Talk:Morgellons/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I call BS

RE: The marketting theory, there are the following pieces of evidence: - The fact that nobody has heard of this before.

- Sites that allude to a mysterious press release or conference that will occur *after* the release of 'a scanner darkly'

- The extreme close up nature of all photographs showing the mysterious 'fibers'. There is no photography that at *all* shows the fibers 'growing from the skin'.

- It describes perfectly the 'coke bugs' feeling that figures prominently in the 'a scanner darkly' novel.

- None of the 'official' Morgellons websites have had their DNS entries for very long, they have all been registered relatively recently.

- Where is the CDC statemeny? Bird Flue anyone? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.188.166 (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth, the archive seems to show that [1] was up and running as early as July 2002, so if it's a viral marketing ploy, it's been planned well in advance.. --Aim Here 15:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the morgellons wiki page has been up since feb 2005.

+++I have to agree. This sounds more like something for an In Search of.. episode than something for Wikipedia to document.04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

This material from the article cannot be included without sources. Charles Matthews 09:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Schwartz could lose his license to practice medicine for failure to keep records for about 55 patients and not being able to account for over 1,000 doses of controlled substances. Schwartz did not keep enough records about prescriptions for drugs like OxyContin, a frequently abused painkiller, the records say, and the state also alleges the doctor lied about his records being stolen. In addition, the doctor simultaneously prescribed one patient with OxyContin, an opiate, and Subutex, a substance used to fight opiate addiction , according to records. Schwartz’s records are called “misleading and deceptive” by the state because they say Schwartz was attempting to treat a patient who was addicted to narcotics while simultaneously prescribing the patient large quantities of OxyContin.

Morgellons or morgellons

Should this entity be capitalized? I'd probably favor the lower case version, since this isn't the name of a person or place. Andrew73 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be capitalized. It's not named after a place or person (as for example is Parkinson's disease) and diseases such as influenza aren't capitalized. Sharm 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be capitalized, since all press and internet usage so far, including the AP and the London Times, has capitalized it, so that's the common usage. Herd of Swine 22:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

white crystalline granules

Haven't the "white crystalline granules" generally been thought to be salt, from evaporated sweat and tears? MickWest 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

They are nothing more than sand or dirt found on the individuals skin.

This entry must be completely rewritten

This is a FAKE DISEASE. It's perpetuated by the mentally ill who believe they have symptoms that are physically impossible. And, of course, the symptoms are never available for scientific examination -- they "disappear" before scientists can examine them.

This article -- to the degree that it takes this fake disease idea by the mentally ill seriously -- is why wikipedia is considered to be a joke.

It sounds a lot like meth to me.

The article makes it clear that the disease is considered a manifestation of mental illness by mainstream medicine. There's nothing wrong with it as is. Should we not have articles on Christianity, since there is no verifiable evidence of the existence of God and some people consider Christians to be delusional also?--Caliga10 17:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Caliga, You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with Christianity. Its like asking a paranoid schizophrenic to write an article on how the CIA can read his mind and printing it as an article. Because that is exactly what is happening here! The ONLY people who treat this disease as real fall into two distinct categories: 1. those suffering from delusional parasitosis and 2. those looking to make money off of or take advantage of the former. By printing an article making allusions to this being some actual disease you give false hope to those suffering from this terrible psychosis and maybe even keeping them from seeking the actual psychological treatment they need! Wikpedia should be ashamed!

The article as written makes it clear the disease is widely considered a manifestation of delusional parasitosis. Ok, to give you a better example, we have articles on demonic possession, which is often also considered a manifestation of mental illness. I don't believe this article as it stands now reflects a biased point of view. Personally I think 'Morgellons' is in fact not real, from what I've read, but certainly I think the article has a right to be here and the people who /do/ think it's real are entitled to their opinions. Also, please sign your comments.--Caliga10 13:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely clear that the person ranting about this has no clue what they are talking about. It is entirely possible that this so-called disease does not really exist and is indeed a form of psychosis. Even if so, it still is an interesting phenomenon and therefore worthy of an article - this article makes clear what the current scientific consensus is. However, unless this person has personally investigated all claims and has some godlike abilities, there is no way this person can "know" that this is a "fake disease" except through some psychosis of his/her own. The symptoms described are in no way "impossible," and in fact, they very clearly DO exist - if at least as symptoms of the psychosis most doctors seem to believe this illness is. Furthermore, there are countless examples of diseases that were written off by doctors as imaginary. Lyme disease, Chronic fatigue, Meniere's, and many others... and many of the sufferers of these diseases STILL have to face public skepticism and even skepticism from medical professionals.

It should come as no surprise to anyone if this "disease" is ultimately found to be psychosomatic, but it also should come as no surprise to anyone (except perhaps medical professionals intimately involved with researching it) if in 10 years this is a well-established diagnosis of a real disorder.

At any rate, the article takes no position that it's a real disease and describes the claims of patients and the assertions of doctors with no bias except perhaps towards the current medical consensus. No person without some ax to grind can possibly see the inclusion of the article as inappropriate, and if the content of the article doesn't seem unbiased to them, they can edit it just as readily as anyone else can. Jafafa Hots 08:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This disease is real to the person who thinks they have it (hello... perception is reality) as well as to those who are around this person and are concerned for their health, mental or physical. It may in fact be a delusional illness but to the person experiencing it, it is as real as a tumor or cancer. AND, if they are having to wear diapers because of burned areas or whatever on their butt and, therefore, can't go to the bathroom, it is real to them. Get off your little it-hasn't-happened-to-me-or-anyone-I-know high-horse and explore the possibility that it might be slightly valid even as a mental illness. Cozy Girl

Taxonomy

Referring to springtails (collembolans) as "insect-like hexapods" is weird, since springtails are insects, and "hexapods" is a synonym for "insects". It's like saying that deer are "mammal-like mammalians".

And the "disease" is pretty clearly imaginary, too.

CarlFink 18:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The current thinking actually places the Collembola inside a grouping called Hexapoda but separate from the Insecta because of their differences with the rest of the insects. See our Collembola article and this news story. DopefishJustin 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I was an undergraduate ... okay, maybe I'm becoming an old fogey. CarlFink 21:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The website, "http://www.morgellonsusa.com" shows photographs that are clearly belly button lint. I know, because I suffer from a terrible case of bellybuttonlintosis.

A Possible Cause

There is a bacteria that could produce exactly the symptoms described. Acetobacter Xylinum eats glucose (among other things) and excretes strands of cellulose. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/12/4565

The Morgellon's site said the strands they examined were cellulose. http://www.morgellons.org/symptoms.html

Antibiotics have been used successfully by some for symptomatic treatment. http://nurse-practitioners.advanceweb.com/common/EditorialSearch/AViewer.aspx?AN=NP_05may1_npp16.html&AD=05-01-2005 Maybe some of these people have undiagnosed diabetes. High blood sugar would feed the bacteria and damage peripheral circulation, making healing more difficult. Ulcers were thought to be 'stress' until the true bacterial cause was found. I don't think it's fair to label Morgellons sufferers as delusional 209.214.19.143 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)David Nix

65.191.98.11 11:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another suspect might be a pathogenic/parasitic form of Labyrinthulea. The description of the fibrous microscopic masses supposedly associated with Morgellons sounds remarkably similar to this Protozoa. http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/mediawiki-1.6.6/index.php/Labyrinthula Some species are known to attack fish, mollusks, and shellfish. http://www.google.com/search?q=parasitic+Labyrinthula I wouldn't doubt that an opportunistic one would find other host species.

Many mysterious, horrifying diseases have popped up in the course of human history, and they continue to emerge like clockwork. We now alter our environment in ever-novel ways with radiation and chemicals, by physically altering ecosystems, and even with genetically-modified organisms, including bacteria that create cellulose.

"Mass delusions" and urban myths exist, as do loony sources (especially online.) But their associations don't usually include major league baseball players and a proportionately large numbers of nurses and teachers.

Someone mentioned diabetes above. Assuming some legitimate reporting of symptoms and conditions, the majority of those who report having "morgellons" symptoms have tested positive for Lyme. Not surprising if Lyme is truly the fastest-growing disease in North America. But since Lyme causes insidious symptoms all over the body, maybe it makes some more vulnerable to other diseases. And maybe it attacks or affects the pancreas and liver, contributing to blood sugar-related complications in antibiotic treatment as mentioned above.

According to ABC, Billy Koch no longer claims to have ever had Morgellons, it was his wife, making it up. While the above discussion is fascinating, it's still OR, and the article needs to have cited sources. Herd of Swine 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Slashdotted

This page was slashdotted today, how do you put a traffic thingy up the top?

See Template_talk:High-traffic sendai 06:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some slashdotters are pointing out that it sounds conspicuously like an ilovebees-style viral marketing gag for A Scanner Darkly.

I can see how you might think that, after a superficial look at the sites. But it's not. They take it very seriously. The added section on Scanner Darkly is speculation and OR. I'm going to remove it, unless someone can provide a more authoritative source than "some slashdotters" Herd of Swine 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've transplanted the redacted section to the end of the talk in case it develops further. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting thread at: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=1&mode=nested&commentsort=3&op=Change&sid=186248&cid=15370838&pid=15370838

Another interesting comment at: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186248&cid=15372744 that says "If you look at the edit history for the article on wikipedia, there is one group of edits made very early on that were 'anonymous' and thus listed the IP address they came from - 66.181.95.90. Reverse DNS on that IP address reveals that it is y2m-gw0.cust.e-xpedient.com Google on "y2m" and the first hit is: www.y2m.com Right on the first page of their website it says: Y2M is a strategic marketing services company that focuses exclusively on the college and recent graduate market."

Can someone call in an editor?

All those edit were was to add this link, which was just one of many similar blog entries. I think these connection are highly tenuous. Even if there was a viral marketing campaign, it's not responsible for the Morgellons publicity - that's being arrange by Ken Cowles [2]. The morgellons.org web site has been around since june 2002. Herd of Swine 19:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

HoS, looks like the vast majority of your edits are in regards to Morgellons, do you have any contact/experience with the syndrome outside of Wikipedia? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not physically. Just did a bit of research and somehow adopted this article. I need to get a life :). Herd of Swine 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the original Dick reference was to Delusional parasitosis by User:Vaughan in June 2003 [3]. Herd of Swine 20:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Leitão vs. Leitao

What's with the "Leitão"? Why not "Leitao"? She does not use the accent on her own web site [4], so what's it doing here? Herd of Swine 16:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A Scanner Darkly

The Philip K. Dick book A Scanner Darkly describes the same symptoms to a surprising degree. The upcoming release of a film based on the book has led many to suggest that the recent 'buzz' about Morgellon's may be part of a viral marketing campaign. Evidence cited includes:

1. The website claims that a "national news broadcast" will occur in June or July. The release date for the film is July 7.
2. morgellons.org and morgellonusa.com are both registered by a proxy company and contain no contact info.
3. The first Morgellon's article on Wikipedia was created in February as a link to one of the above websites.

