Jump to content

Talk:Morgellons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.38.185.65 (talk) at 22:15, 22 December 2021 (→‎Nice one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Category Error in First Paragraph

The third and final sentence of the opening paragraph finishes with '...the fibers, when analysed, are consistently found to have originated from clothings and other textiles.' Leaving aside the misspelling of 'clothings', the category error consists of the syntax claiming that clothing is a form of textile. However, clothing is not a textile, it is made from textiles (usually). As there is a quote further down in the piece that reads, 'cotton and other textiles', I believe that the 'clothings [sic]' should be changed to 'cotton'. I would make the change but the page, of course, is locked down. RobotBoy66 (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is biased and ignorant

The article is clearly written with bias by a skeptic and is worded to convince the reader of the delusional parisitosis explanation without leaving room for uncertainty or alternative explanations. This is very disappointing and a great disservice to sufferers. Firstly, there is no evidence that confirms delusion being involved. Secondly there is no evidence lesions are self inflicted. Thirdly there is no evidence that Morgellons fibres are textile fibres. All of these are presumptions and there is much evidence that is contrary to them. The claim that the fibers are "consistently" found to be cotton or other textile fibres implies multiple cases of conclusive analysis. The only case with such a finding I'm aware of is the CDC investigation which lacks any methodology or evidence to support it in a conclusive way. There is more recent research which has applied a specific methodology in harvesting and analysis which concludes that the fibres are not consistent with any known natural or synthetic fibres and are dermal in origin as consistently professed by anyone with the condition. How can such a definitive position be put forward when the evidence for it is so weak and while there is completely contradictory evidence in existence? Where is the objectivity and diligence here? This causes real harm and must be re-examined. 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently cites multiple published sources, you cite none. We don't base articles on random assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MEDRS. With medical claims like this, we stick with established medical science, which is overwhelmingly in favor of the delusional parasitosis explanation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one

So you block anyone that disagrees and don't allow them to respond with citations as requested. Drunk on power. 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we simply have WP:RULES for sourcing. If your reason is able to comprehend these rules is another matter. We do nothing arbitrary around here.

And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least one person here (the person who started this section) understands that Wikipedia isn't about information, but rather about the power struggles of editors trying to get their world view reflected in the articles.
As for Morgellon's disease, I suspect they will conclude that it is caused by some kind of mite not dissimilar to scabies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny.
What Wikipedia definitely will not do is base articles on the hunches of editors about what will be found out later. And we will not just ignore the rules about about reliable sourcing because somebody imagines "power struggles" and somebody else agrees with that. Go publish your ideas in a scientific journal, convince the scientific community, and then come back. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a guess on my part that it might be a mite. I would never write that into the article. But if you think, Hob, that Wikipedia is all about facts and science, you are wrong. Editors have agendas, and they unashamedly push their agendas on the articles. I was a good editor for years, and I was pushed out in one of the power struggles. Many Wikipedia articles are filled with bias. This article may be one of those. The approach being taken in this article is "If it can't be proven, it isn't true" -- but as you know (or should know) humanity's knowledge is always evolving. I have no doubt that a physical agency will be found for Morgellon's eventually.~~24.38.185.65
The comment about there being a mite involved ignores the history and reality of parasitology and epidemiological science; it helps to know that the scabies mite was recognized as a mite in the late 1600's. That was in fact the last confirmed recognition of a new human parasite that belongs to the kingdom Animalia. It has therefore been over 300 years since anyone has discovered a previously-unknown parasite of humans, and we sure as heck have a lot of scientists like myself who have been looking, so I think we can be quite secure in saying that there are no more left to be discovered. Finding a new mite on, say, giraffes would not be a surprise, because no one is looking at skin ailments of giraffes. Finding a new parasite on humans would be like finding that there is another planet the size of Mars in the inner solar system, overlooked because no one had ever pointed a telescope at it, purely by chance; it would be the biggest scientific surprise in centuries. The other crucial thing to bear in mind here is that anything that is a human parasite has to be transmitted, by definition, from one human to another. You can't spontaneously manifest a parasite, it has to be passed TO you, meaning there would need to be hundreds of thousands of people carrying that parasite before you (especially if you are someone who has never set foot in some exotic place like the African jungle) could possibly acquire it. Basically, if there was ever to be a new parasite discovered, it would have to be harbored by some group of humans that has been completely uncontacted by anyone in the outside world since the 1700s. Of all of the "first contact" scenarios that HAVE occurred since the 1700s (like various "lost" Amazon tribes), not once did that lead to the discovery of anything new. Some fantasy world claim that "science doesn't know everything" does not apply in a case like this. Dyanega (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good for what ails ya' Wilbur!
If it's a mite, maybe ivermectin cures it. The wonder drug of the age! EEng 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Headline - "Veteran Wikipedian Spreads Misinformation" -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this government study to update Morgellons

