoms or share common risk factors." And The 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology states, "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."
The "opinions" on morgellons has better sources, I believe the description of opinions on morgellons in the lead of this version was fairly NPOV because it used high impact secondary or tertiary sources that described various views and their acceptance.
I don't remember my edits intentionally stated Morgellons represented scientific consensus or fact. Can you show me any that did?
I notice this edit added "and psychiatrists[6]" to the article and I can not find anywhere in ref 6 or 7-9 where they say most psychiatrists regard Morgellons as a manifestation of known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis. Maybe I am just not finding it, can someone show me where it says that? The same edit removed descriptions of viewpoints and attributive material by the Mayo Clinic staff. The result is that the views, "that some believe it is a specific condition and expect it to be confirmed by research in the future, and some don't acknowledge Morgellons disease at all or reserve judgment until more is known about the condition" are not described anywhere in the lead. NPOV states, "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints... The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." How can the elimination from the lead of significant viewpoints described by the Mayo Clinic staff (which includes the position of the MRF and their supporters) be NPOV?
Newspaper articles have said just about everything imaginable about Morgellons. Snipits of things here and there or out of context can be sourced that mislead the reader. For example, this edit seems to indicate that by clicking on the MRF website, advocacy letters are automatically sent to congress. The MRF website page shows this is untrue. At the end of the Role of the internet section there is material inserted from The Dallas Observer that morgellons may be spread via the Internet and mass media. The only expert in this topic quoted in the story was Tim Jones, an epidemiologist who didn't think Morgellons is a mass psychogenic illness, and he said, "as crazy as it sounds, Morgellons could be real." and that was not included into the article. The material inserted appears to be speculation by Michael of Morgellons watch and the reporter Jesse Hyde. In order to be NPOV, the non-expert view should have gotten little or no weight compared to the expert view.
WP:NPOV is being violated because material that indicates morgellons may not be delusions of parasitosis is being misrepresented, misused by WP:WTA, or disclaimers, but material indicating morgellons may be delusions of parasitosis is being used with no attribution of opinion and no disclaimers. 1st example, pro morgellons: "Virginia Savely, a nurse with the MRF and member of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS), claims to have similar unpublished results.[12]" POV: Savely is a family nurse practitioner, claims is a WP:WTA, unpublished is a disclaimer. 2nd example, pro delusions of parasitosis: "the vast majority"[12] (elsewhere, 95%[13]) of Morgellons patients are diagnosed with delusional parasitosis or another psychosomatic illness". POV: no attribution and no disclaimer even though "the vast majority" is cited from the same source as the first example. The "elsewhere, 95%" number has no attribution, and is a statement by a reporter of a smaller regional newspaper article with no references, it should have zero weight.
Savely makes a novel controversial claim, does not publish those results that is unusual and needs to be noted. The statement about most Morgellons patients diagnosed on psychosomatic illness is not controversial. Is it true only newspaper articles with reliable references should be used in articles, I had not seen that but I am new on Wikipedia. I might have missed that section on WP:RS could you link to it please, thanks. Do any newspaper articles have references section? RetroS1mone talk 12:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
These are only a few of the NPOV violations, there are many more, I just do not have time to describe them all. There are even details and citations exclusively about Delusional parasitosis in the Morgellons article that are not even in the Delusional parasitosis article. Ward20 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ward20, it is totaly possible "morgellons may not be delusions of parasitosis". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we can't predict if it is or not or if the CDC will find Morgellons supporting data or not. Wikipedia is not about what is possible it documents the current state of knowledge with weight given on expert opinion. The symptoms of Morgellons are the symptoms of DP and related conditions and common comorbidities. Independant experts that talk about Morgellons say Morgellons is probaly DP. There are hundreds of peer review articles about these symptoms their diagnosis and treatment. There are two or may be three references in the literature proposing or defending the alternative name Morgellons one of them a review without reviewed research data and another one a letter to the editor without reviewed research data. I am worried you are trying to dispute this by arguing weather The Acorn is a reliable source or Natural News is a reliable source or if a nurse practitioner is not a nurse, we can discuss it but none is relavent to Morgellons being a fringe hypothesis by WP:FRINGE. RetroS1mone talk 12:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