While there were infrequent references to the syndrome on Usenet as far back as 2002, the simultaneous 'ramp-up' on Morgellons and marketing of the film have made some suspicious. For another well known example of this, see the ilovebees viral marketing campaign. (Removed from text for now until some citations can be found)

Actually I don't think "A Scanner Darkley" realy has such similar symptoms. It describes being infected with giant, visible, aphids. What it's really describing is formication with drug induced hallucinations. Morgellons focuses much more on the fibers, the lesions and the physical discomfort, visible insects are generally not involved. Herd of Swine 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just drugs that can produce the phenomena of formication! Consider a bacterial or viral irritation of the meninges. To anybody with a GP who's knowledge does not stretch to giving a coherent explanation for the sensations experienced: is it any 'wonder' that these patients desperately search for an explanation?

Also, to those of us who are familiar with microscopy, the photographic evidence is easy to refute -BUT: people do not (always) report unusual things because of 'faulty thinking,' but because the are having a real experience . To put oneself in their position: a neurological irritation is sensed as if it is on the skin (or at the place ) that that neurological circuit is normally associated. To have such a stimulation with out apparent course is very disturbing.

Show me a specialist that hasn't at some time, seen what he s/he wants to see, and your showing me ...well I'll leave you finish the quote off!

Finally: This is not the place to rename a disease, yet I put forward the suggestion that this might be better termed a 'syndrome' as I suspect the same symptoms (and signs) describes more than one aetiology (including psychiatric). There; if the same thing was published in the BMJ it would rattle on for several hundred words! Reading through some of the previous comments: thank goodness Wikipedia is blessed with such a lot of arm chair amateurs; maybe they should be called upon to design our next generation of nuclear reactors? ;-) --Aspro 23:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed hoax tag

There is at least one listing on PubMed PMID 16489838 that describes Morgellons (or should it be morgellons) disease. Granted, whether or not it is a psychiatric illness (e.g. like delusions of parasitosis) is a different issue. Andrew73 22:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks it's a hoax, please read the references first. People really believe it's a real disease, and it's been around for ages. Herd of Swine 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/05/horror_illness.php thinks it could be a hoax. And did you look at the references for real? One was in popular mechanics (not really a medical science magazine, or really scientific for that fact). The 1690 article was about hairs after death, according to the footnote of the link. (As far as I could tell sir thomas was real). The annals of medical history paper is wierd, I can't find it in that book. As a matter of fact, I couldn't find that book at all in our library (the university of nijmegen). The rest of the references are mostly to newssites or morgellons sites. And reference number nine adds very little to the validity of the article actually. It only tells us that the MUPS patients / doctor relation suffers if the MUPS patient isn't getting the anwser he wanted. So, I don't think the references are that compelling. Does anyone with a more medical eye to the case have the time and will to read them all? I will consider this a hoax from now on. --Soyweiser 09:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

CDC Position

Is someone going to rewrite this incorporating the CDC's recent statement regarding morgellons, and the taskforce they are forming to investigate it? Or are you just going to argue on the internet? --- 216.255.15.9 18:17, 27 May 2006 (Unsigned comment)

I can't find any reputable source for any CDC statement on Morgellons. There's nothing on their web site. Some sites mention a "task force", but they don't give a source, or a full quote, or any real details. Anyone got a good link? Herd of Swine 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Texas based TV station got them to comment on camera, and they indeed said they were forming a taskforce... nothing on the CDC's site yet, however the stations site has a page on it. www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA052206.morgellonsfolo.KENS.12913d3a.html also, officials from the CDC have been returning phonecalls this past week, reported by several blogs,

CDC Communication Specialist Dan Rutz returned our call and has verified that Morgellons is a syndrome, as he refers to it, the CDC is looking into. The CDC has received numerous calls from those citing symptoms associated with what is being called Morgellons Disease and has, in fact, formed a group to explore the syndrome and define it. All angles from environmental to medial to psychological will be taken into consideration. Rutz says, based on information the CDC has collected to date, it's highly unlikely this syndrome was "invented" as some us originally thought. Whether Morgellons is being leveraged in some clandestine fashion to promote A Scanner Darkly is unclear bit if it is, it's sick, twisted and wrong. was found on www.adrants.com/2006/05/fake-disease-created-for-viral-movie-camp.php

"our call"? Who are you 216.255.15.9 ? You should sign in, and sign your comments please. Herd of Swine 06:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Internet hoax

**NOTE: Morgellons Disease is not a real syndrome but an internet hoax.**

This started as an internet hoax and has exploded in the past few years because Senator Feinstein fell for it and wrote a letter to the CDC asking for an investigation.

Morgellons Disease is the fruit of conspiracy theory websites that usually branch off into this is some sort of reptile alien trying to take over the world. Don't fall for this hoax.

I disagree. I have seen several news reports with multiple different people including doctors talking about it. --mboverload@ 09:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had the symptoms of Morgellons for four years. I thought I was totally alone. I just found out there is a name for it 2 weeks ago. It is not an internet hoax. It is very real and absolutely horrendous. I have been to 9 doctors and not one of them has taken it seriously. The scientist associated with the Morgellon website has received dozens of samples from different patients. They are all similar. He indicates in his interview video that the medical profession is ignoring something that is very real.

Of course it's real, which is why no credible group of physicians believes you or anyone else with this "disorder". Did you read the part where it said that the spike in reports started only when the website was made?67.187.112.115 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mean, fibers erupting from under peoples skin, how could it be any less real?--203.59.166.123 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd Diagnoses

I removed:

• Demodicosis - Infection by the spider mite Demodex foliculorum or Demodex brevi. Some accounts suggest the mites must themselves be infected with Ringworm fungus to produce disease symptoms in man.
• Pinworms - A nematode Oxyuris vermicularis (formerly Enterobius vermicularis) commonly diagnosed in toddlers, but, oddly, never in adults. In 1910, a study at a Boston hospital concluded that 10% of all removed appendices contained live pinworms that appeared to have caused the appendicitis. There is no reason to suppose it is any less prevalent today. Modern epidemiological studies suggest most humans harbor this nematode. Its microfilarial larvae are said to become airborne as domestic house dust. (I lost my references, I hope someone else can attribute, clarify or correct these claims).
• Sparganosis Infection by the tissue-migrating cestode Spirometra proliferatum.
• [[[Dirofilariasis]]] Infection by the dog heartworm Dirofilaria (latin for "evil thread"). Why did they give it that name? The name alone suggests its discoverer thought its importance transcended the canine realm.

From the "Diagnosis" section, as they seem more like speculative causes, rather than diagnoses that fit the symptoms. They are not generally found in adult humans. Demodicosis and Dirofilariasis are dog specific diseases, Pinworm and Sparganosis (tapeworms) do not account for the symptoms, and Pinworms is generally a pediatric condition whereas Morgellons is generally reported in adults. The section is not on potential causes, but rather what a doctor may diagnose, based on the reported symptoms. Herd of Swine 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept your criticism that my comments were misplaced. But your criticism that Demodex and Dirofilaria are dog diseases, and that Pinworms is a child's disease are flat wrong. That is indeed the orthdox American medical view, but beyond the realm of medical professional dogma in the United States lies the larger domain of scholarly science. In that realm, there is firm support for human hosting of Demodex and Dirofilaria, and human adult infection by oxyuris vermicularis. (unsigned comment by Realmccoy)

If there's literature, then feel free to cite and add this information to the appropiate articles. You might want to read Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines first. --Herd of Swine 07:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Tone

Can someone who is not necessarily convinced that this a real, albeit misdiagnosed disease take a look at cleaning up the article? The introduction does a half-decent job of weaseling out of obvious bias, but the rest of the article treats it as an established fact, though one not accepted by the scientific community. I'll take a crack at it if no one involved with creating the current version wants to.

Just to be clear, a diagnosis of Morgellons as a disease is not (currently) accepted in the scientific/medical community. This is due to the current lack of understanding of the condition (delusional? true parasitic? are the fibers biologicial in origin, or environmental synthetics? etc). The current and ongoing research itself such (Oklahoma State University, others) is accepted (as long as those studies are scientific in method, of course). That is, at this point the scientific community can't definitively say "Morgellons is/isn't (blank)"; however, they can say "we are conducting research to understand the cause of the symptoms, the origin and composition of these fibers, etc". As researchers continue to gather information, they can begin to include or rule out the many possible explainations for this phenomenon. Morgellons is not an established disease, nor is it simply a hoax. The controversy exists in whether this is an emerging unknown disease or delusional parasitosis, not in the endeavor to scientifically determine its cause--and therefore a possible treatment. This, IMO, is what the article should reflect. Peace. --buck 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified Morgellons Phenomena (UMP)

I saw that they've done some preliminary work in investigating fibers from one "patient" and discovered that the fibers collected do not have a match under the FBI fibers database, the database that is supposed to contain info on all the natural/manmade fibers in the world in order to help the FBI narrow investigations. The fibers also seem to glow under UV light. Does anybody have a link to a good source on this?--65.16.61.35 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide us with any documentation you can find. So far nearly all (if not all) objects provided for examination have been identified as known fibers, specks, dandruff, skin, etc.. Until identified we can just call them UMP. -- Fyslee 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some more info on the lab results here and on the glowing fibers here Herd of Swine 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

George Schwartz

The section on George Schwartz [5] seems out of place. The guy is obviously a quack, trying to push some $125 self published book [6]. Should the section just be removed, or re-writted to mention the variety of quacks associated with "Morgellons"? Herd of Swine 01:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The section on George Schwartz is not out of place it is a "Theory". I have received treatment from him and it has helped signifcantly. It involves an intense protocol of anti-parasitics, antibiotics and antifungal drugs (Biltriicde, ivermectin, vermox, Septra DS, Avelox, Diflucan and sulfur lotion and eye drops. This section can be shortened. The early reference to Stenotrophomonas maltophilia can be removed Jade103 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

The article is very biased

I believe that this article is very biased towards stating that this is a psychological disorder. In order for the article to be balanced, it needs to say that it has not yet been determined conclusively whether or not it is physical or psychological and that the CDC is investigating.

