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 Theravadaz (talk | contribs) at 22:11, 26 January 2012 (→‎possible connection to demodex mites: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archive
Archives

2009 article listed in the "bibliography" section of the WP article demonstrates a change in opinion by MRF which should be noted in the body of the article

Before I comment, I would like to say that although I have made an effort to familiarize myself with posting rules, I am very new to the editing process on WP, so please be gentle. Errors in editing procedure are completely unintentional, and I welcome constructive criticism that will aid me in becoming a better WP editor in the future.

So. To get to the issue at hand. I noticed that this source:

Harvey, W.; Bransfield, R.; Mercer, D.; Wright, A.; Ricchi, R.; Leitao, M. (2009). "Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series". Journal of medical case reports 3: 8243. doi:10.4076/1752-1947-3-8243. PMID 19830222.

is in the bibliography section, but its subject matter is not listed in the body of the article. I realize that the above source does not qualify as a valid source for scientific evidence, but I believe that the article is a valid reference in regards to the controversy surrounding this topic. I have read through the archives for this discussion, and I believe that there was some consensus that the element of controversy is an important aspect of the Morgellons phenomenon that should be addressed in the WP article.

The specific points of the article which seem especially pertinent to me are:

1.) The fact that members of the MRF have published this article (most notably Mary Leitao and William Harvey) which states unequivocally in the conclusion that, "These data suggest Morgellons disease can be characterized as a physical human illness with an often-related delusional component in adults." In the body of the article, this statement is expanded upon, as the authors freely admit that, "Strikingly, most patients in this study (23 out of 25) had prior psychiatric diagnoses (most determined by specialists) as follows: 11 out of 25 bipolar disease; 7 out of 25 Adult ADD; 4 out of 25 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD); and 1 out of 25 Schizophrenia. Although overlap occurred in 5 cases, only the primary psychiatric diagnosis was tabulated."

2.)There is no mention of any "fibers" in a medical capacity. They are only mentioned in order to provide historical background, or as "a typical phrase used by most patients," to describe the symptoms of the condition in their own words.

These 2 points directly contradict the position previously held by the MRF, mainly that the fibers were a main point of the disease, and that delusions and/or mental illness do not play a part in the experience of the symptoms described by those who identify as having Morgellons Disease. This seems very significant to me!

I realize that it is very important to maintain NPOV, and I am not suggesting that any conclusions should be drawn or even implied. However, given the fact that the findings of the CDC have not yet been published, and the very definition of Morgellons currently hinges on the perspective of the authors of this article, I think it is important to update the WP article to reflect that this perspective has changed in the last year or so.

Thoughts? I know this is a controversial subject, and I wanted to post on the talk page before touching the actual article. Again, I apologize if I made some elementary mistake here or if this topic has already been discussed- the archives are quite lengthy, and it is possible that I missed something. Ontogeny (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ontogeny,
This is not an article about the MRF, but about Morgellons Disease. So the views of MRF are not the main subject of the article. Also, I don't think the views of MRF have really changed that much. What is changing somewhat IMHO is the attitude of the mainstream medicine that is beginning to take this thing more seriously. CDC is investigating, although not extremely actively, it seems. --Dyuku (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Dyuku,
I realize this is not an article about the MRF, but if you follow the past discussion for this page (lengthy I know), there seemed to be consensus that the opinion of the MRF is essential to the Morgellons page itself, simply because Morgellons is not, at this point at least, an official disease. MRF defines Morgellons. Perhaps I misinterpreted the article that I sited, but I do not understand how the opinion of the MRF has NOT changed based on what is published there. Perhaps you can explain what I am missing? Thanks for your response. Ontogeny (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to you both,
I am an uninvolved (and thus largley unbiased) 3rd party to this discussion. I actually first heard of it from the news article in the Guardian and was fascinated by the topic, especially by Dr. Oaklander's postulation. I was also intrigued by the "mirror trick" nerve pathology treatment suggested in the article (and the fact that the journalist suggested it to a patient on a whim and it worked).
All that aside though, I am even more curious as to why this discussion was completely dropped? It seems a valid point that the opinion of the chief organization that is actively commenting on the topic would matter. Blatantly put, how could what the Morgellons Research Foundation has to say about Morgellons not be relevant in an encyclopedia article about Morgellons? I don't have many solid views on this topic, but that question seems to have an clear answer (regardless of what perspective you are coming from). So, that is my 2 cents. Not necessarily worth that much considering WP inflation rates these days but there they are.
Regards and thanks to all. 208.125.237.242 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Louise Oaklander

A new article is being printed in many news sources. Here's one:

It includes the opinions of Dr Anne Louise Oaklander, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, a neurologist who specialises in itch. Her theory is interesting and sounds credible. It's just an opinion, but can be cited as such. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the external links section twice now. First, it's a news story making it not a WP:MEDRS. Still fair game for inclusion in other aspects. Second, it's a news story, making it brief enough to be easily linked as an inline citation. I have no objection to it being used as such, but the EL section shouldn't be used to "store" unintegrated references, per WP:EL. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. I wasn't aware it had already been used at all. It's a medical opinion, not a MEDRS, so it can be used, with attribution, in that manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Novella

Another article by Steven Novella [Delusional Parasitosis http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=12717] --- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 18:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are generally not used as sourcing for Wikipedia articles. And I believe the paper he refers to is already cited in the article. Love SBM, but I don't see any reason to add this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue whether or not to use it, but "generally" is the key word here. Blogs, especially by experts, are allowed, and per WP:Fringe (see WP:PARITY) such sources are allowed in fringe articles because they may be the only mainstream sources that comment on the subject. So in a case like this, it may be a perfect source....in principle. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Still, the actual paper is already cited here, so I don't see a lot of benefit to linking the blog in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was more a FYI than a suggestion as RS. Nevertheless, I would argue the writer would meet the requisite of a RS.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 14:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I'm a daily reader of SBM, I wouldn't support citing it. Morgellons has enough respectable attention that I don't think we need to scrape that far down the barrel. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would become relevant if other and better sources were unavailable, but fortunately there are other good ones. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it add anything? Steve Novella is a reliable source for a lot of things and the SBM site is not just a personal blog, it has a review process. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable content?

