Talk:Morgellons

Page lacks suggestion that this is a real disease, or has any medical backing, despite studies existing that have apparently observed the condition.

https://www.dovepress.com/morgellons-disease-a-filamentous-borrelial-dermatitis-peer-reviewed-article-IJGM legitimizes this disease beyond what the article contains and it should, at minimum, be included, and potentially entirely redrafted with further research.

This entire talk page indicates that the article itself is woefully lacking in any kind of completeness on the issue, and there seems to be some kind of insistence on retaining the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.18.28.92 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't use questionable sources. See the Talk page archives ad nauseam for discussion of this. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Since this was authored by people affiliated with the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, who advocate for the acceptance of chronic Lyme disease, the article you're citing is highly questionable. Reliable sources such as this one [1] have not found any valid connection to borrelia. That's what the reliable sources say. It is not widely accepted that Morgellon's is a borelliosis. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is disputing that these people are suffering, but their suffering isn't caused by Borrelia. It's caused mostly by psychiatric factors and drug reactions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The most recent reference on the main page is from 2016, meaning its largely outdated. People with editing access to the main page (which I dont have) might want to review a 2018 paper located here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ entitled 'History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition'. I believe the public ought to be made aware of their findings, which contradict the findings of the "reliable" CDC study referenced above, and point out its many methodological flaws. I hope that the dogmatism indicated above will be moderated as a result. Reminds me of the old adage that 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'. FredHollows1 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

FredHollows1, please search the archive pages of this talk page as the paper you are citing has been brought up here multiple times and rejected. [2]. --McSly (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that now, and I wasn't particularly enlightened. You would have to forgive me for thinking that I have stumbled into the front line of the war for paradigm protection. I agree with the many talk entries who call for both sides of this debate and suitable referencing to be listed on the main page. As it stands the only thing I could find that justifies rejecting any of Middelveen's work is that references are primary not secondary, as required by MEDRS, and / or that her work is published in a 'low impact' journal (who decides that??). May I ask that you do me and future readers of this a favour and link us to actual scientific rebuttal of her work. As it stands, your rebuttal amounted to 'go look at archives where this was rejected'. That could be rephrased as 'there is a field of rabbit holes, the answer is in one of them, knock yourself out'. Maybe I feel this way because I have just started on a path of discovery and the learning curve is steep, but I also feel it doesn't have to be this way. I only wanted to know what morgellons were, and the slightest scratch below the surface has uncovered a festering sore of opinions and advocacy. (pun somewhat intended). The current paradigm is that the affliction is a figment of our collective and slightly crazy imaginations. This ought to be the easiest theory to debunk in the world, by someone presenting actual evidence that it is an actual disease with an actual cause, but it seems that when that is presented it is simply batted away with jedi-like deftness, with zero criticism of the actual content. The circular reasoning is that as long as people buy the paradigm, no 'high impact' journal is going to carry a paper presenting evidence against it, and its never going to be adequately debated. As I opened with, paradigm protection. Is it like this on most wikipedia pages? I hope not, but I suspect so.FredHollows1 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

See Impact factor for an explanation of impact, and see WP:GEVAL for why policy prohibits giving "both sides" of an issue when one side is WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is a reality-based project and is bound to follow respected mainstream sources as defined in WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Update

Middleveen et al and their proposals are now mentioned in the article, cited to a secondary high quality review (Suh KN (June 7, 2018). "Delusional infestation: Epidemiology, clinical presentation, assessment and diagnosis". UpToDate. Wolters Kluwer.). Because the source is behind a paywall, here is the exact text (citations 12 to 14 are to Middleveen studies):

Morgellons is a syndrome characterized by symptoms that appear to be identical to delusional infestation or very similar, but with the addition of the affected patient’s beliefs that inanimate objects (such as colored strings or fibers) were present in the lesion as well [7,8]. ... The term "Morgellons disease" has been adopted by an active online community of patients and family members who believe that this unexplained dermopathy is a poorly diagnosed infectious disease and dispute an underlying psychological basis [11]. An association between borreliosis and Morgellons disease has been proposed. ... The etiology and diagnosis of Morgellons is controversial. Multiple studies published between 2013 and 2015, largely from a single group of investigators, described histological observations and findings from electron microscopic imaging of skin samples from several patients with Morgellons [12-14]. The findings included the presence of spirochetes, dermal filaments comprised of keratin and collagen, and proliferation and activation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in the epidermis. These findings were contrary to an earlier, larger study of 115 patients with unexplained dermopathy, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [8]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study reported the absence of parasites and that most materials collected from participants' skin were composed of cellulose, likely of cotton origin.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lacking correct phrasing, speculation

"Most materials collected from participants' skin were composed of cellulose, likely of cotton origin"

This statement is phrased in a speculatory manner and as such should be restated. Either the fibers were cotton in origin or they were not. If they were a variety of types of cellulose, some of which being cotton, then we should not be guilty of poisoning the well by making the inference that they are all cotton as it stands currently. Considering the speculation of the line I assume that there were more than just cotton so I would suggest that everything in that sentence past "cellulose" be struck. 96.78.137.210 (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The source has "Most materials collected from participants' skin were composed of cellulose, likely of cotton origin". Alexbrn (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Noting the source is free of copyright, which I added to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't this mentioned in the article?