October 18, 2006 - New Lab Findings Point To Silicone/Silica and High Density Polyethlyene Fibers Causing Morgellons Disease.

http://www.dldewey.com/morgel.htm

Very interesting. Any ideas about what to do with this? I'm bringining it down to the bottom of the page for discussion. --Dematt 14:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

first time wiki user so im not shure how to do this... the statement that says wymore as distanced himself from mrf is not true. here is a quote from mrf site "Randy Wymore has resigned as director of research for the Morgellons Research Foundation, a position he held on a temporary, volunteer basis. Wymore, assistant professor of pharmacology at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa, said his decision was based on schedule and a need to focus more on his university-based Morgellons Disease research.

Wymore and OSU-CHS remain committed to Morgellons research. Wymore will maintain his working relationship with the Morgellons Research Foundation."

Whoa!

Pez1103, please stop immediately. This is not your article. You are exercising bad faith towards all the other editors who have worked on developing this article, and who have provided good sources with references for their edits. Articles here are edited as a collaborative effort, so all controversial edits (that can even include single words), especially large ones (never a good idea to do without total consensus from other editors) should be proposed here, thoroughly discussed, and then only done after the other editors have had time to respond and come to a consensus decision.

Your edits will be reverted based on a lack of consensus, sourcing, references, NPOV violations, and lack of collaboration.

Start here on the talk page. Do a little bit at a time. Get consensus. Then edit. While bold editing is allowed here, it is far too common to edit too boldly.

I know that you are a beginner here, so I understand that these are beginner errors many of us have made. Please take it easy. Articles here are never finished, and are in the process of being created all the time. Your edits and you time will be wasted if they are not done in the proper manner. In such case, they will just get deleted the minute you turn you back, ad infinitum.

So....discuss first, edit later. Thank you.

PS: Remember to sign your posts using four tildes. I did it for you above. -- Fyslee 19:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops!

I'm unfamilar with the protocol. Pez1103 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Pez

Pez, Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. Your point of view is that Morgellons is a real disease. Almost the entire medical community (all except a handful of doctors) thinks that Morgellons is catch-all mixture of symptoms and conditions that has been given a name for no good reason. The article should not reflect your point of view - it should reflect the known and accpted facts of the matter. This can include a description of the disagreements, but must be given appropiate perspective. All of dermatology vs. a professor of physiology and a professor of biochemity is not a balanced debate. These are renegade and unorthodox scientists, bordering on pseudoscience Herd of Swine 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article reflects the point of view that the disease is psychosomatic. It is biased already. According to the NY Times article which was published this week -- the medical community is split. Your comments above are all your opinion, and not factual. Besides, you operate an "anti-Morgellons" website called Morgellonswatch, so you can hardly be thought of as unbiased. Your sole purpose is to discredit Morgellons. Pez1103 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Please be careful here. Using a persons affiliations against them and impugning their motives is a personal attack, which is a violation of WP:NPA. Not that it makes one whit of difference, but do you have proof that Herd of Swine operates MorgellonsWatch? If so, then (s)he is a person with knowledge about this illness, and a valuable resource person here.

The NPOV rules require that significant POV be represented in the article, but they must be properly sourced and referenced. You can take one phrase at a time and start a section for it here on the talk page. Then we can discuss it, your objections, your proposed changes, and your sources. If it contributes new information in the proper manner, then it can be included. -- Fyslee 22:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Above in the discussion it states "The article makes it clear that the disease is considered a manifestation of mental illness by mainstream medicine." That's hardly unbiased. There are plenty of mainstream doctors who believe it is real. Can you argue against any of the seven points? The Duval county quote for example is deliberately misleading since they did no real study Pez1103 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)pez

The article also quotes doctors who say that the disease isn't real. To be balanced, I think that it needs to quote doctors who do believe that the disease is real. Pez1103 21:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Pez

It does. They are few, so they get the appropriate coverage for minority viewpoints, as required by the rules here. -- Fyslee 22:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Renegade and unorthodox scientists"? -- Dr. Citovsky is one of the leading authorites in the country on agrobacterium. Both he and Dr. Wymore have been published. There are two new scientists researching Morgellons too. Both have outstanding credentials. Pez1103 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Fyslee - Why are you saying that these doctors represent a minority viewpoint? Most doctors have never heard of Morgellons or had a patient with Morgellons so I would guess that they don't have an opinion. Based on what you wrote, does this mean that I can add the quotes from the doctors that I got from the NY Times to the article? The NY Times article said that doctors are divided on this, not that more think that it is psychological than not. That article was published a few days ago. Are you saying that I should rewrite the 7 points that I made above and separate each as its own topic? Thanks Pez1103 23:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Here's "the other side"'s viewpoint [7] - like it says: “If you polled 10,000 dermatologists, everyone would agree with me.”. "Divided" does not mean "evenly divided", it's divided about 10 vs. 10,000 Herd of Swine 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Until the majority of the medical community have accepted this condition as a true illness, with diagnostic criteria, etc., it is a minority position, in this case an extremely small number of usually "alternative" MDs believe it. This doesn't exactly engender confidence for the cause of Morgellons sufferers. Too bad. What you need is mainstream MD dermatologists with no connections to products or alternative medicine, to do the researching. They should then publish all their research. That will give you a chance to get a more fair hearing. If it's real, then by god we need to get it straight!

As far as the NY Times article, please start a section and provide the quotes, clickable URL sources, and references. That will make it easier to examine.

As far as your seven points above, yes, that sounds like a good idea. You'll need to do it anyway before it can be added to the article. Prepare your arguments, your text, the sources, and the references. We can help with the reference format, or you can just copy the way it's done in the article. To make them work on the talk page, I'll make a references section with the right code. -- Fyslee 23:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So you can see that the references section works, I've copied a small portion of the article with references here:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are launching a study of Morgellons disease:

"We're going into this with an open mind," said Dan Rutz, spokesman for the CDC Morgellons task force that first met in June 2006.

"The 12-person CDC task force includes two pathologists, a toxicologist, an ethicist, a mental health expert and specialists in infectious, parasitic, environmental and chronic disease. The group is developing a case definition of Morgellons."

If the references work, you will see them at the bottom. -- Fyslee 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A few pointers

Pez, thank you for starting to use the talk page. We are here to work together, and it's always nice to have a good working relationship with other editors. Here are a few pointers:

• To make a proper signature, type four tildes like these ~~~~. It automatically produces your user name and the time of the edit. (This only applies to talk pages.)

• When you make edits in articles you should use edit summaries. There is a blank space designed for that at the bottom of the editing window.

• As to the introductory sentences (wikipedia doesn't use an "Introduction" section, but what is called a "lead." You can read about it here: WP:LEAD. The lead sums up the contents of the article, without anything more, different, or new. IOW the article must include the information in depth already,

• with good sources (WP:RS, WP:V). These are Wikipedia policies that must be understood before doing too much editing. With time you will get to understand them better.

• Also read about WP:NPOV.

• Another one is WP:NPA

I have now added a welcome message to your user talk page. It has some good stuff to check out. Good luck! -- Fyslee 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

duval county

In the section on duval county, the Wikipedia fails to mention that the county only performed a "literature search" and the dermatologist that they consulted with never saw anyone who thought that he had Morgellons. The county stated "[Studies] prove to be costly and require support from various medical specialists. DCHD does not currently have the resources to support such a study here in Jacksonville." Therefore, no actual research study was performed. I think that this needs to be clarifed. This information is in the work that was already cited. Does anyone have any objection to this? http://cctvimedia.clearchannel.com/wtev/morg3.doc. Currently, I think that the article implies that there was a study done.

the current text just says they "investigated", and the quote makes it clear it was just a literature review. Herd of Swine 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is misleading and the other points need to be brought out. I suggest the following rewrite:

Earlier, in February 2005, a report on a local Fox affiliate in Duval County, Florida, prompted the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) to investigate. They conducted a literature review and consulted with a dermatologist who did not see any of the people who claimed to have Morgellons. Based on this, they concluded that Morgellons Disease is synonymous with delusional parasitosis (CDC, 1999). However, DCHD did not perform a research study. They stated "[Studies] prove to be costly and require support from various medical specialists. DCHD does not currently have the resources to support such a study here in Jacksonville."

The reference is already cited.

Does anyone object to this change? Of course the other option is to delete it entirely since the conclusion is basically meaningless and the only reason it is included in the article is to prove a biased point that the disease is a delusion, instead of a NPOV which is that it remains to be seen whether or not it is. Pez1103 23:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I agree that the current state of the article misrepresents the DCHD paper by cherry picking information. The current section reads as follows:

• "In May 2006 the Morgellons Research Foundation was featured in a number of local TV news segments coordinated by the MRF's director of communications. This resulted in a significant rise in the public awareness of the term Morgellons. Earlier, in February 2005, a report on a local Fox affiliate in Duval County, Florida, prompted the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) to investigate. Their report concludes:

[…] it was determined after extensive reviewing of these articles that Morgellons Disease is synonymous with delusional parasitosis (CDC, 1999).

DCHD Epidemiology consulted a pediatric dermatologist within the health department for his professional opinion. It was concluded that this is a psychological condition that has been mentioned in literature for hundreds of years.

The DCHD report notes that there was a significant spike in reported cases after the news report and that "this is attributed to the airing of Fox News’ coverage of the illness and is not a true cluster of disease."

What specific changes would you like to make?

--Dematt 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dematt for addressing this. I would like to state:

Earlier, in February 2005, a report on a local Fox affiliate in Duval County, Florida, prompted the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) to investigate. They conducted a literature review and consulted with a dermatologist who did not see any of the people who claimed to have Morgellons. Based on this, they concluded that Morgellons Disease is synonymous with delusional parasitosis (CDC, 1999). However, DCHD did not perform a research study. They stated "[Studies] prove to be costly and require support from various medical specialists. DCHD does not currently have the resources to support such a study here in Jacksonville."

