Talk:Morgellons/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

lead proposal

Since Morgellons is a fringe hypothesis under WP:FRINGE and is notable because of press coverage not scientific acceptance, the lead should reflect that. Its not perfect but I am proposing a change to teh lead and I want to get thoughts on it first. I think it should say what the scientific consensus is and also the symptoms are real and debilitating even if you call it DP, "people are not crazy!!", and also the medical community has treatments for it, they are tested and effective:

"Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given in 2002 by Mary Leitao to a proposed infectious condition characterized by a range of self-described cutaneous (skin) symptoms including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; finding fibers on or under the skin; and persistent skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores), initially in her son. Current scientific consensus holds that Morgellons is not a new disorder and is not infectious, but is instead a new name for well-described non-infectious illnesses. Most doctors, including dermatologists and psychiatrists, regard Morgellons as a manifestation of known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis, although some health professionals acknowledge that an infectious cause could one day be found. Illnesses such as delusional parasitosis can be serious and debilitating, but tested and effective treatments exist.

Despite the lack of evidence that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition and the absence of any agreed set of diagnostic symptoms, the Morgellons Research Foundation, self-identified Morgellons patients, and members of Congress have successfully lobbied the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate the proposed condition. The CDC states that while it is not known at present whether the condition represents a new disease entity, or whether persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious, it has begun an epidemiological investigation of the "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka 'Morgellons')."" RetroS1mone talk 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

At a minimum, the phrase "initially in her son" does not belong in the lead, and I would substitute "known illnesses" for "well-described non-infectious illnesses". Some Morgellons cases may be things like fibromyalgia, which are not especially "well-described" (in terms of their etiology, at least), and other cases which may be skin conditions could potentially be "infectious" (e.g., scabies). The phrase "but tested and effective treatments exist" needs at least one citation. Dyanega (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. "... initially in her son" is important, and probably should be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So difficult to describe this condition in a acceptable and neutral way. Scabies is just scabies except when the patient is reading MRF on the Internet and thinks they have Morgellons. DP is DP except when the patient has printouts from the Internet about Morgellons. There is one characteristic common for every case of Morgellons, the sufferer or their parent if they are a kid, know about Morgellons and think they have it. RetroS1mone talk 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For all the annoying editors of this article

who claim that fibers are 'self-described' symptom, here is a CNN report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8O_cSD0CmU and another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MamCapDXuM

Now for those of you who are visually impaired, or have difficulty with the comprehension of what you see, there are OTHER people in this video seeing and describing PATIENTS' fibers.

FYA, I will continue changing the introductory forever, being careful I don't do it more than 3 times in 24 hours.

I invite other editors with common sense to join me in this.

Lakinekaki (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual CNN link for verification, [1] subscription required. Ward20 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the primary symptoms mentioned in the lead (Formication, fibers and lesions), only formication really be said to be "self described". And that's really a pointless distinction, as all symptom are "self described" - i.e. subjective assessments given by the patients. Objectively verifiable symptoms are called "signs". Having open sores on your arms and legs is a sign, having the sensation of bugs on your skin is a symptom.

Describing itching or formication as "self-described" implies that the patient is making it up. That is not what is happening. If the patient feels an itching sensation, then they ARE itching, and itching is hence a symptom of something.

I suspect that what we want to report here is that there are differing interpretations of those signs and symptoms. Doctors may see them as physical and/or psychosomatic itching, with some skin conditions and/or neurotic excoriations. The patient has rejected all or part of this diagnosis, and has self-diagnosed with Morgellons.

Fibers are fibers, people find fibers on their skin, and nobody disputes this. I find fibers on my skin. The distinction here is that people who self-diagnose with Morgellons feel that finding fibers on their skin is a sign of their illness. All dermatologists feel that finding fibers on your skin is not at all unusual, as everyone has fibers on their skin, but that a persistent false belief regarding those fibers might be a sign of some other condition.

Herd of Swine (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what the intro says, and not the salient point: they claim to see fibers UNDER their skin; no one outside of the sufferers themselves or the MRF have ever seen this same thing. The fibers under the skin ARE self-described. Dyanega (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"They" claim a lot of things. The MRF say "“Filaments” are reported in and on skin lesions and at times extruding from intact-appearing skin." Since "in and on skin lesions" is described as the more common case, then I think that focusing on "fibers under the skin" in the lead would be a misrepresentation. Herd of Swine (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a second, when you write "FYA, I will continue changing the introductory forever, being careful I don't do it more than 3 times in 24 hours" above, Lakinekaki, it sounds as if you're describing an intention to long term edit war over this issue. It also sounds as if you feel you may own the article, or at least the introduction. I wish to counsel calm and caution, and I hope you will consider clearly stating that your intention is to work towards a consensus with other editors and that your statement above was perhaps misunderstood. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

a) I don't think I own the article, but I don't think other editors do either.

b) Difference between me and someone else here is that I do say I will be persistent in my editing, while he does not say it, but is even more persistent.

c) I really think consensus will be hard to reach with editors that want to be very selective about their sources and wording. Herd of Swine eloquently expressed the problem with the introduction: "self-described" implies that the patient is making it up, and that is precisely what some here want. I presented video that shows the opposite, but their denial is 'impressive'.

Lakinekaki (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Still today there is no independent medical report about fibers from a patient coming from a parasite. "What some here want" is a neutral phrasing of the current state from knowledge about Morgellons. Some times patients describe symptoms the doctors can't verify. Like Herd said that does not mean they are "making it up" their itching is real, they believe the fibers are from their skin, are made by a parasite that runs under their skin. Problem is, how to say this in a way that is fair to every one and shows current medical opinion. RetroS1mone talk 12:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody mind if I archive up to Post Oct. 30. 2007?

Loading is starting to slow a little. Ward20 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The page was up to 500K (and some people's browsers start having trouble with pages that are over 32K, see WP:SIZE). I went ahead and archived threads up through May 2008, and added an archive bot which in the future will do automatic archives of any threads which have had no activity in a month. The archivebox will still need to be handled manually. If it's desired to set up an automated archivebox, get rid of the current table, and replace it with {{archives | auto=yes}}. Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed corrections to introductory paragraph

I found the second sentence a bit inflammatory and a bit inaccurate. I'd suggest correcting the first half of the second sentence, and moving it down to a latter paragraph because opinion doesn't belong in an intro paragraph. As for inaccuracy, I refer to the first half of the sentence which (1) misrepresents its first citation (go read and/or listen to the BBC article) and (2) implies contempt or defiance with the word "despite" where none exists in the BBC article (see the primary usage for despite). At least for the introductory paragraph, lets stick to objective facts - especially for an entry marked controversial. --ThirdOpinion (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No inaccuracy. "Despite" seems fair, although it's not entirely sourced by the available data.

— Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My reason for saying something here was and still is that the second sentence is not a neutral statement and as such it should be made more objective or moved - esp considering the article is marked controversial. And if it needs changing, we should fix it so it doesn't misrepresent its sources and get rid of stuff that's not sourced at all (as implied by not entirely sourced by the available data). Objectivity is important for the first paragraph of a "controversial" article.

Here's two sentences to neutrally and accurately replace sentence 2? Waste of time? Unimportant? If noone else thinks a change is warranted, I'll forget this:

"Thousands claim to be sufferers of the condition, while most doctors dismiss Morgellons as a delusion[2]." "Despite extreme skepticism in mainstream medical circles, the federal government is now taking Morgellons seriously because of pressure from sufferers and the Morgellons Research Foundation, the nonprofit organization that Mary Leitao founded in 2002 and now runs out of her house in Pennsylvania.[3]"

Actually, although a little worse (objectively) than the existing sentence, I might consider it acceptable. However, may I suggest "Thousands claim to be" to "Thousands are claimed to be" (only the MRF knows for sure), and "taking Morgellons seriously" to "investigating Morgellons" (whether they're taking it serious is anyone's guess). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

There appears to be a dispute, based on the recent edits to the article, but there does not appear to be corresponding discussion on the talkpage. As a reminder, as soon as editing gets to the point where editors are reverting each other, please take things to the talkpage to try and articulate the points of contention. Thanks, Elonka 20:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Kolb is using multiple anonymous IPs to make the edits, and has not responded to personal attempts to prevent her from continuing with inserting her self-promotional blurb. There is no way to discuss something with an editor who is using sockpuppets. Dyanega (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, or list the IPs? Is there a named account? Has a report been filed at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU? --Elonka 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The latest anon, 69.22.110.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has been blocked for 48 hours. If others pop up, be sure to warn them on their talkpages, and let an administrator know. --Elonka 04:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 69.22.110.112 is the first (and probably primary) account to post the Kolb spam. That account originates in Atlanta, which is (surely not coincidentally) where Dr. Kolb is based. Other accounts making the exact same edit are User:Suthnautr, 74.230.139.76, 24.73.81.186, 209.168.172.235, 71.41.120.70, 67.78.22.30, and 24.199.95.175 - and note that none of these other accounts has made ANY edits other than to Morgellons. Clearly, none of those other addresses is a real editor - only the one from Atlanta has edited any other pages. Classic anon sockpuppetry tactics. Dyanega (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we've got:

• Suthnautr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (July 7)
• 24.199.95.175 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (July 7)
• 67.78.22.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (July 8)
• 24.73.81.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (July 8-12)
• 71.41.120.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (July 12)
• 74.230.139.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (July 12)
• 209.168.172.235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (July 12)
• 69.22.110.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (multiple articles, July 4-13)

If any others pop up, please be sure to warn them on their talkpage immediately, and post about it here. If warning and blocks don't help, we'll just semi-protect the page. Also, when you mentioned personal attempts, did you mean off-wiki communications? Or something else? It's interesting that the edits are coming in from such different ranges. Elonka 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There was off-site recruting at a morgellons site with the text that keeps getting put in. RetroS1mone talk 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're correct; the link to the thing in question is [2] - it actually does tell people to go to the WP article and insert the spam: "Why not let someone edit the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons Self Treatment section with information like that listed above? …Especially if it can help real people gain a more rounded education of what Morgellons is and what Morgellons treatment options are available? To add this yourself WITH full and proper documentation copy and paste this into the section on self treatment:" This is a violation of WP policy, to recruit people to POV push in Wikipedia (it's called meatpuppetry). We need an admin to protect this page so only established editors can change the article, for however long this blog (evidently belonging to Trish Springstead, not Susan Kolb) is up and running. Dyanega (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Had to remove pro and anti self-treatment at bottom of page

I am removed material in the article about self treatment that is not properly sourced. I don't like the idea of a self-treatment section that is not fully sourced. These are peoples lives and health we are talking about.

"Here's a site where you can try things" is not a verifiable source as itself does not have any sources for its claims.

I have also removed the statement that says that there is no proof that any of these things work. We need a source for that as well.

Please read this section from WP:V, one of the most important rules on Wikipedia that we all strive for.:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources.

....

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Can we agree to discuss such things on the talkpage before doing them? This way we will avoid the editwaring.--mboverload@ 03:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Explain something to me, if you would, in the meantime: if someone notable were to say "George W. Bush is actually a lesbian left handed albino midget eskimo" (see Dead Milkmen lyrics if you don't get the reference) and no one were to bother refuting this claim in print, do you truly believe that it would be appropriate to insert the claim in the Wikipedia article on Mr. Bush WITHOUT an accompanying disclaimer? Based on how I read WP:FRINGE, it's fine to include disclaimers for fringe theories that have not been addressed by mainstream sources, and that includes fringe medicine; no dermatologist is EVER going to come out and say "Bleach is not an effective treatment for Morgellons" if only because no dermatologists accept Morgellons as an actual condition. Just who, exactly, do you expect is going to refute this? Like you said, this is peoples lives and health we are talking about - and people should be warned NOT to go around soaking themselves in bleach for no good reason. Dyanega (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are no good sources for the pro or the con, then I agree with mboverload that they do not merit mention. That said, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a single reliable source documenting what people have tried and then explaining that these things do/don't work. We don't need to include a how-to, but we could include a brief list and then summarize the scientific commentary on those approaches. Antelan 06:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The core problem is that all such references are explicitly in the context of delusional parasitosis (e.g.[3]), and the reason the various skin treatments DP sufferers attempt are ineffective is because it's a psychiatric condition and not a skin condition; since the mainstream medical community does not accept Morgellons, nothing is being published in the context of Morgellons as a legitimate dermatological condition, and presumably never will be. Nearly all of the "scientific commentary", in other words, is - if you want to be truly NPOV about it - impossible to include here. If no one outside the MRF accepts the existence of Morgellons, then no one is going to comment on the efficacy of treatments FOR Morgellons, are they? It's called a "Catch-22". That is "a situation in which multiple probabilistic events exist, and the desirable outcome results from the confluence of these events, but there is zero probability of this happening, as they are mutually exclusive." The mutually exclusive events in this case are that a reputable medical author(s) will publish in a reputable medical journal AND that this publication will happen to be a refutation of a fringe medical theory which both the author(s) and the journal editors reject so completely as to give it no credence whatsoever. Ain't gonna happen any time soon. It might be different if the pro-Morgellons folks ever came up with any clinical studies or other actual evidence for their claims, but in the absence of such, what reputable journal is going to give space to refuting completely unsupported fringe theories? Professionals don't usually waste their time arguing against theories which have zero supporting evidence. That's generally not how science (or medicine) operates. The one hope we have is that the CDC will eventually complete their investigation, and issue a public statement. Of course, one can easily predict the pro-Morgellons community will claim it's a government cover-up, but at least we'll have something else authoritative we can quote for inclusion in this article, instead of relying so heavily upon magazines and newspapers. Dyanega (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dyanega, good point. However, I would suspect that chemical burns across 100% of your body is 100% effective at curing any skin ailment. You don't have any skin to worry about.