First off, I am an amateur contributor here. I have made careful edits to articles on other subjects which have remained unquestioned/unedited for periods of a year or two, but I approach actual article editing trepidatiously, and even article discussion cautiously. I rarely have done either. So if I'm slipping by a hair or two here and now, please pardon me - I truly value this forum above most others on the internet and in spirit I am largely in agreement with the way I understand it to be operated.

I want to express, anonymously, a contrary opinion to part of this article. I, my wife, and our psychiatrist all believe that we all three have Morgellons. Our doctor is the only one of us with any medical or scientific credentials, but my wife and I are extremely intelligent and open-minded and have done quasi-rigorous research on this condition. We believe that the conclusion drawn and cited in this article that the general consensus of the medical community that this is often actually a misperceived interpretation of some other well-documented is usually false. Our doctor is cautious about his professional reputation hence my maintaining our (except IP) anonymity. However I wish to make it known that intelligent and credentialed people have and believe in this syndrome, as a non-properly documented but is a true and so-far undocumented unique condition. Much of the better research has been done by non-credialed people, but our sum interpretation is that what I have stated is above is correct.

Please feel free to elighten me in how to rgeister this in this community officially considered the above-stated concerns.

FYI, to my knowledge, a massive percentage (uncitable by me) of documented self-identified Morgellons sufferers are registered nurses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.151.117 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of credentials, what people directly observe and conclude is original research and has no place here at WP until those conclusions have passed peer review and publication in reliable sources. The latter are the basis for editing here. -- Scray (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon my typographical and grammatical errors above and possibly here.

I do understand that "original research" or other non-peer-reviewed or otherwise personally sourced and unverified information is not to be be presented in actual wikipedia articles, hence my writing in the discussion section since I cannot put such self-generated and/or non-credibly-verifiable content into the article. But I write here in hopes that it will assist somehow in such allowable content being added/altered in the article, because I am certain of the facts I stated above, but cannot provide proper citation or peer-review (even from my doctor's peers) or other allowable verification of my statements - but I seek to draw out folks who may be in a position to provide content acceptable under wikipedia's rules. If you're out there and reading this and qualify, please edit/amend the article or at least join the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.151.117 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I recommend that you get an account? Shot info (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your personal feelings, Wikipedia reports the mainstream scientific view, which is that Morgellon's is not a true condition. Special pleading won't help. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 54

Reference 54 for this article (Chertoff, Benjamin (2005-06). "Morgellons Disease Baffles Patients And Doctors". Popular Mechanics.) Seems to be broken and lost. Clicking on its link just takes one to the latest entries on the Popular Mechanics rss feed. I went to seek the cited paper as to help WP repair the link but I can't find it. Searching the archive of "Popular Mechanics" for this paper does not yield it. looking for all papers from "Popular Mechanics" from 2005 to 2006 on the topic "Morgellons" does not yield it either. I believe it is real paper because in searching for it I found it cited elsewhere on the net, for example it is also listed as reference # 6 here: http://www.stanford.edu/class/humbio153/Morgellons/References.html (incidentally their link sends one to the same rss feed page I encountered).

Perhaps the issue is just me? Maybe I lack some subscriber access to Popular Mechanics so it just rejects me to some default page? Usually one is provided with at least an abstract when trying to access a subscription restricted paper though and not shunted to a meaningless rss feed.

Just thought I would bring this issue up. 149.155.3.235 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)(Nat)[reply]

Ok, I looked it up. For one thing, the title of the article as cited is incorrect - it is actually Chertoff, Benjamin. "Making their skin crawl: people with creepy symptoms find a diagnosis on the Internet. But are they jumping to conclusions?" Popular Mechanics June 2005: p. 60. The statements as cited in the Wikipedia article here are consistent with what the article says, however. Rwintle (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

etymology of "Morgellons"?

What is the origin of Morgellons being called "Morgellons"? The article begins with

...is a name given in 2002 by Mary Leitao

but doesn't say why Mary Leitao decided to call this condition Morgellons. Funkyj (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does farther down. --173.176.62.183 (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nano technology not discussed

OK im not crazy, but since this is a subject of controversy (especially considering the CDC results) we should include all theorems concerning this ailment. And there is alot of unconfirmed supporting evidence on the web regarding nano technology. Im not crazy but stranger things have happened.Aperseghin (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources that reports the submission, the information could be added. However, this ordeal appears to be consecutive to one person who gave her psychogenic dermatosis a cutesy name and got some media exposure. A non-story. Pygy (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible connection to demodex mites

I want to say that I wrote about a demodex mite infestation several years ago. I used a loupe to diagnose it. The medical establishment considered it a delusional problem and the article in Wikipedia which reflected this view point had replaced a previous article that talked in an experienced manner about this real condition. I managed to get a physician in Bangkok to prescribe benzyl benzoate which I applied over my entire body. This cured the condition in one pass.

The reason I mention this is, besides the possible analogy with established disbelief in Morgellons, is that I also noticed that a significant sub-population of the mites were transected diagonally by what appeared to be a fiber. I hope it is permissible to offer independent observations in the talk pages, as might lead to published research that could then be incorporated in a subject page.Theravadaz 22:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgellons&oldid=473409385"