This government study clearly indicates that much of the current Wikipedia article on Morgellons needs revision. Please consider basing your Wikipedia article on scientific observation instead of celebrity talk or TV talk shows. The article in its current form indicates that Morgellons is most clearly associated with metal instability, as where modern scientific investigation is finding that Morgellons is associated with infection by various pathogens.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3954163/ "Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease". Published online 2013 Jan 28. Written by: Marianne J Middelveen,1 Divya Burugu,2 Akhila Poruri,2 Jennie Burke,3 Peter J Mayne,1 Eva Sapi,2 Douglas G Kahn,4 and Raphael B Stricker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.146.7 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed to death. Search the archive for "Middelveen". Another good quote, by User:HandThatFeeds, from just a few lines above, may help you improve your knowledge of how Wikipedia works.
Please see WP:MEDRS. With medical claims like this, we stick with established medical science, which is overwhelmingly in favor of the delusional parasitosis explanation.
--Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not a "government study". Don't we have an essay somewhere explaining that NLM does not review, evaluate, or judge the quality of individual articles and relies on the scientific publishing process to identify and address problems through published comments, corrections, and retractions (or, as in the case of preprints, withdrawal notices) [1]? EEng 17:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More scientific research to consider that clearly points to an invasive pathogen, and not mental illness

Please consider the following research article:

https://www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=11375, download text at: https://www.dovepress.com/ by 202.53.146.7 on 20-Nov-2021 "Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease". Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 11 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.146.7 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. Let's wait until reliable secondary sources agree with Middelveen's newest output. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not new; PMID 22253541 is 2011. We already know what secondary sources think of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fibre study

Does this source meet the requirements? If so, there is plenty more research which makes a strong case against the Delusional Parisitosis explanation. The CDC even states in its findings that it "indirectly concluded" that it was a psychological disorder because it couldn't identify a pathogen involved. I'm a newbie to wikipedia and dont know much of how it works. How and who decides if changes are to be made and what those changes will be? This article is erroneous in many ways and is damaging to sufferers involved and i would appreciate help in trying to rectify this. I accept that this article uses multiple sources to support the claim that there is a consensus of delusional parisitosis but are all sources and their findings treated equal? How are conflicting findings dealt with? The DP conclusion is based on having no other explanation available. No evidence. Thank you.

"Filaments associated with MD appear beneath unbroken skin [1,2], thus demonstrating that they are not self-implanted. Filaments have been observed protruding from and attached to a matrix of epithelial cells [3]. This finding demonstrates that the filaments are of human cellular origin and are not textile fibers. These filaments have not been matched with known textile fibers, and dye-extracting solvents have failed to release coloration; the fibers are also very strong and heat resistant"

"Textile fibers have never been produced in this manner, and the suggestion that these unusual formations are manufactured textile fibers is not credible"

May 15, 2012, Clinical & Experimental Dermatology Research Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study

https://thecehf.org/research/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1080:22B3:D589:BAF4:EDD7:E39C (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Primary source on the face of it, and thus unreliable for our purposes. See WP:MEDRS which describes acceptable sources for medical claims. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source type.