I did a quick search but I can't find any sources on how dangerous bleach actually _IS_ on skin. All I found is (ironically) Anal bleaching. --mboverload@ 07:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bleach baths are sometimes recommended by doctors for a variety of skin conditions. Of course these are generally highly diluted - 1/4 of a cup in a half full bath. Similar to a public swimming pool. These baths ARE effective. But not for "Morgellons", since Morgellons is not a distinct disease, but rather is generally agreed to be a patient applied label for a variety of conditions. So discussing the effectiveness of treatments is somewhat missing the point. For some people a diluted bleach bath might be effective because it addresses an underlying condition.

Of course we don't want to promote dangerous treatments. Some people who self-label with "Morgellons" have described how they would immerse their hands and arms in full strength bleach, and how this gave them temporary relief. Scratching also gives temporary relief, probably for similar reasons, but it's also not good for your skin. Herd of Swine (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we are overstepping here but I think that maybe we DO need a statement that there is no proof that any of this stuff works and is dangerous. According to the article people will read this, think they have it, and then try to figure out how to cure it. Does Wikipedia have a "duty" to include this information? Dyanega brings up a good point that has me concerned. --mboverload@ 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A statement that "at the present time no treatment for this condition has been proven to be effective" is an easily falsifiable statement and it can be removed on the condition that when someone finds a method backed up by good sources, they can add that information. Then we can state that this one method has been proven effective. The statement can also be included with hidden editorial guidelines stating the conditions for removing the statement. -- Fyslee / talk 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I had been under the impression that some psychiatric pharmacologics were effective. I'm sure this will prompt someone to say that I am biased or have a rip-roaring COI. Antelan 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

None of that here =). Since the psychiatric angle is so well sourced you do have a point. Hmm... am I WP:BOLD enough to stick it in there... =) --mboverload@ 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Right what is it?

They don't even say its a disease they say it's a manifestation of psychosis. People with it are treated as insane but there are PHYSICAL manifestations.

What is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.24.26 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At last full report, there was no one diagnosed with this who wasn't contected by the MRF. Physical manifestations? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The only PHYSICAL manifestation is the crawling sensation on one's skin; "Any illness or medication of which formication is a symptom or side effect can become a trigger or underlying cause of delusional parasitosis." No one has ever documented any other physical manifestation - the reported sores are evidently either self-inflicted, or part of some other underlying illness. Dyanega (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The "physical manifestations" are the multi coloured fibres growing from the skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.8.29 (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

....I tried to respond to this comment, but I fail to even latch on to a thread of substance. lol whut? --mboverload@ 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a "psychosis" which results in people having multi-colored fibres grow from lesions on the skin. How did they arrive at the idea its a "psychosis" or a delusion.

http://morgellons-disease-research.com/morgellons.jpg <- picture of a lesion http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/morgellons2.bmp <- picture of the fibres red blue or clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.33.153 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if not photoshopped, those aren't reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They are representative images of the lesions/fibers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.60.25 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and right now there are no reliable sources reporting the existance of the fibres. RetroS1mone talk 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, the fibers do exist, it's simply that they're clothing and carpet fibers embedded in sores - the delusion is believing that they have some mysterious organic source within the body. That has never been demonstrated, and is about as unlikely to ever BE demonstrated as spontaneous generation. Morgellons is to modern science what spontaneous generation was back in the 17th century - "according to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth. In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned..." That's the core of the issue: Morgellons sufferers are assuming that their problem is physical (e.g., that it is a readily observable truth that their bodies are producing fibers spontaneously), but that assumption has no evidence to support it. Aristotle was no dummy, and no one is saying that Morgellons sufferers are stupid, either - but modern science clearly demonstrates that they're just as mistaken as Aristotle was. Put any scab in the world under a microscope, and you will find small colored fibers. I've seen colored fibers in my own scabs - which, if I were to buy into this, would mean that I must have Morgellons - and, if I assume this is true, my Morgellons condition has never bothered me or worried me. If it doesn't bother me, why should it bother you, (92.3.60.25)? Dyanega (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And you are assuming that their problem is psychological. Look up "unexplained" in the dictionary. The psychogenesis theory is just that, a theory, and the opinion of pre-judging cynics, whomever they are, is just that, opinion. Professionals are just as much open to belief bias as lay people. Until well-conducted large scale trials are carried out "no evidence" is just as anecdotal as anything else. The comparison to spontaneous generation theroy is flawed, because the scientific evidence for animal reproduction is overwhelming and if you'll pardon the pun, reproducable, rather than merely relying on an absence of (research) evidence. Cavalier statements about other missed diagnoses make little sense as a justification for the non-existence of this disease if these other diagnoses cannot actually be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.60.55 (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Clongen Labs is investigating the disease. There are some excellent pictures of the fibres on their website. Dr Kilani cites lack of government funding as a major hurdle in this research. Dr Kilani has also recently found that the fibres DNA is similar to a tree fungus and "suspects" that because Agrobacterium DNA is found in all sufferers (the small number tested so far) it could be responsible for transfering the DNA to humans. Wayne (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

we might want to correct

an article in self magazine talks about this condition and states that it is in fact a mysterious one. they tested the fibers and they neither burned at high temperatures or would lose color when bleached. See page 248 on cancer edition october 2008 of SELF. They have some pictures, actual magnifications and not representations. I would look up their sources but I honestly don't feel like bothering. Eventually just like West Nile and other diseases, at some point it will be recognized as one. 207.228.52.221 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)mouse