Pez1103 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

It appears that I have agreement for making this change. Please let me know if you disagree. Thanks Pez1103 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I disagree. You want to remove their conclusions, and simply say they did not have enough money to conduct a study. Go ahead and add that, but what exactly is wrong with the "cherry picked" quotes above? Herd of Swine 23:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote their conclusion. What are you suggesting that I add? Pez1103 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I suggest that instead of parphrasing the conclusion, you leave the quotes, and add your additional note, like : "DCHD did not perform a clinical study. They stated "[Studies] prove to be costly and require support from various medical specialists. DCHD does not currently have the resources to support such a study here in Jacksonville.""

I think that my version more accurately gives the basis for the conclusion that they drew. The existing version glosses over it. Pez1103 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Pez, I've looked and looked and read that report over and over and I think that the version that is already there is better simply because it does use the quoted text. I think that when we add the statement "the DCHD did not perform a study" without referencing it, we are adding our own "defense" that only makes it look worse. Lets let the facts speak for themselves. The suggestion would look like this:

• "In May 2006 the Morgellons Research Foundation was featured in a number of local TV news segments coordinated by the MRF's director of communications. This resulted in a significant rise in the public awareness of the term Morgellons. Earlier, in February 2005, a report on a local Fox affiliate in Duval County, Florida, prompted the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) to investigate. They initiated and in-depth literature search and their conclusions were:

[…] Morgellons Disease is synonymous with delusional parasitosis (CDC, 1999).

They later consulted a pediatric dermatologist within the department for his opinion and further concluded:

[…] this is a psychological condition that has been mentioned in literature for hundreds of years.

Note I dropped the last sentence. --Dematt 20:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

delusional parasitosis

The article states: Presentations of Morgellons are frequently diagnosed as delusional parasitosis.

Is there a source that can substantiate the word "frequently"? I know that they are sometimes diagnosed as DP. Some are diagnosed as numerous other conditions, such as the ones listed in the article.

Are there clear statistics on that gauge the frequency of this diagnosis?

Does anyone have any objection to my restating this sentence?

I do. Every single picve of literature on Morgellons (on both "sides") notes that DOP is frequent diagnosis. All patient accounts confirm this. That's not to imply they are one and the same thing, but the sentence is quite correct. Herd of Swine 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a reference then? Thanks Pez1103 23:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I have already made the wording more NPOV before reading the statement from Herd of Swine. If the provided references (and they need to be provided) can back up the use of the word "frequently," it can then be reinstated. Otherwise the current wording can withstand accusations of weasel wording.

Pez, please remember to sign. -- Fyslee 23:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro Morgellon doctors

I think to present a balanced viewpoint we need to include quotes from doctors who agree that it is a real disease:

"I think it's a real disease," said Dr. Rafael Stricker, a physician in San Francisco who sees many patients claiming to have Morgellons. "Certainly there is an element of psychiatric distress here, but that's because the patients are ill and nobody wants to listen to them," he said.Many patients also test positive for Lyme disease, Dr. Stricker has found; certain antibacterial and antiparasitic medications sometimes seem to alleviate the symptoms, he said." "I feel it's a parasite, perhaps a fungus," Dr. Uppal said. "You have to give patients the benefit of the doubt."

(NY TIMES ARTICLE:October 24, 2006)

Reference [[8]]Pez1103 23:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)pez

and then there is the other doctors in the article -

“Parasitosis is a classic form of shared delusion,” said Dr. Mary Seeman, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. “Skin disease is perfect for it. A person gets a rash or something, then the ‘disease’ spreads through any shared space in which there is close contact.”

““When a person has something bothering him these days, the first thing he does is go online,” Dr. Seeman said. “You can get reinforcement of your ideas very quickly there.”

Note that every single article has a different doctor saying that Morgellons is not a real disease, and the only people why say it IS are Stricker and Wymore (who is not a doctor). All we want is appropiate balance, there are hundreds of "wierd diseases" that only have a few adherents. What's so special about this one? Herd of Swine 23:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And it continues:

Despite hints of a physical cause, most patients are eventually confronted with a psychiatric diagnosis. The symptoms bear a close resemblance those of delusional parasitosis, a disorder in which sufferers, often drug abusers, believe they are afflicted with hidden parasites and resist all evidence to the contrary.

Researchers have found that delusions like this can be passed from primary patients to secondary ones, usually susceptible family members or close associates. Psychiatrists call this phenomenon folie a deux.

In one remarkable case, a woman convinced her husband that neighbors were shooting at her with lasers. In another, an elderly woman convinced her live-in sister that they were both being attacked by bugs.

“Parasitosis is a classic form of shared delusion,” said Dr. Mary Seeman, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. “Skin disease is perfect for it. A person gets a rash or something, then the ‘disease’ spreads through any shared space in which there is close contact.”

So you have a couple MDs who accept the diagnosis, and thereby get plenty more clients, yet the continuation of the quote paints quite another picture. -- Fyslee 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is half and half --- that is why it is titled delusion or disease. I still think that the quotes from the doctors are relevant. The Wikipedia already quotes doctors who say it is not a disease. Why not make it balanced? The NY Times did. Pez1103 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Herd - I don't agree that Stricker and Wymore are the only doctors that say that it's a real disease. Uppal is quoted above. Several doctors have the disease too. Stricker and Wymore are quoted more often. That's all. Fyslee said that the "minority viewpoint" should be expressed for a NPOVPez1103 00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Wymore is not a medical doctor, he's an assistant professor. But yes, other doctors support the idea that Morgellons is a distinct disease (maybe ten, from the 500,000 in the US?) - but you can find a doctor to support ANY quackpot medical idea, including FBI brain control. The article needs to reflect the overwhelming opinion of the medical community, it should be very clear that these few doctors opinions (or shameless exploitionation, depending on how you look at it) is very much an abberation, and says nothing about the validity of Morgellons as a distinct disease. Herd of Swine 00:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Shameless exploitation? Wymore volunteers his spare time to do this research. Who is he exploiting? There are only 7000 self reported cases of Morgellons in the US -- the slight minority of doctors ever see anyone claiming to have the disease. I think that the most relevant statements made by doctors are made by those who have actually SEEN patients with Morgellons. The other quotes are irrelevant. Your comments above are certainly biased. Just because a doctor believes it exists doesn't necessarily mean that they are a quack pot. Jeez -- Flysee where are you? Where is the NPOV??? Obviously the NY Times thought that it was relevant enough because they quoted the doctors. They were trying to present a balanced picture. Shouldn't Wiki do the same? Pez1103 00:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I actually do sleep occasionally! I live in Denmark. -- Fyslee 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is information about one of the newest Morgellons researchers. You could hardly say that he is a quackpot. Dr. Rahim Karjoo, MD, is a Fellow of The College of American Pathologists and of The American Society of Clinical Pathology. Currently and for the past fourteen years he has been The Laboratory Director and Pathologist of Doctors Hospital of West Covina, CA, and of: American Medical Diagnostic Labs of Santa Ana, and concurrently, the past ten of those years has been a Clinical Instructor in the Pathology Department at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Dr. Karjoo was, for ten years prior, the Chairman and Laboratory Director of CIGNA Health Plan of California. Earlier in his career he was on the Clinical Pathology Teaching Staffs at Yale University, University of Connecticut Medical School and Pahlavi University School of Medicine, Shiraz, Iran. His passion and course of research for many years has been the pathology of migration of silicone in human tissue, his silicone implant research having been published in 1995. Dr. Karjoo has many published papers to his credit and awards for outstanding, dedicated and distinguished services. Pez1103 12:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Do I have consensus to add some pro-morgellon doctor quotes to add balance to the article? Pez1103 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

What does Rahim Karjoo claim? Can you give a link? Where are his papers?Herd of Swine 02:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I said he is one of the newest researchers of the disease. He was on the radio recently talking about his upcoming research. He hasn't published anything yet. Pez1103 03:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Preliminary Research Findings

I believe that it is very important to include information about preliminary research findings. I agree that it isn't published and peer reviewed yet; however, I think it is relevant since this is the only research that exists to date. I'd like to add this as a new section.

Point #4 Information about preliminary research should be included in the article:

Preliminary Research Findings

Dr. Wymore of the Oklahoma State University recruited two Oklahoma State faculty physicians who tweezed fibers from beneath the skin of some Morgellons patients. The samples were sent to the Tulsa Police Department’s forensic laboratory. The police checked the samples against carpet and clothing fibers and other materials, and conducted chemical analyses and other tests, and found no matches against any fiber in their databases. However, the fibers taken from the Morgellons patients matched each other. [source [[9]]

There is no reason why this statement can't be used. It is well written and cites a WP:V [secondary source] and Dr. Wymore is certainly notable. I would make some minor changes;

• The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting on Ms. Leitao's plight noted that Dr. Randy Wymore, Oklahoma State University assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology, recruited two Oklahoma State faculty physicians who tweezed fibers from beneath the skin of some Morgellons patients. The samples were sent to the Tulsa Police Department’s forensic laboratory. The police checked the samples against carpet and clothing fibers and other materials, and conducted chemical analyses and other tests, and found no matches against any fiber in their databases. However, the fibers taken from the Morgellons patients matched each other.