RetroS1mone asked, "Is it true only newspaper articles with reliable references should be used in articles, I had not seen that but I am new on Wikipedia. I might have missed that section on WP:RS could you link to it please," One section that pertains "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." If you accept the "elsewhere, 95%" material from the article at face value do you accept the other statements in the article at face value? "Even as an increasing number of doctors admit that Morgellons is a physical, not psychological disorder, opportunities for treatment remain limited." and "There is no accepted cure, however, since the disease continues to be a mystery to researchers." Ward20 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
More, from WP:MEDRS Newspapers can make a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article. They should not be used as a source for medical facts and figures. Ward20 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
RetroS1mone said, "The statement about most Morgellons patients diagnosed on psychosomatic illness is not controversial." This seems to refer to the material in the article, "the vast majority[12].... of Morgellons patients are diagnosed with delusional parasitosis or another psychosomatic illness." "The vast majority" (cited from source discussed in 1st and 2nd example above) is a value or opinion subject to dispute, and needs attribution for NPOV, see A simple formulation. Ward20 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ward wrote: "WP:NPOV is being violated because material that indicates morgellons may not be delusions of parasitosis is being misrepresented" - I'm afraid that isn't true. There are NUMEROUS clauses, cites, and disclaimers that make it patently obvious to readers that there are OTHER things besides Delusional parasitosis that are considered by the medical mainstream as explanations for SOME cases of "Morgellons". You appear to be (1) setting up a "straw-man" argument, and (2) referring only to material that indicates morgellons may literally be what sufferers claim it is, which is a very different subject from may not be delusions of parasitosis. And, again, a doctor who says "I have never seen a fiber" has no evidence to present, and needs no disclaimer; a doctor who says "I have seen and extracted fibers" is EXPLICITLY stating that they HAVE evidence, so if they have not made this evidence available in either published form or physical form for independent examination, then there IS a need for a disclaimer (see, e.g., WP:REDFLAG). The situation is not symmetrical. There is no functional difference between this and an article such as Yeti, which states up front "Although the scientific community largely dismisses the Yeti as a fraud supported by legend and weak evidence," - a statement which is based upon the simple fact that no one in the scientific community has ever seen or examined a yeti or piece thereof - the fact that the scientific community can present NO evidence that yetis do NOT exist cannot be and is not a viable counterargument, nor does it offer unlimited license to editors to claim bias, POV, and complain about disclaimers. The Yeti article states, plainly, that the scientific community does not accept the existence of such a creature, and this is entirely in keeping with WP policy regarding POV and Fringe theories. There is no fundamental reason to treat the Morgellons article differently; there is one side making a claim which they have not yet produced ANY evidence to support, and there is no reason the reader should not be made fully aware of this fact - if all they have is CLAIMS, then it is perfectly fair and objective to use that term. For example: "In 1970, British mountaineer Don Whillans claims to have witnessed a creature when scaling Annapurna." and "In 1984, famed mountaineer David P. Sheppard of Hoboken, NJ, was near the southern Col of Everest and claims to have been followed by a large, furry man over the course of several days. His sherpas, however, say they saw no such thing. He claims to have taken a photograph, but a later study of it proved inconclusive." Sometimes, the term "claim" is EXACTLY the appropriate term, even if WP:WTA recommends avoiding it. I could also reverse your argument, using a passage from elsewhere within WP:WTA: "Likewise, the verb report can bestow a sense of impartiality or objectivity on an unreliable source..." - and therein lies what is probably the core of the editorial dispute. Some of the editors such as yourself treat the MRF researchers and board members and Morgellons sufferers as reliable sources, and some of us do NOT consider them reliable (after more than 5 years, someone should have been able to verify something, but no one has). If they are not reliable, as I and others maintain, then anything in this article that they say SHOULD have a disclaimer if it's to be included at all. It would not be unreasonable for a bold editor to come in here and reduce all of the text which refers to the MRF's claims to "Sufferers of this condition and affiliates of their advocacy groups reject the medical community's assessment, but have yet to provide any evidence that confirms the validity of their claims". That's really, objectively, what it boils down to, and a fair summary is all that is really required for a WP article. Clearly, if you consider the MRF to be a reliable source, then the disagreements over how the article should be edited are going to continue. Hopefully, though, the controversy won't last past the point when the CDC issues its report. Dyanega (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
First, I concur that there are other things besides Delusional parasitosis that are considered by the medical mainstream as explanations for some cases of "Morgellons". I have stated before that concept is not well developed in the article. I believe it needs more weight.