Thanks for the tip, the test wasn't done by the magazine it is the same old claims from Randy Wymore and friends about how fibers don't burn but they never publish it they never have details they never have a independent scientist take stuff from a patient and test it. It is already recognized as a disease, a very serious and painful disease and very debilitating called delusional parasitosis. RetroS1mone talk 02:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking "medical advice" and "tests adhering to the scientific method" from a self-help magazine is...well its just nonsense. --mboverload@ 04:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just passing through this topic - mildly interested.. Re: the ongoing debate here. It's been 2 or 3 (4?) years of "we're going to study these fibers", which are the only hard evidence, I gather. So, where's the electron microscope pics? Where's the DNA lab results? Gas chromatography? All of which can easily be done in a week, for cheap. If they are done, this article should be updated. If they are not done, I'll fall on the "where's the beef" side. Sorry, but those are elementary lab tests that any doctor would do with any strange growths in any patient's body in any hospital within a few hours to a week's time. "IS SO!!"just isn't good enough. Self Magazine?!?! Real scientific evidence like that would go straight to AMA and CDC. Just 2c Jjdon (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Have the CDC published anything yet? They seem to be taking so long to do so it seems they've already made some decisions and don't believe the research is really justified, a nice catch-22, as then many simply parrot the "no evidence" line without thinking '"why?"'. But without all that science, "IS NOT SO!!" is even worse than "IS SO!!" When science lacks experience in an area we have to defer to the people who do have experience, as experience beats theory. A continued lack of attempt to apply science to an enigma makes it a political problem and ironically will strengthen and justify conspiracy claims. If medical professionals really don't think Morgellons exists, the best way they could counter this is by carrying out the hard science, and including various specialties not only psychiatry (which has a vested interest in exclusionary diagnosis and soft theory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.60.55 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Experience" from professionals not trained in differential diagnosis is less than no theory. It's still the case that no doctor outside the Morgellons Foundation has diagnosed "Morgellons", so there's no "there" there. Hopefully the CDC will further test people diagnosed (by the MF) as having Morgellons, but there's little evidence that any of those patients have actually been examined (or been willing to be examined) by CDC doctors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Added Information regardin airing of a segment on Spanish Network

Today, October 14, Spanish Network Univision aired an extended segment regarding Morgellons with interviews and video from patients from Colombia, Florida, and California.

It was aired in their weekly news program "Aqui y Ahora" (Here & Now) -the equivalent to Dateline, 20/20, etc- for the Spanish speaking community.

The segment regarding Morgellons was extensive and took aprox. 2/3 of the program. Interviews were done on people currently suffering the symptoms of Morgellons and another of one person who is currently free of symptoms.

Doctors both here in the US and in Colombia were also interviewed for the segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacdim (talk • contribs) 06:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Amyloidosis?

Has anyone specifically ruled out amyloidosis (i.e. some unknown organ-limited amyloidosis of the skin)? Mike Serfas (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand of amyloidosis, there are no well-known forms associated with the skin, and nothing resembling the symptoms reported by Morgellons patients. More to the point, no legitimate medical researcher has yet found and reported anything abnormal in the skin of a Morgellons patient - so far, just scabs and embedded exogenous fibers. This has been going on for decades, and many very dedicated and competent dermatologists have examined these people and have yet to find anything suggesting it is an actual disease. One would certainly think if there was any known medical condition that needed to be "ruled out" and had not yet been, then the medical community would be actively discussing it, especially given the attention Morgellons has received. Dyanega (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right. My thought was provoked by the quote of Noah Craft in the cited Psychology Today article that a few of the fibers presented resembled "normal collagen fibers from within the skin". Spotting the difference between a normal and an abnormal protein fiber, even with routine stains, might not be easy - though Congo Red generally should be informative, it also stains cellulose...

Epidermis differs from the brain in that only the base of the layer can avoid rapid differentiation and loss, and so I'd expect the space for any hypothetical amyloid to build up would be very limited. Even so, several types of cutaneous amyloidosis are known.[4]

While there's not much in the proper literature on Morgellons in general let alone this idea in particular, upon further search I found that my speculation has been discussed independently in online forums.[5][6] Mike Serfas (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion : closure?

User Dyanega has been highly emphatic in this discussion that 'Morgellons disease' is just embedded fibres on sores or lesions. This is hard to believe has there ever been any pathological proof of the existance of 'Morgellons disease'. If not i suggest the deprecation / deletion of this article (urban legend or folk tale). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.14.213 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. The article is about the subject of Morgellons, not about if Morgellons is or is not an urban legend. Would you also delete Alien abduction on the same grounds? Herd of Swine (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest Info

This August 2008 article has a lot of info that may be relevant for the page. Unfortunately if you want the illustrated and referenced version it is pay only (£3:50). It has basic breakdowns for where the suffers are clustered and also for occupations. For example three times more Nurses have the disease than the next most common profession. It discusses various different independent investigations which indicate that Agrobacterium is the vector. Wayne (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot wrong with that source, the biggest being that the article itself is a thinly-disguised anti-genetically modified foods coatrack. It doesn't even begin to establish correlation between Morgellons and dirt, or Morgellons and Agrobacterium, or Morgellons and ANYTHING, much less establishing actual causation that would allow them to draw a scientifically-sound conclusion. But then again, the moment I read the weaselly rhetorical question in the title ("has genetic engineering created a new epidemic?"...*cue thunder and scary organ trill*) I knew the article was just a bullshit push-piece. Oh, and the studies they cite are all hosted by the ISSS, a major British anti-GMF lobbying group. Thanks for the link, though. Bullzeye ^contribs 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Too funny

I apologize if this is out of line, but this entire article reads like a horrific media soap opera with the dual lesson of the power of the internet and the extent of humanity's stupidity. I require an explanation for the extremely dubious use sources in this article. The sole producer of any information that Morgellons might exist is the director of MMF, an organization started by a woman told by doctors she was mentally ill and the disease did not exist. I don't mean this to be an ad hominem but I'm simply questioning the validity of the source. Morgellons has never stood up to any scientific inquiry outside of this one study by a biased and dubious source and I really think it's time for this article to move on--to the refuse bin. 128.194.69.136 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am agreeing but the thing is, there is media all over it bc it is so sensational story!! It is notable, so that is why we have article. It is like little green men. RetroS1mone talk 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More disprovable than Russell's teapot