--Dematt 03:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Citovsky of SUNY Stonybrook has also conducted some preliminary research on Morgellons. Preliminary findings indicate that Agrobacterium was found in the cells of Morgellons patients and may be involved in the etiology and /or progression of Morgellons disease. Pathogenic Agrobacterium is known to produce cellulose fibers at infection sties within host tissues and is commonly used in biotechnology to genetically alter plants. Preliminary findings indicate that Agrobacterium was found in the cells of Morgellons patients. In a CNN interview, Dr. Citovsky stated, "when I look into the skin of these Morgellons patients, I see DNA from something that could only come from a plant." Agrobacterium may very well be the pathogen that distinguishes Morgellons disease. If these results are confirmed, it would be the first example of a plant-infecting bacterium playing a role in human disease. Dr. Citovsky has received numerous additional samples from Morgellons patients, but due to a lack of funding, cannot test these samples at this time. He has applied for a grant from the National Institute of Heath to perform this work. source [[10]]

23:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC) pez

Symptoms

The symptoms section is inadequate/incomplete. It makes more sense to quote the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology as follows: [[11]]

Morgellons symptoms include skin lesions which can be anything from minor to disfiguring in their appearance, sensations of crawling and biting on and under the skin, and the appearance of fibers and granules coming out of the skin. According to statistics from the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), the majority (95%) of affected patients also report symptoms of disabling fatigue and self-described "brain fog" or problems with attention. Patients also report a high incidence (50%) of fibromyalgia, joint pain, and sleep disorders. Other symptoms include hair loss, decline in vision, neurological disorders and disintegration of teeth in the absence of caries or gingivitis. Most patients are unable to continue working, and those who are able to continue working report that they do not function optimally. -- Pez1103

And that article was just an opinion piece written by members of the MRF. Given the inherent conflict of interest there, you can't really use it as a authuritative source. Herd of Swine 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This was a published article. Not all the authors are board members of the MRF, just one. Who would know more about the symptoms than the people who are collecting data from those purporting to have the disease? The existing symptom list on Wikipedia is incomplete. I would like to change the symptoms section accordingly. Any objections? -- Pez1103 23:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)pez

what are you going to change it to? What references? Herd of Swine 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Make your proposed changes here first. -- Fyslee 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My proposed change is to use the paragraph above and cite the journal. Pez1103 00:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) pez

The best quality sources are from published research referenced in medical journals and PubMed. The most potentially suspect sources are partisan sources, in this case sufferers and the MRF. If any of those sources qualify as WP:RS and WP:V, they can usually be used, but always make it clear that it is their opinion. Interestingly, the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V. -- Fyslee 13:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. It was not an "opinion piece." Who other than the MRF would know the symptoms of Morgellons? What makes it "suspect"? This information was published in a medical journal. They compiled this data based on people registering with the MRF. The existing Wiki defintion leaves out many of the symptoms. Why not include a complete list? I don't believe that the medical journal article is biased. If it were, it would not have been published. The quote merely states the symptoms that people have reported. I think this change is very appropriate Pez1103 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I have modified my comment by adding "potentially" (suspect). The sources can be perfectly fine. One just needs to keep ones eyes open and be on guard for conscious or subconscious twisting of things. That's all I meant. As far as bias is concerned, journals in medical articles can be biased and still get published. It just depends on what type of article it is. The most biased type are letters to the editor, which are not only biased, they usually should be. If they weren't trying to argue for a particular viewpoint, they wouldn't be written at all. -- Fyslee 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what I would like the symptoms section to state:

According to an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, Morgellons symptoms include skin lesions which can be anything from minor to disfiguring in their appearance, sensations of crawling and biting on and under the skin, and the appearance of fibers and granules coming out of the skin. In addition, "[a]ccording to statistics from the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), the majority (95%) of affected patients also report symptoms of disabling fatigue and self-described "brain fog" or problems with attention. Patients also report a high incidence (50%) of fibromyalgia, joint pain, and sleep disorders. Other symptoms include hair loss, decline in vision, neurological disorders and disintegration of teeth in the absence of caries or gingivitis. Most patients are unable to continue working, and those who are able to continue working report that they do not function optimally."

This makes it very clear that it is the MRF that is reporting the symptoms. Does anyone object to this change? Pez1103 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

This article is verifiable and reliable (from a major peer reviewed paper and indexed in Pubmed) and the authors are notable and it was quoted appropriately. Good work, Pez. I think you are getting the idea. I added the reference. --Dematt 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The paper is already reference in the article. It's an opinion piece, look it says "Current Opinion" at the top of the page. It also says "Morgellons disease is a mysterious skin disorder that was first described more that 300 years ago", which is just blatently wrong. The authors are Leitao, who founded the MRF and Stricker and Savely who together run a clinic in San Francisco that sells "treatments" for "Morgellons", which stinks of quackery to me. They are not credible, and this article is not a scientific paper, it is NOT PEER REVIEWED, it's just their opinions. It's part of the story, and should be included, but it is not evidence that Morgellons is a distinct disease. If you want the real story, read the article in Nature, which says: ""There really is no scientific basis at this point to believe that this is real," says Stephen Stone, president of the American Academy of Dermatology" [12]. This all needs to be reflected in the article. Herd of Swine 18:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

(An edit conflict delayed this.) I must agree with Herd of Swine, especially in light of their false declaration: "The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the contents of this article." That statement is patently false. They should have openly declared that they have a vested interest in finding a postive diagnosis: Leitao - because her whole reputaton rests on it, and the two MDs who specialize in treating these patients.

I also agree that the opinion piece should still be mentioned, but clearly identified as the opinion of advocates who have a vested interest in keeping the belief in this condition alive. That has nothing to do with the question of whether it really is an emerging condition. If and when evidence is presented that it really is, we'll have to present the current evidence, which is that most cases are associated with psychosomatic illnesses, Lyme disease, delusions of parasitosis, and identifiable parasites or skin disorders.

So far we're dealing with Unidentified Morgellons Phenomena (UMP), which, just like UFOs, are often the product of delusional thinking. Once we have proof, they will cease to be UMP, and become IMP -- Identified Morgellons Phenomena. Then we'll have a real biological disease. Until then I'll take the word of the collective wisdom and experience of the dermatology profession (as expressed by the president of the American Academy of Dermatology) anyday, over anyone with a vested interest in creating more patients. (THey'll change their tune when more evidence is forthcoming, since they have the most to gain from this being a real disease.)

This has many similarities to Betty Martini's campaign against Aspartame. The phemomenon is called "Cyberchondria," and it's extremely contagious. -- Fyslee 19:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no scientific basis to believe it is real and there is no scientific basis to prove that it is not real. There has been no formal scientific research. The CDC is investigating it. I think we've beaten that point to death. I'd like to make the change to the symptoms section. It appears that I have consensus to do so. Pez1103 19:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

There is no proof is science, the article needs to reflect the amount and quality of evidence and opinions. The preponderence of evidence and scientific opinion indicates it is not a real disease, and that is what should be written in the article. But go ahead and make your bold changes - it's a living article, and changes can always be re-changed, or undone, if they are not of the standard that wikipedia expects. Did you read the sections recommended on your talk page? Herd of Swine 19:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a list of symptoms -- that's it. It's not a declaration that the disease is "real." Preponderence of evidence -- there is no evidence at all. Just preliminary research. I don't think that my changes are bold at all.Pez1103 20:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Be careful when copying

Make sure you copy the coded version, not just the readable version. That will keep signatures and references intact, as well as indenting and other formatting. -- Fyslee 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fyslee. I just don't understand what the coded version is or what you mean about referencing. Can I just put the URL and you take it from there? Thanks Pez1103 00:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I mean the version you see when in the editing mode. That's often the best way to copy material. You can see the referencing code format in that mode. Just find a section with the small numbers. Copy that to your own sandbox and practice. I'll make a sandbox for you. -- Fyslee 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried and failed at sandbox. Pez1103 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I just used it and it works just fine. Here it is: User:Pez1103/Sandbox. -- Fyslee 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction appears biased, comments in caps. We need something more straightforword that reflects that the whole matter is currently under investigation and that Wikipedia will remain neutral until all the evidence is in.

Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial name THE NAME OF THE DISEASE IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL (OPINION) for an alleged THE TONE OF THIS WORD HAS A NEG CONNOTATION polysymptomatic syndrome characterized ITS CHARACTERIZED BY MORE THAN THAT by patients finding fibers on their skin THEY FIND FIBERS COMING OUT FROM SORES, which they believe are related to other symptoms, including intense itching, skin lesions, as well as a wide range of other chronic symptoms. These symptoms are occasionally accompanied by the belief in an infestation by some unknown arthropod or parasite THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE DELETED. The term Morgellons is not in accepted use by the medical community and the syndrome is widely held CAN YOU PROVE IT IS WIDELY HELD OR ONLY SOMETIMES DIAGNOSED AS by the medical community to be a type of delusional parasitosis. There is no agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment. Pressure from patients, including doctors and nurses who claim to have a host of difficult symptoms A HOST OF DIFFICULT SYMPTOMS OR THE DRAFT CASE DEFINITION FOR MORGELLONS DISEASE, resulted in a June 2006 statement from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it had begun organizing a committee for the purpose of investigating Morgellons to determine whether it exists. DID THE CDC SAY THAT THEY WERE INVESTIGATING IT DUE TO PRESSURE FROM PATIENTS? I DOUBT IT.

How about this as the first paragraph? It is more factual and unbiased.

Morgellons or Morgellons disease is the name of what may be a newly emerging infectious disease. There is not yet an agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment for this disease. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is preparing to conduct a full investigation.

There are no sources whatsoever listed for the existing introduction. Thanks Pez1103 00:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

The first paragraph is a summary of the article as a whole, so the references are there. All the statements in the first should be expanded upon in following sections. It think it's pretty good so far, but could be tidied a bit. Howzabout:

Morgellons or Morgellons disease is an alleged polysymptomatic syndrome characterized by patients finding fibers on their skin, which they believe are related to other symptoms, including intense itching, skin lesions, and fatigue as well as a wide range of other chronic symptoms. These symptoms are occasionally accompanied by the belief in an infestation by some unknown arthropod or parasite. The term Morgellons is not in accepted use by the medical community and the syndrome is widely held by the medical community to be a type of delusional parasitosis. There is no agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment. In October 2006 the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it was about to begin an in-the-field epidemiological study in Southern California.

(the last bit on the CDC from this reference: [13] which probably needs a paragraph of it's own. Herd of Swine 00:53, 29 October 2006

How's about: Morgellons or Morgellons disease is polysymptomatic syndrome characterized by patients finding fibers in and under their skin, which may be related to other symptoms, including intense itching, skin lesions, fatigue and neurological problems. The term Morgellons is not yet in accepted use by the medical community. There is no agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment. In June, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it was about to begin thorough investigation of the disease(UTC)

Do I have consensus to change this? Thanks Pez1103 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

No. That version only presents the Morgellon's believers version of events as fact, when the article should be about how a few people have proposed the disease with no evidence, and it has been adopted by people who mostly suffer from Delusions of Parasitosis, and that the medical community views Morgellons as DOP, even to the extent as using the term "Morgellons" when discussing the disease with patients. These are all facts, which are not in dispute. Herd of Swine 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You have no basis for the comment that the "medical community views Morgellons as DOP." The medical community is divided on this. I'm tired of making this same point over and over. If the medical community were convinced that they were synomonous, the CDC wouldn't bother to investigate it and there wouldn't be doctors who believe it exists and researchers looking into it. The "widely held as delusional" was already changed yesterday by the editor. Pez1103 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I think you misunderstand what the CDC is doing. They are trying to find if there is a homogenous patient group, and then if anything can be done about it. Herd of Swine 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is your basis for "These symptoms are occasionally accompanied by the belief in an infestation by some unknown arthropod or parasite"? Where is your basis for saying that the name is controversial? If you don't have a basis for these comments, they need to be deleted.