Before I go any further are you able to confirm that this is an acceptable secondary source? It is a review of a range of primary sources so I believe it is. Thanks.

History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition Marianne J Middelveen, Melissa C Fesler, and Raphael B Stricker

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the Archives, Middelveen comes up a lot. They seem to "review" their own research, making it a primary source. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It bears mentioning, in the sense of "full disclosure", that Raphael Stricker, one of the co-authors of this work, is not only the founder of the defunct "Morgellons Research Foundation" as well as "ILADS" (so not an unbiased source), but was also under investigation by the NIH in 1993 ("found to have falsified and misrepresented data in a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Immunology, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and a grant application submitted to the National Institutes of Health" - [2]), a claim which he did not dispute, and instead voluntarily accepted a 3-year period of ineligibility for funding. I'll say this again to emphasize the point: he was found, by the NIH Office of Research Integrity, to have routinely falsified data. That is about as large a red flag as you could possibly ask for, and this is the man who almost singlehandedly has put both "Morgellons" and "Chronic Lyme Disease" on the map. He is NOT a reliable source. Dyanega (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're gonna hold a little thing like research fraud against a guy ... EEng 23:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only

Source type reply

It almost seems like I'm encountering opposition in this. As though the fanatical warrior skeptics are here defending science and reason from the attacks of pseudoscience and conspiracy theorists. I say this because of the way all attempts are quickly shut down on a technicality and there seems to be no willingness for discussion let alone to entertain making changes. Why is this so difficult? I was told that the below secondary source I would like to use is actually only primary source because the author reviews their own articles. I went through the primary sources the review references and only 7 out of 124 are the authors own sources. How does this justify it being downgraded to a primary source? I was told to look in the archives but I can't find how to access the archives. I see the term "neutral point of view" being used to describe the desired approach to authorship. I don't believe this article satisfies that aspiration.

History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition Marianne J Middelveen, Melissa C Fesler, and Raphael B Stricker

This is an excerpt regarding the CDC study in relation to fibre studies. Although two citations are used to support the claim "the fibers, when analysed, are consistently found to have originated from cotton and other textiles" they both rely on a singular source which is the study mentioned below. It's findings are of the poorest quality as admitted by the authors themselves and this clearly should not be relied upon.

"The CDC–Kaiser Permanente Northern California–Armed Forces Institute of Pathology collaborative study (CDC study) selected their cohort via a retrospective search through medical records.33 This study had significant flaws. The case definition did not require the presence of fibers embedded in or projecting from skin; therefore, selection was on the basis of self-reported cases, and resulted in a heterogeneous group of subjects. Eligibility to participate in the study was limited to those enrolled in a Kaiser Permanente plan. The number of participants diminished as the study progressed: whereas 467 subjects were identified by a search of Kaiser Permanente electronic records, cultures for pathogens were conducted on only 28 subjects, and fibers were collected from only 12 subjects.33 Fiber analysis was performed and cotton-textile fibers identified, but the authors admitted they did not find fibers that were embedded or projecting from skin, and they admitted that they may have introduced cotton fibers at the time of sampling." 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The medical orthodoxy is that it is delusional parasitosis. You need many, and extremely reputable WP:MEDRS in order to overturn the existing medical orthodoxy. Wikipedia is simply a mirror which reflects the medical orthodoxy. We don't invent diagnoses based upon shoddy research. WP:PAG is WP:REDFLAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medical studies in 2016?

There were medical studies done in 2016 and perhaps later looking into bacteria connected to this previously considered psychological illness. 2600:1702:4570:DE0:DC74:A445:EF80:1C59 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those studies have been positively received by secondary sources, it does not matter. Read WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely contrary to scientific studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/ 2001:56A:F717:3600:8091:5084:A297:752C (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those studies have been positively received by secondary sources, it does not matter. Read WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgellons&oldid=1061631893"