Needs some pictures. Of the fibres that are claimed to exist. The suggestion above that the subject is somehow independent of whether the content is actually another subject - delusional dermatitis - or whether the problem is an explanation that doesn't fit facts presented for something for whcih other explanations exist or even whih remains unexplained does not seem a good appraoch to an encyclopedia. Midgley (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's going to have a photo it needs a info box and the ICD classification etc. Ideally it would be nice to have a photo that's been confirmed with Weston blot. --Aspro (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

Could someone restore the documented scientific consensus that this is not a disease to the lede? I'm at 3RR, and none of the reverts were BLP reverts. The lede now is not true, but is not an exception to 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a video of alleged Morgellons, with suggestion it is a parasitic disease from eating sushi. The video shows the worms crawling out of the man's face. Go to Yahoo Finance website - plug in SIGA to get to info on this biotech company. Bring up the message board. Go to the one titled "bastards". It was entered on 3-4-09 at 4:01 PM. Look at the replies to this message. Read replies 6 and 7, and watch the video. User: Sigarama 3-4 09,20:20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigarama (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Chemtrails

Although not a reliable source, it does show that the theory exists. Questions as to whether it's significant may require some research. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourced material was removed from the lead with no edit summary

Resolved

With this edit of 31 March, User:Imnotard removed several paragraphs of sourced material from the lead, with no edit summary. I suggest that this material should be restored. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to restore things, but I've done it for you. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not change wording from NIH MeSH database to suit MorgellonsWatch POV (JARGON DUDE SPEAK ENGLISH PLEASE

The original wording from the NIH's MeSH database has been changed from the original wording. This POV-editing purposefully ignores the association between Morgellons and Lyme disease in order to conform to the MorgellonsWatch POV:

1. The fibers are environmental and unrelated to any illness 2. Morgellons is not a distinct disease 3. People who think they have "Morgellons" probably have a mixed variety of physical and/or mental illnesses."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2009/MB_cgi?mode=&index=24984&view=concept clearly states Morgellons is

An unexplained illness which is characterized by skin manifestations including non-healing lesions, itching, and the appearance of fibers. There appears to be a strong association with LYME DISEASE.

Nothing in the NIH's statement suggests "scientific consensus," or that "it is a new and misleading name for known illnesses."

Instead, The article substitutes the MorgellonsWatch POV for the exact language from the NIH'S MeSH database:

An unexplained illness which is characterized by skin manifestations including non-healing lesions, itching, and the appearance of fibres, although scientific consensus is that it is a new and misleading name for known illnesses.

Furthermore the association with Lyme disease specifically mentioned on the NIH page is commented out in the wiki-text in the infobox. Again, this changing of the exact Language used by the NIH is unjustified by the source material.

Xsmasher (an obvious sockpuppet of MickWest whose main sockpuppet is Herd of Swine) claims "'known illnesses' is well cited in the article" in his comment on reverting the MeSH entry back to the MorgellonsWatch POV. His argument is irrelevant to the infobox, which should only contain the official statements from the NIH's classification of Morgellons under "Skin Diseases (C17.800)." The NIH's classification provides a specific dermatological -- and not psychiatric -- category for the concept: Morgellons Disease (C17.800.518).

Finally, the association with Lyme disease is well cited in the article. The association with Lyme disease is also mentioned in http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/11/24-b: "many Morgellons patients test positive for Lyme disease."

It is POV-editing to bury the clear association between Lyme disease and Morgellons disease -- an association that is supported since 11-FEB-2008 by the NIH MeSH database and at least three medical journal publications. These are verifiable, published facts. MorgellonsWatch's POV is simply not supported by the latest findings and literature.

24.156.39.13 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the template documentation specifies that the "Caption" field is supposed to apply to the "Image", not to the condition itself. I've removed it entirely. You are absolutely WRONG about the sockpuppet allegations, and I have no doubt that you have edited under a name before, and likely been (at least temporarily) banned from the article. Furthermore, if you are the same person as the IP 98.194.123.23 (talk · contribs) which was previously blocked for WP:3RR violations, this IP should also be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

Under Conspiracy theories the phrase "On a radio program called Coast to Coast--popular among people who believe in UFOs and ghosts--" suggests the show is solely devoted to those subjects. The show does feature many "legitimate" topics and guests as well as the questionable ones. Maybe somebody could find a better way to put it? I'd do it, but don't want to jump the gun. Plutoxin (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the line "--popular among people who believe in UFOs and ghosts--". It's not a very line and it reveals too much POV. I suppose you could call it a "Conspiracy Theory radio program" maybe? --Mezaco (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a quote people. RetroS1mone talk 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyme Disease

Since many people feel Morgellons is linked to Lyme Disease, maybe there should be a bigger section on Lyme Disease and the relationship between the two? --Mezaco (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If there was some evidence — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The evidence — scientific papers and letters from medical journals, referenced in the article. The association with Lyme disease is also mentioned in [7]: "many Morgellons patients test positive for Lyme disease." NIH's MESH Database's 2009 entry on Morgellons[8] claims "An unexplained illness which is characterized by skin manifestations including non-healing lesions, itching, and the appearance of fibers. There appears to be a strong association with LYME DISEASE."

[9] notes a direct association with Lyme:

... "Not only is Chronic Lyme real, Savely maintains, but it has a strong association with Morgellons. She discovered the connection while treating Chronic Lyme patients in her practice in Austin. She found that approximately 10 percent of her chronic Lyme patients had the fibers, lesions and skin-crawling sensations characteristic of Morgellons. As news of the Morgellons phenomenon spread over the Internet, she started hearing from more patients who came to her for Morgellons treatment. She says overall, about 95 percent of Morgellons patients she has treated are co-infected with Lyme disease.

Savely postulates that Lyme may weaken the immune system, making patients more vulnerable to whatever pathogen causes Morgellons, but she admits she does not know what that pathogen is."

... But other researchers are also looking into the cause. One such researcher who spoke at the conference is Dr. Raphael Stricker, MD, a clinician who, like Savely, treats Chronic Lyme and Morgellons patients in California. Morgellons skeptics dismiss Stricker's research because he was fired from the University of California in 1990 for allegedly suppressing data in a 1985 research paper on AIDS that would have contradicted his hypothesis. But Stricker has consistently denied the charges and Lyme and Morgellons message boards abound with patients posting messages in his defense.

Stricker presented research he conducted along with Savely and Vitaly Citovsky, Ph.D of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, in which they tested lesions from seven Morgellons patients as well as biopsied skin samples from a healthy control population. They found agrobacterium in all seven Morgellons patients and none was found in the control group.

