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 Levivich (talk | contribs) at 23:35, 25 July 2022 (→There is now a sizeable amount of data opposing delusion parasitosis: {{rtp}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article is biased and ignorant

Enough. The article is based on reliable medical sources. Until the medical community changes their diagnosis, there is nothing further to be gained from this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 proved, 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]
You mean "veterinarian Wikipedia editor"? EEng 22:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a medical researcher or a doctor. I was just taking a guess. But it needs to be pointed out, Dyanega, that your certainty that all the mites infecting humans have been identified is probably wrong. Science keeps evolving; there is nothing certain in science. You should know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Science keeps evolving — that's a truism for all educated people, and cannot be used to provide evidence for your claim when there is none.
And the reason for your ban: all Wikipedians should kowtow to mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy. To the extent they cannot do that, they should refrain from editing, e.g. as I do in respect to abortion.
I already know I'm unwanted at that article, there is no need to learn it from a topic ban. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My God, you don't even know what article I was editing that got me banned, and you presume to suggest that it was right that I was banned? You don't know what you are talking about, and you also don't know what's going on here on Wikipedia. On any controversial topic, the information that gets into the encyclopedia is the information that is promoted by the most aggressive and populous clique of editors. That's the only true standard here. A good example is transgender ideology, which is a crock of shit. But because there are a lot of pro-transgender ideologues on the site, Gender Speak (as I call it) is the norm, and the cockeyed notions that trans people have (like gender = gender identity) are accepted as fact, when in fact it is entirely unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM. Could we please now wrap up and hat this (very interesting) discussion? I find it unseemly to taunt believers in Morgellons, and I hope we would find it equally unseemly to taunt those who have any form of delusion. It's unproductive to argue with those who have firmly entrenched delusions-- even more so, those who also don't accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you just taunted Morgellons sufferers (by calling them deluded) at the same time that you said it was unseemly to do so. People like you shouldn't be writing a grocery list, much less an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call them deluded; reliable sources are clear that morgellons is delusional parasitosis, which is "a mental disorder in which individuals have a persistent belief that they are infested with living or nonliving pathogens such as parasites, insects, or bugs, when no such infestation is present ... classified as a delusional disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)." And reliable sources explain why arguing the case with those who have the condition is unproductive. So much for asking others to play nice; if you want to continue using this page as a chat forum, that can be addressed as necessary on other pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this discussion is that the article appears to be biased. It is a well-known habit of doctors to ascribe unexplained ailments or symptoms to a patient's imagination. You keep stating that it is a mental disorder as if that is a fact, but that's not a fact. With thousands of people reporting symptoms, the likelihood is that there is a disease process at work which simply hasn't been identified yet. To be unbiased, the article should give all sides of the discussion and then state that the cause is presently unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then all you need to do is find those reliable sources that agree with you. WP:RS is a guideline, and WP:OR is policy. We cannot just ignore them and put your opinion in the article on your say-so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And my answer is: their suffering is real; the cause of their suffering is the nocebo effect. Same as for electromagnetic hypersensitivity and porn addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar coughs up a new review

This is all rather absurd. Experts in the medical community have acknowledged this is a dermatological condition. Wikipedia this is embarrassing. For you. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=morgellons+disease&hl=en&as_sdt=0,21#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3Df9l4stjlIg0J Mofitz101 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good recent review in there, that could be used:
  • Beuerlein KG, Balogh EA, Feldman SR (August 2021). "Morgellons disease etiology and therapeutic approach: a systematic review" (PDF). Dermatol Online J. 27 (8). doi:10.5070/D327854682. PMID 34755952. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased & Unreliable