What is the purpose of this statement, except to make people look crazy: These symptoms are occasionally accompanied by the belief in an infestation by some unknown arthropod or parasite. You said that the intro should summarize what is in the article -- this is not mentioned in the article.

Also, the symptoms make it very clear that the fibers are found in and under the skin, not on top of the skin. That has to be changed. Pez1103 01:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

You have no right to reinsert "widely held as delusional" when the editor already changed it in the DOP section. You have no basis for this statement. I think it would be more accurate to quote the NY times article and state that the medical community is divided.Pez1103 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Let's try to achieve a balance here. The medical community is divided about 5000000 to 5, so you need to reflect this. How about the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology from this month which says: "The majority of patients concerned about having Morgellons disease are diagnosed with delusions of parasitosis. Dermatologists have discussed with the lay press their impression that the disease actually represents delusions of parasitosis" [14]. You've also seen these quotes [15] "“This is not a mysterious disease,” says Dr Norman Levine, a Professor of Dermatology at the University of Arizona. “If you polled 10,000 dermatologists, everyone would agree with me.” He says he has seen 100 patients suffering from such symptoms, and they responded well to treatment, including a drug called Pimozide, which is used for chronic schizophrenia." You can't just pick one quote from the press that totally misrepresents the situation in the light of overwhelming evidence. Herd of Swine 01:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And on the subject of "controversial", try searching for "morgellons+controversial" [16]. Herd of Swine 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The NY times states: "Doctors themselves are divided over whether Morgellons is a medical or a psychiatric illness." Pez1103 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

The last sentence needs to be changed. The CDC is conducting a thorough investigation. Pez1103 03:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology uses as its source for the quote above "The majority of patients concerned about having Morgellons disease are diagnosed with delusions of parasitosis" the Morgellons Foundation website. They are actually misquoting the website which says that Morgellons is frequently misdiagnosed as DOP. The foundation also states that people with Morgellons usually go to at least 10 doctors and get LOTS of diagnoses, including those on the list of the article. The point is next to no one will go to the doctor and get a diagnosis of Morgellons because it is not yet accepted by the medical community and will not be until either the CDC establishes it as such or formal research is conducted and published. Pez1103 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

No, they get diagnosed with DOP, everyone agree with that. The MRF just thinks it's a wrong diagnosis - but it's still a diagnosis. Herd of Swine 04:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fylsee already changed this statement in the delusional parasitosis section. It was already decided that it was too biased. It needs to be changed here too. Pez1103 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I haven't misunderstood what the CDC is doing. In the NY times article, Dan Rutz said that if there is a bug or something causing this, they will find it pretty quickly. That means that they will be looking for cause too. I've spoken to Dan Rutz. The investigation is not narrow like the article implies. Pez1103 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Controversy

I think that the section "MRF controversy" should be deleted entirely. It is unnecessarily inflamatory. There is absolutely no proof of any impropriety, yet the way it is worded makes that implication.Pez1103 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I can see your point here, but since Morgellons was created and popularized by the MRF, their credibility as an organization is very relevant backgroun perspective. Herd of Swine 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that they created Morgellons. Your implying that it isn't a real disease. I don't think that the MRF has the power to create a physical ailment. A few people resigned because they didn't agree how the money was being spent. Even Wymore said in a recent news article that he did not believe anyone engaged in any wrongdoing. The Wikipedia now implies something that just isn't based on fact. The sole purpose of this section is to unjustifiably discredit the organization. Hardly follows the NPOV perspective Pez1103 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

They created the name, and the idea that the varied symptoms represent a new disease. Obviously they did not create the cause of the symptoms. The created the definition, they popularize the idea that the definition describes a new disease. Their credibilty is important and needs to be included. Herd of Swine 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, there was a disagreement about how the money should be spent. There was no wrongdoing -- therefore it is irrelevant to the credibility of the organization. Pez1103 00:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

If this section does remain, I suggest that we add Wymore's quote that he did not believe that there was any wrongdoing. This is essential to give the section a NPOV. Any objections to adding the following?

""I am confident that the long-term goals were the same among the various board members — a cure for Morgellons — but the short-term goals and day-to-day operational visions were not shared," says Dr. Wymore, assistant professor of pharmacology at Oklahoma State University's Center for Health Sciences (OSU-CHS). "I am confident that there was no wrong-doing on the part of anyone." [[17]]Pez1103 13:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Wymore resigned as well, Their chief medical advisor (Smith) resigned, the chairman (Holman) resigned, the head of the nurse advisory board (Casey) resigned, along with all the nurses. That's more than half the board - hardly a "few people". The people who left have since set up a competing organization (the New Morgellons Order [18]) that organized a two day event with music and lectures by Wymore [19], whereas the MRF have done nothing for the last three months. This evisceration of the MRF is entirely relevent as it speaks to the credibility of its founder, Leitao. Herd of Swine 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The MRF has done a lot of things the past few months. Wymore still has a working relationship with the foundation. I'd like to add the quote if people object to deleting the section.Pez1103 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Really? What have they done? There has been NO news, and no changes to their web site in the last three months. Do you work for the MRF? Herd of Swine 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to argue with you. Do you have an objection to the addition?Pez1103 20:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I don't want to argue with you either. I don't see how Wymore's opinion on the matter adds anything to the article. Herd of Swine 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wymore resigned. You are alleging that it was due to impropriety - however, he says that it was not. I think his opinion is very relevant. Either we need to add this quote to give the section some balance or delete the section. Pez1103 22:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I'm not alleging anything. The article simply reflects the material in the Harlan reference:

"The chief researcher involved with Morgellons, Dr. Randy Wymore, an Oklahoma State University assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology, decided to distance himself from the organization and its controversy. Though he still will research the disease and maintain a working relationship with the foundation, he has surrendered his title as director of research."

Again, since the credibilty of the Morgellons idea was built on the endorsement of Wymore, his leaving the MRF is significant. Herd of Swine 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But there is no credibility issue here. He said that there was no wrongdoing. That needs to be clarified. Pez1103 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Pez

Why did you change this back? You say that the section is relevant to show credibility. (On one hand, you say Wymore gave the group credibility, then on the other you say he's a renegade.) I think that the fact that his resignation had nothing to do with his belief that there was any wrongdoing is very relevant. I think we definitely need another opinion on this. Pez1103 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Randy Wymore gives the following reason for his resignation: "Randy Wymore has resigned as director of research for the Morgellons Research Foundation, a position he held on a temporary, volunteer basis. Wymore, assistant professor of pharmacology at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa, said his decision was based on schedule and a need to focus more on his university-based Morgellons Disease research.

Wymore and OSU-CHS remain committed to Morgellons research. Wymore will maintain his working relationship with the Morgellons Research Foundation. Morgellons research, education and treatment remain as the multifaceted approach to making progress against Morgellons Disease and improving the lives of those affected by it. It is important that individual patients, researchers, collectives of interested parties and non-profit organizations such as the Morgellons Research Foundation continue to focus on these necessary steps as we struggle to understand this mysterious condition. " [[20]]

To try to make it look like he left for any other reason is distortive and certainly not neutral. Pez1103 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

That's not his statement, that's the statement of the MRF. Why is that more credible than the previous statemnt saying Wymore: "decided to distance himself from the organization and its controversy" Herd of Swine 03:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But if you are going to make this statement, you need to explain why he decided to distance himself. The reason he gives is to devote more time to research, not that because of the controversy. To not clarify that makes the article misleading. Pez1103 11:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Herd of Swine your abuse of logic is unacceptable. "Again, since the credibilty of the Morgellons idea was built on the endorsement of Wymore, his leaving the MRF is significant." Nonsense. You are attempting to assert that Wymore's leaving reflects on the credibility of claims about Morgellons. Wymore left MRF, Wymore did not cease to endorse the recognition of Morgellons. If Wymore left because he no longer believes in Morgellons then that would have some bearing on the credibility of claims regarding the existence of Morgellons. However Wymore continues to believe in Morgellons. To state that Wymore lent credibility to the claims about Morgellons and so his leaving the MRF is relevent to the credibility of claims about Morgellons, even though you know full-well Wymore continues to endorse such claims is at best a serious logical mis-step and at worst blatantly dishonest. 218.101.69.20 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Logic's Friend

The MRF invented and popularized Morgellons, the credibilty of Morgellons is in part based on the MRF. Wymore's participation gave credibility to the MRF. He left the MRF, they lose credibility, since they don't have any scientists any more. Of course Wymore continues to lend credibilty to the idea of Morgellons (although he's cracking, calling Morgellons people "eccentric"), but it's all part of the story. All I said was it was "significant". It made the news, so it's obviously significant. Herd of Swine 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Randy Wymore

I also would like a section added on Randy Wymore since he was the first scientist to research Morgellons disease.

I would like to add this:

In 2005, Dr. Randy Wymore, from Oklahoma State University, became the first scientist to begin researching Morgellons disase. He volunteers his free time for this research, inspired by a real empathy for the sufferers of this disease.

“When I started looking into this, it wasn’t about treatment or figuring out what was causing this,” Wymore said. “It was really just to try and say: ‘Is there some evidence that there is a real disease here?’” He compared Morgellons fibers with everyday fibers he collected from clothes and department stores during a road trip with his family to California. Not one looked like the fibers festering out of and beneath the skin of Morgellons sufferers. Wymore is now convinced the condition is real. He said his fiber research should also silence critics who say Morgellons is a form of delusions in which patients believe parasites or bugs are attacking their skin. “Delusions of parasites is a purely psychiatric disorder,” Wymore said. “Morgellons is a physical pathology that happens to have some psychiatric effects.”