Agrobacterium is a bacteria that infects plants, causing Crown Gall disease in trees, and it is the only known organism to engage in lateral gene transfer among kingdoms, transferring genes from the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom. The bacterium produces copious amounts of cellulose fibers, and Stricker and others have found the fibers found in Morgellons patients to also be made of cellulose, a plant material.

Skeptics point out that cotton is also made of cellulose fibers. But Forensic scientist Ron Pogue of the Tulsa Police Crime Lab in Oklahoma told ABC News that he checked a sample of Morgellons against every known fiber in the FBI database and found no match. The lab's director, Mark Boese, told ABC that the fibers are "consistent with something that the body may be producing." He added, "These fibers cannot be manmade and do not come from a plant. This could be a byproduct of a biological organism."

Stricker has a theory, but acknowledges a lot of research needs to be conducted to see if his theory is correct. He speculates that agrobacterium, which is found in the soil and also in a high percentage of ticks, is the cause of Morgellons, and that the reason many are co-infected with Lyme is that they may contract Morgellons from the same tick that gave them the Lyme disease.

Furthermore, he notes a very curious finding. Telomerase is an enzyme that ads more DNA to the end of a chromosome after cell division. "Every cell and species has telomerase," said Stricker. "There have been comparative studies of telomerase in different organisms and it's been shown that the telomerase in Lyme and agrobacterium are exactly the same."

He continued, "This is a peculiar coincidence because telomerases are usually completely different among different species and types of bacteria. This suggests when there is co-infection with Borrelia, which causes Lyme disease, and with agrobacterium, the two bacteria can actually help each other by adding pieces of DNA to each other's chromosomes and this could cause variation in both bacteria, that could then lead to changes in what the bacteria are doing in the human body. It's a very interesting possibility that also needs to be examined in further detail."

He added, "My speculation, and it still is speculation, is that Morgellons Disease may represent the first known human illness caused by a plant bacterium. And in fact, when people say they have these fibers attached to the skin that don't come out, that are very adherent, in a way they are kind of turning into plants."

75.83.177.199 (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick study shows no reliable sources which actually show a correlation, although there may be one in there somewhere. Then, again, a detailed study last year showed no credible evidence that there is such a thing as "Morgellons", and I don't know that the situation has changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"A quick study shows no reliable sources which actually show a correlation" — evidence please, not handwaving. "a detailed study last year showed no credible evidence" — evidence please, not conjecture of a detailed study which is not referenced in the article. How are articles and letters from doctors with direct experience in both Lyme and Morgellons, appearing in peer-reviewed journals such as "Expert Review of Dermatology" and "American Journal of Clinical Dermatology" not "reliable sources." If these aren't reliable sources, why are they referenced in the article? The NIH says "An unexplained illness which is characterized by skin manifestations including non-healing lesions, itching, and the appearance of fibers. There appears to be a strong association with LYME DISEASE." Who are you to be second-guessing the NIH? In your own words "We (Wikipedia) are not engaged in a "search for truth". We are engaged in a search for what is verified. The existance of this disease has not (yet) been verified. Personally, I doubt it will be, but that's just my opinion" — it seems like you are letting your Morgellons=Delusion POV cloud what could otherwise be a much more balanced and truthful article. The direct relationship between Morgellons and Lyme is a verified and published fact that is not in dispute. That there are countervailing viewpoints on Morgellons should also be present in the article. Unfortunately, the article is outrageously biased against what is verifiable and true, and towards a narrow POV that Morgellons and Chronic Lyme are psychosomatic or delusional. The article should be marked "controversial" and both POV's, and the evidence to support them, should be put forward to allow the reader, not Arthur Rubin, to make their own decision based on the published facts. Unfortunately, the editors that have taken over this article insist on loading it up with sensationalistic tabloid fluff in an attempt to use guilt-by-association — "among people who believe in UFOs and ghosts" ; When medical journal information on Morgellons/Lyme is published, it is quickly disparaged as "unreliable." Medical journal articles and NIH MeSH entries should be given higher priority than the tabloid fluff that fills the references on this article. Finally since "Chronic Lyme" was mentioned, please note [10] [11] responding to [12] . IMHO, this is a topic far too involved and controversial for academics with no medical or psychiatric expertise to be editing. How come actual doctors and experts aren't editing this article?75.83.177.199 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it isn't a real diagnosis? Anyone can edit any page, and anyone can add information sourced to medical reliable sources. The Lyme disease association doesn't seem to be supported, largely because the WP:WEIGHT of the med-RS concludes that this condition doesn't exist. Also, this is not a forum for general discussion (WP:FORUM) and the article cannot contain original research (WP:OR). Verbal chat 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As for "anybody can edit" - how do you suggest adding this important information that should supersede a fluffy lead that talks about one person and one child a long time ago, rather than an emerging disease and public health concern of enough seriousness that it is being investigatd by the CDC? And when the CDC is mentioned, it is again with a unnecessary disparaging preface attributed to a piece on National Public Radio, "Morgellons Disease Is Creepy. But Is It Real?" 24 January 2008: "Despite the lack of evidence that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition and the absence of any agreed set of diagnostic symptoms." This repeats itself throughout the article, which Doth protest too much in trying to bury the Lyme disease angle. .............. Regarding diagnosis and disease: For a reality proof, there are doctors diagnosing Lyme/Morgellons and treating the parasitic coinfections; patients typically see improvement from long-term antibiotic treatment consistent with "Chronic Lyme" treatment. The Lyme-mentioning Medical articles referenced in Morgellons, talk about patients, including mention of the numbers of patients treated, and some statistics on outcomes. In contrast, patient populations and outcomes are never mentioned in the narrow Psychodermatology opinions of Morgellons as DOP. As this is an emerging field, this article should be taking the lead from public health agencies announcements, rather than regurgitating random journalists opinions made in absense of facts. The bottom line is this is what the public health agencies are saying: In early 2009 the NIH Medical_Subject_Headings database was updated with a new entry, "Morgellons Disease[13]." The position in diagnostic tree C17.800.518[14] places it within Skin Diseases (C17.800)[15] and Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases (C17)[16]. The NIH, states unequivocally: "a strong association with LYME DISEASE[17]."75.83.177.199 (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The NIH Medical_Subject_Headings entry is not a "public health agency announcement". MeSH is an vocabulary of subjects used for indexing journal articles. The only journal article that seriously discusses a correllation with "chronic" Lyme is the article by Stricker and Savely that started the whole Morgellons thing, and their later rewrite of the same article. Every article 'since' then has tended to support the position that Morgellons is not a distinct disease. Hence the MeSH entry is not some new government announcement, it's simply a library database slowly catching up with the Morgellons literature from three years ago. A more authoratative opinion on Morgellons will come later this year from the CDC. But until then, the article needs to reflect the literature as a whole, and not the Stricker/Savely POV, which is strongly in the fringe camp. Herd of Swine (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Speculation on the reason MeSH says something contrary to your WP:COI is... speculation; this is an indefensible defense for a Wikipedia article. Until another public health health agency disease classification comes out to supersede the current classification, in absence of a specific statement saying the newly updated 2009 "Morgellons Disease" is in error, the current summary of federal public health agencies' published views of what is and isn't a disease and it's current classification stands. Morgellons is classified as an unknown Dermatolgy issue related to Lyme disease. If psychiatry entered into it: (I.) the CDC's National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases[18] and the "Armed Forces Institute of Pathology[19]" wouldn't be doing a study, and collecting flesh samples of their patients "delusions." Were these people deemed delusional, would it even be legal to be extracting material for study simply to satisfy the delusions of the study participants? I can't imagine such a study being approved given the stringent regulations on human experimentation. (II.) Were Morgellons psychosomatic or delusional, MeSH would have placed the new entry under a psychiatric heading, but it doesn't. The classification has been in Dermatology since 2006[20]. (III.) If MeSH were simply "a library database slowly catching up with the Morgellons literature from three years ago" then it would have also found and regurgitated the psychiatric (mis)diagnoses published concurrently alongside the first Stricker/Savely/Leitao paper. Contrary to your speculation, the papers suggesting a Lyme and DOP etiology were published during a period when the MeSH database considered "Morgellons" in a different category of the same, nondelusional category tree: "Skin Diseases, Parasitic (2006-2008)[21]". How can "database catching up to published literature" explain that from 2006 to 2008, the disease had been classified "Parasitic" ?? 75.83.177.199 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not a classification. It's a vocabulary index, meaning it organizes subjects based on how they have been discussed in journals and books. You need to look at the actual literature.