"But the study shouldn’t be interpreted to conclude that the problem is all in sufferers' heads" http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/25/10236063-mystery-skin-disease-morgellons-has-no-clear-cause-cdc-study-says2601:405:4A00:75F0:3442:66B7:589B:BD5F (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Because that was not the purpose of the study. It looked at infectious and environmental agents. It found none. The study makes no claims on other things like psychiatric causes but that is not evidence. This is the fallacy of Argumentum ex Silentio Argument from Silence.--Akrasia25 (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Morgellons

Morgellons måste uppdateras på Wikipedia ny forskning finns och vissa infektioner kan uppvisas likt borrelia och fästing buren sjukdom även fiber har uppvisat som ej är av naturliga eller tillverkade fiber den har även infekterade hårrötter och hår man har sår med rötter som tränger in i hud och kött dessa rötter innehåller fiber i olika färger form rötterna skapar även små fina trådfiber ca 1/10 av ett hårstrås tjocklek hårrötter som infekteras ser ut som glas genomskinligt frostigt knöligt med en synlig vit kärna dessa infekterade hårstrån får utväxter mitt på hårstrået så det ser ut som grenar Morgellons påverkar immunförsvar och påverkar muskler med värk och en märkbar sjukdomskänsla som även syns av andra Morgellons påverkar hela kroppen organsystem och skapar oreda i hela livet både fysiskt och psykiskt jag har studerat Morgellons under flertalet år och misstankar har funnits långt före jag visste vad Morgellons var jag har psoriasis i grunden som startas av infektioner och då även Morgellons alla symptom som beskrivs av patienter och forskande läkare min forskning på psoriasis har aldrig gett mig svar men när jag hittade Morgellons så föll alla bitar på plats det finns fler som har exakt det jag sökte efter och med hand mikroskåp har jag följt Morgellons på nära håll i flera år och sett dom stadier den förändras under åren och hur den sakta döljer sig under läkt hud och då hårt fastrotad i köttet under överväxt hud antibiotika ha haft god effekt på mig och då med levofloxacin som verksamt ämne typ Tavanic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruggmuffa (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ruggmuffa: This is English Wikipedia and all communication here needs to be in English. I am a Swedish speaker so I can comment on your post; unfortunately, your own research cannot be published here. Please see this information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 22:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Shelomi"

"Shelomi argues that the historical paper should be retracted because it has misled people ..."

First occurrence in article. Please refer by full name "Matan Shelomi", per source. Was confusing to me because I thought he was mentioned earlier but couldn't find. Thanks. --79.202.104.78 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

DOne, thanks for catching that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Documentary probably worth a mention

[3]. Or not. Strikes me as somewhat on the level of Vaxxed. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, while this edit was made to the wrong place, (intended as External link, and definitely does not belong in the body of the article), could you please explain, in your view, how it fails WP:ELNO? Getting this sorted right up front should help avoid future discussion and edit wars. (And, why has not someone written an FAQ for this talk page and Talk:Delusional parasitosis, to deal with frequent queries?) I have not yet formed an opinion on whether the External link should be added, but certainly believe that a thorough discussion should be held. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Double e/c. ELNO applies in its most basic way, no ELs in body text. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed it did not belong in the body of the text. The question is, does it belong in External links (at all)? As it is likely to be added, and re-added, we need to know precisely which portion of ELNO it fails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Great. we are on the same wavelength. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, but could you explain how it fails ELNO? You reverted it per ELNO ... on what grounds (versus moving it to External links). I haven't yet formed an opinion; your thinking would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I already answered that above, Diff -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I will review each of the ELNO criteria later (as I find time), but if we don't have a reason for excluding it per ELNO, it would need to be added back to External links-- your thoughts would be most helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Immigrant laborer, as in the questions I asked of Roxy, could you explain how you think this External link (if correctly placed) complies with WP:EL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Immigrant laborer: per the message on user page, it appears that IL does not watchlist pages, and may not respond unless pinged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't belong as an external link, being promotional and in-world. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I am going to hold off judgment on that until I have viewed the full documentary: the trailer seems to not be those things, as it does present both sides, which clear statements that Morgellons is the same thing as delusional parasitosis. We may be throwing out the baby with the bath water before we've seen the baby. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Of the items in the ELNO list, it violates #2, and certainly seems to violate #4, as well, as the linked site promotes the movie; it also appears to require a subscription, which is yet another item on the ELNO list. Dyanega (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELNO 2 says:

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

Who has watched the documentary? I just purchased it and will watch it later today, but the trailer for the film seems to present both sides. Without watching it, we don't know if it "misleads the reader ... with ... factually inaccurate material".

Since we have this article specifically about a fringe condition; do we not have to represent the "viewpoints that the site is presenting" in the article about that very viewpoint, per ELNO 2? I do not see that this documentary can be excluded (in the proper place as an External link) on the basis of ELNO 2, because it is precisely the viewpoint of this article. If we have an article on the condition, we have to present its viewpoint. (Otherwise, AFD is that-a-way.)

I say this not yet having watched the full documentary to see if it is balanced. Has anyone watched it? It can be rented on Amazon for $4.99. Unless someone has a stronger and more guideline-compliant reason for excluding this, I fear ELNO 2 is inadequate reasoning, if one reads it carefully. And since we are likely to see many attempts to add it here, we should have solid reasoning (per policy and guideline) behind any decision made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELNO 4 says: Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages. The link is not promoting a website: it is a website about a film, no different than any other film, which one has to pay to see. We don't exclude links like that simply because one has to pay to go to a movie theatre, or in this case, to amazon.com to purchase the movie. What is the difference between this movie and the documentary I link in the External links at Tourette syndrome? That documentary is presenting the viewpoint of people with TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It is receiving some notice in the usual walled garden way. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have to purchase the product to determine if the link is warranted, it's grossly inappropriate as a link. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)