Source: [[21]]

Who knows what inspires Professor Wymore? That's hardly encyclopedic, Wymore is far more notable for his participation in the media campaign than for his research, which seems to amount to "we found some fibers we can't identify". I agree he's a big part of the story, but his "research" needs to be put in perspective. Herd of Swine 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Randy S. Wymore, Ph.D., assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology has taken on the research challenge in his academic research. 'Health care providers are shooting in the dark as to how to treat it. Antibiotics seem to help some, but if they are stopped the symptoms come back,' Wymore says. In coordinating research efforts, he sees a research challenge and a chance to help. 'I am doing this partly from scientific curiosity, but also with real empathy toward sufferers.' " [[22]]Pez1103 18:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Outside opinon

I saw a request for impartial editors at the Village Pump and read both the article and the talk page. Per WP:NPOV, the majority of article space should reflect the majority medical and scientific view: that Morgellons is not a disease. That doesn't mean for certain that nothing will come of this. Anyone over the age of 30 can remember when mainstream medicine believed peptic ulcers were caused by stress (see Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori). However, for every breakthrough discovery there are literally hundreds of medical quackeries. I don't know which this is, but I do know the burden of proof rests with those who want to challenge the medical consensus. Wikipedia can't be on the cutting edge of that process - we're here to document the discussion, not to conduct it. Durova 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the medical and scientific view is NOT that Morgellons is not a disease. It is that Morgellons is not yet officially recognized as a disease. There is too little research to conclusively say whether or not it is a disease. The article can be clear about that. The CDC is investigating whether or not it is a disease. The NY Times approached it by stating both sides of the argument; I think Wikipedia should do the same. I have references for every point that I made above. Can you argue against any of the changes that I want to make? 30 years ago was AIDS not a disease or was it just not established yet? The new opening paragraph that I suggested stated that Morgellons MAY BE a newly emerging infectious disease and that is currently under investigation by the CDC. To me that is a NPOV. Pez1103 11:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Durova makes a good point. We document current knowledge, and we don't predict the future. The article will constantly be revised to keep it up to date with new discoveries. As far as "cutting edge" goes, for every scientist who performs legitimate, properly performed, and approved cutting edge research, there are thousands of individuals, including some rogue MDs and scientists, who claim to be doing so, but are just building their practice and customer base, and filling their calendars with speaking appointments to preach their version of things. For them, the following adage applies: "If you're on the cutting edge, you're on the wrong side of the knife." Legitimate scientists don't boast about being on the cutting edge. They just do it. (Journalists are another matter!) A good way to find quacks on the internet is to do a search of the terms health + "cutting edge treatment". Why does it turn up lots of quacks? Simply because quacks boast (part of the definition of "quackery").

Another good quote:

• "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

-- Fyslee 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But no one is addressing any of the specific changes that I want to make to make the piece more balanced. Can we please start with duval county and me know which changes are acceptable? Pez1103 13:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I think the conversation is going too far down the "draw lines and pick sides" road. We are not qualified to draw these lines. As Durova states "we document the discussion" as well as the current condition. The state of the discussion is that Dr. Wyman began to study the claim made by Mary Leitao and there was enough there to convince the CDC to study the possibility. It will be years before the data will be complete. I can certainly see that a few of these patients who have been diagnosed with DP may have something that deposits under the skin. The question is how it got there, do any or all DP patients have it, and does it have anything to do with how it may change the treatment protocol? These are things that we can document as they happen, no matter what the outcome is. --Dematt 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am seeking comments regarding the specific changes I would like to make to make the Wiki article more complete and less biased. I would really appreciate feedback on these changes. I am not trying to get into a debate over whether or not Morgellons exists because too little is known at this point to say for sure. Thanks Pez1103 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Pez

Remember where the burden of evidence falls: it doesn't rest with the medical/scientific community to prove a negative. Priority at this article would have to rest with peer reviewed journal articles, of which there have been very few. Science journalism in the popular press has to rank a distant second, partly because so few reporters (or editors) actually have sufficient background in science. Right now the preponderance of evidence and expert opinion is against the proposition, so to change this article toward anything like a 50-50 balance would skew it unduly in favor of Morgellons believers. Durova 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My first read of this article definitely left me with the impression that these people were psychotic, so I think that POV has been well covered. Pez, I think you do make a good point that the other POV needs to be made. Both POVs need to be presented in a NPOV sympathetic tone. This seems especially important when you are suggesting someone is delusional. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.

Also, please take it slowly. No need to rush through this and making too many changes at one time makes it difficult for those of us who are working on other articles to stay current. What specific changes are you talking about. --Dematt 02:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Pez that the article as it currently reads is slanted toward the view that Morgellons is not a biological disease but rather a mental illness. My only concern would be that the article could be edited too far in the other direction.--Caliga10 03:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Caliga. As you are a veteran here, I know I don't have to tell you that is all the more reason why using our verifiable and reliable sources and citing them accurately should result in the current state of the literature. Remember the proper use of primary and secondary sources and we should be okay. Primary sources should be treated as opinion, if used at all. Secondary sources are what we really want, and peer reviewed is better, but we don't have that option, so we will have to use a lot of opinion here. Lets just agree to WP:AGF and if we really want to get it right, try writing for the enemy --Dematt 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the introduction section, the controversy section and the duval section and give your outside opinion. Also, do I have permission to add the pro-morg doctor quotes and the wymore section? I'd like to hear from someone other than herd. Thanks Pez1103 03:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Lead

Okay, this is the current lead:

• Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial name for an alleged polysymptomatic syndrome characterized by patients finding fibers in and under their skin, which they believe are related to other symptoms, including intense itching, skin lesions, as well as a wide range of other chronic symptoms. These symptoms are occasionally accompanied by the belief in an infestation by some unknown arthropod or parasite. The term Morgellons is not in accepted use by the medical community and the syndrome is widely held by the medical community to be a type of delusional parasitosis. There is no agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment. Pressure from patients, including doctors and nurses who claim to have a host of difficult symptoms, resulted in a June 2006 statement from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it had begun organizing a committee for the purpose of investigating Morgellons to determine whether it exists.

I have read the discussion on the introduction. This was Pez's suggestion:

• Morgellons or Morgellons disease is polysymptomatic syndrome characterized by patients finding fibers in and under their skin, which may be related to other symptoms, including intense itching, skin lesions, fatigue and neurological problems. The term Morgellons is not yet in accepted use by the medical community. There is no agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment. In June, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it was about to begin thorough investigation of the disease.

IMO, the first is more complete and packed with a lot of pertinent information. You have a valid argument that alleged and medical community are WP:weasel words that could be eliminated. The tone could be made a little more sympathetic, but the second version goes too far in the other direction. Maybe we should consider something along the lines of:

• Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial 17th century name that has been given to a speculated and equally controversial modern day condition. Patients describe the polysymptomatic syndrome as characterized by skin rashes accompanied by intense itching and stinging in which they find "fibers" in and under their skin. They are accompanied by chronic fatique, depression or other psychological disorders that are unresponsive to conventional medical care. The current medical diagnosis remains delusional parasitosis. There is no consensus on etiology, diagnostic criteria or treatment. In June 2006, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began organizing a committee for the purpose of investigating Morgellons to determine whether it exists.

Your turn, what does everybody think? --Dematt 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable. You might change "skin rashes" to something else ("skin problems"? ", since they don't generally talk of rashes, more often it's the "lesions" and a whole range of other things. I also don't think you need to mention 17th century in the lead, as it's a minor point, and is distracting. Herd of Swine 04:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --Dematt 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The symptoms you've included in the lead aren't consistent wiht the symptoms section. Depression isn't a symptom. "Morgellons symptoms include skin lesions which can be anything from minor to disfiguring in their appearance, sensations of crawling and biting on and under the skin, and the appearance of fibers and granules coming out of the skin. According to statistics from the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), the majority (95%) of affected patients also report symptoms of disabling fatigue and self-described "brain fog" or problems with attention. Patients also report a high incidence (50%) of fibromyalgia, joint pain, and sleep disorders. Other symptoms include hair loss, decline in vision, neurological disorders and disintegration of teeth in the absence of caries or gingivitis."

Okay, I hear you. --Dematt 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"The current medical diagnosis remains delusional parasitosis. " --- this statement just is not true. It is just one of the diagnoses given to someone who thinks that they have the disease. Think about it. If you go to the doctor with joint pain you won't be diagnosed with DOP. Read the NY times article -- it gives an example of all the diagnosis that one person was given. Please read my new entries in the introduction section. The fact remains that this statement was already changed in the delusional parasitotis section and needs to be eliminated in the introduction, unless you are wiling to list all of the possible diagnoses given to someone with this disease. Pez1103 11:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Understood. Need to think about this one. Anybody else? --Dematt 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you call disfiguring skin lesions a skin "problem"? Pez1103 11:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

I don't remeber calling them a problem. --Dematt 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"other psychological disorders that are unresponsive to conventional medical care." Where did this come from?

Thought is was better than: "These symptoms are occasionally accompanied by the belief in an infestation by some unknown arthropod or parasite." --Dematt 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the NY times article, Dan Rutz said that if there is a bug or something causing this, they will find it pretty quickly. That means that they will be looking for cause too. I've spoken to Dan Rutz. The investigation is not narrow like the article implies. The article says that they are conducting a thorough investigation. [[23]] Pez1103 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

How about: Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial name that has been given to a speculated and equally controversial modern day condition. Patients describe the polysymptomatic syndrome as characterized by skin lesions and the appearance of fibers and granules coming out of the skin. There is no consensus on etiology, diagnostic criteria or treatment. In June 2006, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began a thorough investigation of this disease. Pez1103 12:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Okay, but we have to include some sort of hint as to the controversy that the remainder of the article exhibits, but we can do it in a NPOV manner. Maybe something like:

• Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial name that has been given to a speculated and equally controversial modern day condition. Currently, there is no consensus on etiology, diagnostic criteria or treatment. Patients that claim to have the disease describe the polysymptomatic syndrome as primarily characterized by skin lesions and the appearance of fibers and granules coming out of the skin. In June 2006, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began a thorough investigation of this claim.

Hows that? --Dematt 13:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Thank you. Now will you please check out the Duval County quote from above and see what you think? 204.115.33.45 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Your welcome, is it okay with herd and Fyslee? Meanwhile I'll check with Duvall. --Dematt 15:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm no different than anybody else here, including you;) If we want changes to stick and the article to become stable it helps to get everybody from different POVs to agree on the best possible consensus, then we are more likely to keep it right. --Dematt 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Differential Diagnosis section

"Doctors do not offer a diagnosis of Morgellons. While sufferers often initially present with a self-diagnosis, they also continue to self-diagnose after conventional treatments for the medical diagnosis seem not to be working, or after they refuse to accept the diagnosis. At this point the patient is sometimes diagnosed with delusional parasitosis."