I don't get what your point is above regarding delusion. Nobody (except the MRF) has said that the only alternative to Morgellons being a new disease is that it's psychosomatic or delusional. There are many different medical conditions that result in the symptoms listed. You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy. Herd of Swine (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of the name Leaito 25 time in a single article is a violation of wiki vandilism. User:Starlink2009 (talk) late, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet Damage

This subject has endured the misfortune of severe internet impairment. The genuine ailments and research associated with this condition have suffered. The subject is targeted by aggressive instigation which is further crippling any true evaluation the sufferer's complaints. This latest addition is bias and lacks trustworthiness. The use of "consensus" is exaggerated as well as the assumption of "self-diagnosed". The method of word manipulating only continues to cloud the search for truth. Imnotard (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We (Wikipedia) are not engaged in a "search for truth". We are engaged in a search for what is verified. The existance of this disease has not (yet) been verified. Personally, I doubt it will be, but that's just my opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin's personal opinion - on a subject which he himself admits is not verified - shows strongly in his edits. IMHO his style violates NPOV. Not least due to Rubin's edits, this article is still all over the place and dragged into the ongoing controversy. Instead, the article should be carefully restructured and pruned to state the actual (if few) facts currently known, without any "attitude". The whole matter of the ongoing controversy - as a meta-fact - should to be put in a single, separate section. Ombart (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/ Ombart. the article is full of opinion and attitude. Any changes are deleted. Logs appear altered. It should be carefully restructured and monitored/ committee appointed. [[User:starlink2009Starlink2009 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)|starlink2009]] (talk) late, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Imnotard's vandalism has been undone. I suggest that in the future, comments that violate WP:TALK be deleted and not encouraged. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is in a good state right now - the term Morgellons is controversial, and the article reflects that well. Unfortunately it is also a lightning rod for original and unverified research, attracting edits for every proposed cure. How can you eliminate every claim of "bleach is a cure, colloidal silver is a cure!" other than sticking to what has been scientifically confirmed? The only other option would be to delete the article, salt it, and relegate the MRF to a footnote on the Delusional Parasitosis page. Xsmasher (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is in a good state right now. There is no one to agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlink2009 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is better without irrelevant references, please stop adding them or justify them in a new section. Also, do not alter other peoples comments please. Verbal chat 10:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Imnotard that this article has suffered greatly from internet damage. I don't have Morgellons and I don't know anyone who does. I'm a nurse, so I'm interested in this unique disorder and for the sake of patients who are suffering from something, I'm very interested in knowing what the research comes up with. I've had years of hospital nursing experience, and IMO it appears there's really something going on. The CDC has said that the suffering these people experience is real. That alone is reason to put bias and opinion aside and wait for science to give us some answers. Frankly, if Arthur Rubin is the responsible "we Wikipedia" editor for this article then it makes me wonder whether all of Wikipedia is trustworthy, because IMO this Wiki article is worded in very inflammatory and derogatory ways and is not at all professional from a medical standpoint. There's way too much attitude, IMO. I STOPPED visiting Wikipedia because of the snide bias in this particular article. I only come over to this section now and then to see if any adults have stepped in and told the children to behave, but its obvious that those who would persecute and mock are relentless. So it's ruined my opinion of Wikipedia as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisterannie (talk • contribs) 07:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the statement that "The CDC has said that the suffering these people experience is real" is seriously misleading. The CDC certainly has never explicitly said it isn't delusional parasitosis, which is a real disease which can be treated, to some extent, as a mental illness. The suffering can be real without the disease being real. And, if the disease isn't real, we wouldn't be doing anyone any good by saying it is real. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to you to interpret what the CDC has said. I fully realize the implications of what the CDC has said. I caught that... but the CDC is not clarifying it any which way and neither should you. I find the statement somewhat amusing. I also think it's a compassionate statement. Whether the disorder is real or not, the CDC has said that it's REAL to those who have it. As a nurse, I would show respect. I've had patients who "fake" illness, and that's something else altogether. Morgellons is not fake to those who suffer from it. And I'm not convinced it's delusional, I don't think there's proof of that either. Let's just suppose for a minute that it turns out there IS a real, genuine physical and medical problem with Morgellons. When the research comes out, I certainly don't want to be one of those who mocked these poor people. How could I live with myself, knowing I made their situation even worse? I've very glad there's research being done so the question will be settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisterannie (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma State University?