When I said "WP:NPOV is being violated because material that indicates morgellons may not be delusions of parasitosis is being misrepresented", I was talking about the many examples I have provided, of what appears to be a one-sided bias in editing: Calling Leitao a laboratory technician using no RS instead of using her actual work experience and tile from RS's. Stating she used a radio shack microscope when the same source said she also used a biology lab. Excessive weight on the Munchausens by proxy bit, and formatting it so it stands out more than any other text in the article. Removing descriptions of viewpoints and attributive material by the Mayo Clinic staff, "that some believe it is a specific condition and expect it to be confirmed by research in the future...", [30]. Implying that by clicking on the MRF website, advocacy letters are automatically sent to congress when they are not. By not stating Savely's status as a family nurse practitioner and using nurse instead. By use of selective disclaimers see 1-5 and the sentences above them in this section. By the other examples I mentioned above. There are others I have not had time to document. All are examples of bias, that in total, misrepresent a viewpoint to the reader. It is not a strawman argument to document how bias is being introduced into one viewpoint in the article. If there are biased statements about other viewpoints similar to the ones I documented, by all means let's discuss them and eliminate them, but so far there doesn't seem to be much discussion on the "specific" examples I documented.
There is a huge difference between the Yeti article and the Morgellons article. There are pictures of Morgellons lesions and fibers and descriptions of the patients and pathology published in a reliable third party peer reviewed medical Journal, [31]the RS Atlas of Human Parasitology statement, and RS Mayo clinic staff, saying "Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. Some health professionals believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by another condition, often mental illness. Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition." There are no equivalents to these RS's in the Yeti article. They indicate the opinion Morgellons disease equals delusional parasitosis is seriously contested. Ward20 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "the opinion Morgellons disease equals delusional parasitosis" IS the straw-man I was talking about. That's not what the medical consensus is. The medical consensus is "Morgellons is a new name for a number of known conditions, including delusional parasitosis", and that's the way the article reads. The specific examples you give are largely choices of words which reverse the polarity of the bias that was already there; Leitao's credentials, for example, are essentially meaningless in a medical context (especially regarding dermatology), and the existing wording was biased in order to be more favorable than reality. In the case of Savely, I see no reason not to use "family nurse practitioner" instead of "nurse". The Munchausen's thing is clearly a sensitive matter since it's BLP, but Leitao herself has admitted to the diagnosis, and it certainly does cast doubt on whether she can be considered a reliable source. WP:FRINGE and other relate policy bits DO make it clear that when tiny minority viewpoints are presented, that it is desirable for editors to establish a proper context, and the credibility of a source is unquestionably part of that context, as are their professional and commercial affiliations. As for the Mayo clinic link, that is retained in the "new lead proposal" - besides which, you and I both know perfectly well that the clause "Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research" is a direct reference to the MRF. Yes, they are health professionals, but health professionals with no expertise in either dermatology or psychiatry, and the Mayo Clinic quote is therefore giving them a lot more credence than is objectively merited; you'll note that WP:RS does emphasize that, for reliable sources, "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If one assumes that Morgellons is a genuine dermopathy, then the relevant reliable sources would be dermatologists, and not one dermatologist has come forward to support the existence of Morgellons as a novel or distinct condition. If one assumes that Morgellons is, largely or in part, a psychiatric issue, then the relevant authorities are psychiatrists, and none of THEM has come forward in support of Morgellons. In plain fact, all of the members of both disciplines who have made any public statements have specifically rejected the claims that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition. And not to belabor the point, but the yeti article does cite a few cases where reliable sources have made statements that can be construed as supporting the "pro-yeti" viewpoint. A strong parallel to the gathering/analysis/interpretation of evidence for Morgellons can be seen in many passages, such as: "In 1960, Sir Edmund Hillary mounted an expedition to collect and analyze physical evidence of the Yeti. He sent a Yeti "scalp" from the Khumjung monastery to the West for testing, whose results indicated the scalp to be manufactured from the skin of the serow, a goat-like Himalayan antelope. But some disagreed with this analysis. Myra Shackley said that the 'hairs from the scalp look distinctly monkey-like, and that it contains parasitic mites of a species different from that recovered from the serow.'" How is this fundamentally different from having numerous dermatologists examining fibers and determining them to be textile, while Randy Wymore disagrees with the analysis because the tests he had run supposedly indicated they were of a substance unknown to forensic science? One explanation, given by experts, is perfectly mundane, and the other is utterly fantastic. Since when does Wikipedia have to treat the "utterly fantastic" explanation as if it had equal weight? Dyanega (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that is the problem, "If one assumes that Morgellons is a genuine dermopathy, then the relevant reliable sources would be dermatologists." Why assume such a thing when the doctors who have seen the most self identified Morgellons patients, and published pictures and symptoms that dematologists just do not talk about(Fatigue, Fibromyalgia, brain fog, teeth falling out, etc) in journal articles, are associated with the MRF? One can just as easily say they are the experts. I keep asking for the source(s) that say all the psychiatrists who have made any public statements have specifically rejected that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition, and none have been forthcoming. The citation in the article does not support that content. What about psychiatrist Robert C. Bransfield? He does not reject the that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition.