Biased and unreliable. Recent peer-reviewed studies contradict some of this information. While nothing seems concrete yet, all facts should be presented. This article should be revised to state all of the facts or deleted (not say any facts at all). The blatant omission of scientific evidence contradicting views in this short, incomplete, misleading summary page is asinine and bordering dangerous. 98.121.231.123 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is 'scientific evidence' we should base this article on, but you aren't going to tell us where to find it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Andy said. We have a higher "inclusion" standard for medical subjects than most medical journals, which likely contributes to why Wikipedia is the first source used by most doctors nowadays.[1][2][3] The relevant policy is WP:MEDRS. We don't allow people to cherry-pick which research articles to include, even if they document top quality peer reviewed research. We usually require reviews and meta-analyses of many such reports. That way we get what comes closer to a consensus view. Anyone can cherry-pick good research to push a fringe and false agenda, so we stop that practice by requiring a better approach to sourcing of our medical articles.
So what is this "scientific evidence" of which you speak? Please provide the sources for our consideration. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a sizeable amount of data opposing delusion parasitosis

Theodore Roosevelt also tolerated bully reversions. - Levivich (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be making revisions and extensively updating this article with opposing peer-viewed information that contradicts the dated and absurd assumption that this condition is purely somatic. Here's is one article that I will quote amongst others: "Middelveen, Marianne & Stricker, Raphael. (2016). Morgellons disease: A filamentous borrelial dermatitis. International Journal of General Medicine. Volume 9. 349-354. 10.2147/IJGM.S116608. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S116608 "

Please note I note tolerate bully reversions of updates that I'll make grounded with scientific references. Reduction of diversity of thought and opposing opinions has become a cancer. Without open discourse the light of science will be extinguished.

Let us lay out all the possibilities in this article and try to arrange the possibilities based on data that supports or rejects each respective hypothesis. As the introduction notes this is indeed still a nascent syndrome who's complexities are still being unravelled. Edmbugger (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

should read "Please note I will not tolerate...." " instead of "Please note I will tolerate.... " in the 2nd last paragraph Edmbugger (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use medically reliable sources, WP:MEDRS, by policy, and I'm afraid Middelveen does not meet those requirements. - Roxy the English speaking dog 12:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that by extinguishing the light of science we're helping combat greenhouse gas emissions and consequent climate change. EEng 13:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng That is one of the most irrational and illogical statements I've heard in a long time. it's very contradictory when you think of it— If there wasn't any scientific enlightenment then how would you know about climate change going on? Edmbugger (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<Stares in slack-jawed amazement> EEng 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog Why is it not medically relevant? What a bunch of sad quibbling over qualifications and accreditation. Scientist is not defined by piece of paper but by their adherence to strict empirical observations. Science does not give a damn about accreditation and pieces of paper; it cares about the results. Nullius in verba. If this woman who actually had to learn about biology in her occupation, is as a veterinarian, is not qualified to talk on illnesses in general then who is? How is it not medically relevant when you actually consider evolution? One can see not only correlation but strong associations between animal-born illnesses and human illnesses. Edmbugger (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Middelveen (2016) has been thoroughly discussed, as have other articles she has published (please see archives 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 for this talk page) and a consensus exists that it should not be used as a source. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Science is about finding new ideas that better fits the observations we see in nature. Wikipedia shouldn't be censoring what are competing valid hypotheses in the what is an evolving discovery in my opinion. In the 1980s people were mystified by what was going on in gay men like myself ( hiv-aids). What if the discussions by scientists to figure out what was going with what was then an emerging disease at the time were censored? Pedanticism can be very harmful. You shouldn't be afraid of other people's arguments unless you believe your argument isn't valid. Rational people can draw their own conclusions. Edmbugger (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rational people would understand that Wikipedia policies set out that it is a tertiary source that reflects existing consensus on scientific matters, rather than a forum for debates that should be taking place elsewhere. Go convince the scientists, and we'll change the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should pick HIV for your example. Peter Duesberg to this day claims that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, but I have a feeling you won't be advocating that WP present his crackpot ideas as valid alternatives to the scientific consensus. EEng 21:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You went on a transphobic rant back in December, so you shouldn't be arguing about what "rational people" think. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I said it was not medically reliable as a source. - Roxy the English speaking dog 21:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let us lay out all the possibilities in this article and try to arrange the possibilities based on data that supports or rejects each respective hypothesis. Us? Nosotros es mucha gente; please review what Wikipedia doesn't do. I will not tolerate rings bells ... blocks are preventative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgellons&oldid=1100442773"