OSU has no med school. Nor a hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.233.152 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OSU Does however have a CENTER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES Interested3 (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible GMO allergic reaction

Is it ok to add "possible GMO allergic reaction" to Conspiracy Theories?? maybe an admin could help me with this one plz 98.194.123.23 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.123.23 (talk) 98.194.123.23 (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reference from a WP:MEDRS for the text you want to add? Verbal chat 09:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of these support at least a mention in the article of this potential "GMO food conspiracy theory" causing morgellons. Evian water is listed as a potential cause, while this is more plausible. Sorry, Im new at referencing but welcome positive input. Interested3 (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d74344c-4be8-11de-b827-00144feabdc0.html

argentina pressed to ban

http://healthcraft.i.ph/blogs/healthcraft/?p=5

GMO allergies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.123.23 (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8464

Barbara Peterson

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64266

Vitro

http://www.euronews.net/2009/04/14/germany-joins-gmo-maize-ban/

Germany Bans

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ban-both-bt-cotton-and-bt-brinjal-in-india-gmo-expert/417641/

India Bans

http://www.gantdaily.com/news/36/ARTICLE/45287/2009-03-03.html

EU allows Austria and Hungary

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/tas-extends-gm-crop-ban-to-2014/1522098.aspx

Tasmania Bans

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

GM Harmful or helpful

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2009/0521.html

AAEM Article

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/05/16/Why_farmed_fish_are_genetically_altered_for_growth_with_chic/

gmo food supply fish w/ cancer dna inserted for growth98.194.123.23 (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"To say GMOs are safe is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.(old quote) Interested3 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC) "

The quote must be from Ralph Nader, or some other equally credible self-censored. In any case, a specific association with Morgellons from a source which credibly represents a non-fringe (even among Morgellons believers) opinion would be needed to include the theory here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

what? 98.194.123.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree with interested3's contribs. Appears to follow logic and wp and ahouls bw restored. 66.52.224.170 (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

None of these seem to meet WP:MEDRS. Verbal chat 08:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Verbal is attacking me, my ip, my interested2 account and my opinion and deleting 66.52.225.164 (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So, there's an Interested2 account? Interesting.... In any case, any association of GMO bans with a relation to Morgellons is pure speculation. I would have allowed a single statement that GMO is (almost certainly falsely) accused of an association with Morgellons, but the rest of the commentary suggests that nothing should be added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've semi-protected this article for 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour and 17 minutes due to IP socking. There is an WP:SPI report awaiting further investigation, and the article history shows a recurring problems associated with a set of IPs. Let me know if problems resume. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary source and nonMEDRS

This article has alot of nonMEDRS sources, i think may be that is OK bc Morgellons is not a recognized medical condition but we need to be careful, there are links to people that make money saying Morgellons is real, distinct and they can treat it. Bc all these nonMEDRS are there i am putting in some new letters in journals and a Scientific American article, do people have a problem i am ready to discuss it. Thx RetroS1mone talk 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Morgellons may not be real, but the symptoms are, even if psychosomatic. WP:MEDRS definitely applies as this is a medical subject. Fences&Windows 18:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

fibres question

After reading the New Scientist article a couple of years ago, I'm interested in this as far as anything can be verified. Fibres of some unusual nature were mentioned, physically provided to labs - so where are the authoritative results of the analyses? There seems a great dearth of evidence where apparently there was plenty to go on, so what's happened? 78.147.244.212 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agrobacterium Tumafaciens

This plant based bacterium which causes galls (abnormal growths) in plants has been found in the fibers of people who claim to have morgellon's. This article should mention this. This is one of the reasons why the CDC is taking so long, many of the fibers are not just stuff that was clearly planted in the wounds by the by the patients.MATThematical (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

TROLLED ARTICLE

Trolls that havent contribd are deleting every single contribs. Sad

and blocking authors! Im reverteing my reseached contribs. Interested3 Gene66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

The Doctors, July 2009

The tv show The Doctors talked about this today, and I was interested, and later decided to add this to the main article. Whether or not I was hasty is one thing, but I didn't know how I should cite the episode properly. A synopsis of the episode can be found here, http://www.thedoctorstv.com/main/show_synopsis/260?section=synopsis, and hopefully someone can help me cite this properly Farglesword (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing New??

This article has a good spread of information. One thing that keeps "bugging" me though...... If its just a delusion and the particles are just natural fibers found in clothes and anywyhere..... Why is it taking the CDC 4+ years to tell us its just a bunch of linen fibers and hairs? The CDC has been looking at things under a microscope for years and they continue a reign of silence?? Why can't they look into a microscope and tell us that its just some crap fiber nothing growing from inside a body or culture? Why haven't they told us its nothing after all this time? Does anyone have an update about whats going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.40.139 (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical research takes a while... real life ain't House, sadly. CDC page on the study is here:[22]. Recent medical opinion on Morgellons as a meme is here:[23]. Fences&Windows 21:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not YEARS. The official CDC study only began about 1 1/2 years ago. Initially they predicted some kind of results by January 2009, but this has been postponed for more study. Ed8r (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an open article, RIGHT????

The article sucks. Put a committee on it plz! Interested3a (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Growing Concern.... watch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interested3a (talk • contribs) 07:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the Conspiracy Theory section

While the article cited does indeed mention the CIA agent and Evian, I believe it's irresponsible for Wikipedia to name this well-known company. If there's going to be a section on conspiracy theories, it ought to be broader and well-researched.

I'm not a troll, so I'll leave it to someone else to be responsible for changing and/or removing the current info.Ed8r (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

mostly useless, but

popular webcomic artist, Natalie Dee, did a comic about Morgellons:

http://www.nataliedee.com/100509/ow-my-morgellons.jpg Hide a bed (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Morgellons

I'd like to discuss broadening the morgellons page to include the history of Morgellons from which Mary Leito ascribed her son's symptoms. This would include extracts from the following published articles:

- KELLETT CT, (1935) SIR THOMAS BROWNE AND THE DISEASE CALLED THE MORGELLONS, Annals of Medical History, n.s., VII), 467-479

- EMSLIE-SMITH A. H. (1946) MYIASIS, " FILLAN," AND "THE MORGELLONS", British Medical Journal. 962, June 22.

At the very least, the above articles add some clarity to the origin to the term 'Morgellons' - which both articles concur is derived from the provencal forms from muscula, a 'little fly'.

All thoughts welcome. Simmons j7 (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)