One editor says we are not accusing Leitao of Munchausen because it is just part of the story. Another says, "Leitao herself has admitted to the diagnosis, and it certainly does cast doubt on whether she can be considered a reliable source." She never said it was a diagnosis, she said, her son's doctors said she had Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, her son's doctors can not diagnose her. Is it part of the story, accusation, or fact? Seems like the quote above takes it for a fact, that is why it is not NPOV to put it into the article like it is.
Yes, you are correct, the elimination of the Mayo Clinic content eliminates the MRF's view, it is a more significant view in large part because the Mayo clinic says it. To eliminate the Mayo Clinic quote and say it is giving them a lot more credence than is objectively merited because it agrees with the MRF view is not NPOV. To eliminate the view of the originators of the hypothesis of self described Morgellons from the lead is not NPOV, even if the Mayo Clinic article would not have existed.
The strong parallel to the gathering/analysis/interpretation of evidence for Morgellons to the Yeti example is flawed because The quotation about Hillary has no source, and because Wymore is not published in a medical journal, Must pick others to compare to like these guys. By the way, even the Yeti article used said and not proposed in the first sentence of the article description. Ward20 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (PGO) Acquisition & Assistance Branch B, Request No. 2007-Q-09877, Requisition/ Purchase Request No. 000HCVCH-2007-46765, 2007-07-31
  2. ^ a b Ash. L.R., Orihel, T.C. 2007. Atlas of Human Parasitology, 5th Edition. American Society for Clinical Pathology Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 386–387 ISBN 0891891676 Cite error: The named reference "Atlas" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b CDC Probes Bizarre Morgellons Condition, By MIKE STOBBE AP Medical Writer ATLANTA, Aug. 9, 2006 Cite error: The named reference "CDC Probes" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Mom fights for answers on what's wrong with her son, Harlan C., Pittsburg Post-Gazette, July 23, 2006, retrieved October 28, 2006.
  5. ^ a b c d Delusions of Parasitosis versus Morgellons Disease: Are They One and the Same? Ginger Savely, RN, FNP-C and Mary Leitao, Director of the Morgellons Foundation, ADVANCE for Nurse Practitioners,Vol. 13, Issue 5, Page 16 (5/1/2005)
  6. ^ a b c "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")". Centers For Disease Control. 2007-06-12.
  7. ^ The challenge of Morgellons disease. Koblenzer CS., J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Nov;55(5):920–2
  8. ^ a b Marris, Emma (2006-08-30). "Mysterious 'Morgellons disease' prompts US investigation". Nature Medicine.
  9. ^ "Morgellons disease: Managing a mysterious skin condition". Mayo Clinic. 2007-05-02. Retrieved 2007-08-04.
  10. ^ "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons"), CDC Investigation". Centers For Disease Control. 2007-11-01.
  11. ^ Dunn, J. (2007). "Diffuse Pruritic Lesions in a 37-Year-Old Man After Sleeping in an Abandoned Building". Am J Psychiatry. 164: 1166–1172. PMID 17671278. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference AJCD was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Ezra, Navid (2006-07-20), "Morgellons: Disease or delusion?", Agoura Hills Acorn, retrieved 2008-06-02
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgellons/Archive_7&oldid=1136253466"