There is no basis for this comment -- certainly no proof. It doesn't make sense. If my doctor says I have scabies, for example, and I disagree and say that I have Morgellons, he won't say -- OK you have DOP. You can only diagnose DOP appropriately if there are no physcial symptoms and obviously there are physical symptoms or I wouldn't have been diagnosed with scabies in the first place. If DOP were an accurate diagnosis, it would respond to anti-psychotics. If the other diagnoses were correct, they would have responded to convential treatment. The fact that they don't respond is a good sign that there may be a new disease.

I think that this paragraph should be deleted. 204.115.33.45 15:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

The section seems to me to confine itself to factual statements, and has valid refereces (though it would benefit from having more).

You make a few assumptions:

• If my doctor says I have scabies, for example, and I disagree and say that I have Morgellons, he won't say -- OK you have DOP. I don't see why you say this doesn't make sense. Some doctors, hopefully if various other indications are met, might do exactly that.
• You can only diagnose DOP appropriately if there are no physical symptoms Not correct; illnesses with psychosomatic origins often manifest physical symptoms. That's obviously possible in this case, where the symptoms might be caused by excessive scratching.
• If the other diagnoses were correct, they would have responded to conventional treatment. Few disease treatments are 100% effective.
• If DOP were an accurate diagnosis, it would respond to anti-psychotics. It would be nice if psychoactive medications were this magically 100% effective, but they aren't.

KarlBunker 17:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KarlBunker on this one, though I felt that the conversation really belongs on the delusional parasitosis article and only adds POV editorial when used in this differential diagnosis section. Ddx is only the list of possibilities that a doctor works through on his way to arriving at a final diagnosis. This is pretty cut and dry and shouldn't really need any direction given to the reader. The rest of the article continues to handle that. --Dematt 17:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Karl/Dematt - have you read over the other sections? I would like your input on the other sections that are still unresolved. Thanks. 204.115.33.45 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Outstanding Issues -- Please comment

Outstanding issues: Issue #1 Exisiting Language: "In May 2006 the Morgellons Research Foundation was featured in a number of local TV news segments coordinated by the MRF's director of communications. [3] This resulted in a significant rise in the public awareness of the term Morgellons. Earlier, in February 2005, a report on a local Fox affiliate in Duval County, Florida, prompted the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) to investigate. Their report concludes: […] it was determined after extensive reviewing of these articles that Morgellons Disease is synonymous with delusional parasitosis (CDC, 1999). DCHD Epidemiology consulted a pediatric dermatologist within the health department for his professional opinion. It was concluded that this is a psychological condition that has been mentioned in literature for hundreds of years. [4] The DCHD report notes that there was a significant spike in reported cases after the news report and that "this is attributed to the airing of Fox News’ coverage of the illness and is not a true cluster of disease." [5]

Suggested revised language: . . . Earlier, in February 2005, a report on a local Fox affiliate in Duval County, Florida, prompted the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) to investigate. They conducted a literature review and consulted with a dermatologist who did not see any of the people who claimed to have Morgellons. Based on this, they concluded that Morgellons Disease is synonymous with delusional parasitosis (CDC, 1999). However, DCHD did not perform a research study. They stated "[Studies] prove to be costly and require support from various medical specialists. DCHD does not currently have the resources to support such a study here in Jacksonville."

Issue #2 I would like to add some quotes from Doctors who believe that Morgellons is real. The doctors who believe it is DOP are quoted. I think this is necessary to balance the article

Issue #3 I would like to add something to the Controversy section to make it less biased and inflamatory and more NPOV and factual : "I am confident that the long-term goals were the same among the various board members — a cure for Morgellons — but the short-term goals and day-to-day operational visions were not shared," says Dr. Wymore, assistant professor of pharmacology at Oklahoma State University's Center for Health Sciences (OSU-CHS). "I am confident that there was no wrong-doing on the part of anyone." 11 Randy Wymore gave the following reason for his resignation: "Randy Wymore has resigned as director of research for the Morgellons Research Foundation, a position he held on a temporary, volunteer basis. Wymore, assistant professor of pharmacology at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa, said his decision was based on schedule and a need to focus more on his university-based Morgellons Disease research." 14

Issue #4 I would like to add a section on Randy Wymore. He is really the pioneer of Morgellons research and deserves the attention. The suggested language is above.204.115.33.49 19:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

You should add a quote from a dermatologist or a psychologist who thinks it is real. Alternative MDs and assistent professors speculating on possibly psychosomatic or self-inflicted skin conditions are not very convincing. Herd of Swine 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wymore is one of the only people in the country to conduct research on the fibers. I think his comments are very relevant. Why should we be limited to dermatologists? It is much more than a skin condition -- see the symptoms section. I think that an infectious disease specialist would be approprate. Also, given the strong link between Morgellons and Lyme disease, a lyme disease specialist would also be someone good to quote -- like Dr. Sticker. 204.115.33.49 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Nobody is saying limit it to dermatologists. But they are the best people to comment, since they are doctors who have examine many people who think they have Morgellons. Dermatologists and other doctors have even written articles about Morgellons, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology [24]. Wymore's contribution seems to be limited to assuring the patients that their problem is real (which it is), and saying he can't figure out what all the fibers are. He's not an expert on any of the issues, so his quotes should be given appropiate weight. You know you can't find a dermatologist who thinks Morgellons is real, because there are none. Dermatologists and psychologists are on the front line in this situation. They actually examine the patients, their skins, their blood and their fibers. After tens of thousands of examinations NOT ONE DERMATOLOGIST has said this is a real condition. Those are facts, and need to be reflected in the article. Herd of Swine 19:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Doctors are trained to look for signed of known diseases. Hypothetically, if I have Morgellons and go to the derm, I will be diagnosed with something else or told that he can't figure out what I have. Wymore says much more than you state above. How could different people all over the country produce the exact same unknown fibers UNDERNEATH their skin? This is far more relevant than Duval county reading articles and saying the disease is DOP -- and that is something that you want to retain in the Wikipedia. 204.115.33.49 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Where are the other commenters -- please -- we need a third party reviewer. 204.115.33.49 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Who says they all have the same fibers? The photos on the internet all look different. And if there are 7000 cases, they typically got to around 10 doctors, so that's 70,000 doctor visits. After 70,000 visits over the last few years, and NOBODY has ever published anything about this interesting new disease? In fact everything written is about how the patients either have something else and/or they have some kind of delusion. Norman Levine has seen 100 Morgellons patients, Peter Lynch has seen 75, Another mentions 50 patients. NONE have show evidence of any new disease pathology. All were diagnosed DOP. [25].

Wikipedia articles are not there to debate if things are real or not. They are there to report the facts. The facts are that the vast majority of doctors who examine people who think they have Morgellons have diagnosed them as delusional (in addition to whatever physical illnesses they have, like eczema). While the opinions of a few (very very few) doctors and scientists are intersting, they need to be portrayed as the fringe opinions that they are. This is not an even divide, it's practically the entire medical profession against a few doctors operating outside their areas of expertise. That's the story, that's what should be written. Herd of Swine 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely that Wiki should just report the facts. I think that your comments are very biased. There are other doctors that have seen numerous people with Morgellons and agree that it is real. You keep saying the same thing over and over. If you read the comments from 3rd parties above, they agree that the article is very biased, and it is.

The fibers are the same. The researcher who examined the fibers said that they were the same. I quoted references for this. This is not in dispute. 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Suggestion

Surely there is some professional association of American dermatologists with a periodical journal. Has anyone tried finding pro/con articles related to Morgellon's in such a publication?--Caliga10 20:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this should get into a debate over whether or not it is real. We will not know until more research is done. There has been no formal research, just preliminary findings. I suggested 4 relatively minor changes to make the article less biased. Would you please read over the suggested changes and let me know if you agree? Thanks 204.115.33.49 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Caliga10, see Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Volume 55, Issue 5 :[26] and [27], and the excerpt from another article in the same issue here: [28]. There is an article in Nature here [29], which says, and I quote: "Most experts deny the disease exists" and "There really is no scientific basis at this point to believe that this is real. - Stephen Stone - President of the American Academy of Dermatology" Herd of Swine 20:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing talk page

Pez, don't change the talkpage, it changes the flow of conversation. I know sometimes it works better for you, but it may place my comments out of context and be misleading. Thanks;) --Dematt 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - I was just trying to organize it because the comments about a given topic were in different sections and it was getting very hard to follow -- so I tried to create one section for all the remaining issues, but that didn't work either. I won't do this anymore. Pez1103 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, it can get confusing. That is why another reason to take it slow. Some of us are halfway around the world and by the time we read it, there are hours of new discussions. Also, if you use the colon: properly it will indent your conversation one tab. The next person indents again and thats how we can keep track of who said what and when. Its fun though! --Dematt 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

making changes without consulting with anyone

Herd is making changes to the document without consulting with anyone at all. That is really violating the rules, isn't it? I did it because I was brand new, but Herd's changing things without even putting anything in the discussion. It makes this whole process a bit of a farce. Pez1103pez

It was a small change that you had asked for (removing the implication that Wymore resigned because of the financial problems). We don't have to vote on every change, it's a collaberative process. There are no hard rules here. It's just a good idea to get some consensus before making sweeping changes, especially to material that has been there for a while and that was probably also achieved by consensus. Everyone is an editor, everyone can edit however they want. But everyon also has to accept that others can change, delete or add to their edits. In your case you eviscerated the article, and made it strongly POV. Others attempted to restore balance. That's just the way it works. It's an endless process of information annealing. Herd of Swine 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your change to the lead. Pez1103 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Content from the Nature article.

I added "Most experts deny the disease exists", from this article [30]. I did this because Nature is one of the world's oldest and most respected scientific journals, and in the article they quote the president of the American Academy of Dermatology saying "There really is no scientific basis at this point to believe that this is real" and the article also states:

"Most dermatologists deny the disease exists, saying the people who claim to suffer from it have either common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis, in which people become irrationally convinced that they harbor parasites. In such disorders, people often have lesions, but those are caused by the patients' own scratching and picking".

This reflects the current thinking on Morgellons from experts in the field, and needs to be represented in the article. I suggest a section me made on "Medical community response", or similar. Herd of Swine 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the date of that article? If you add that section, I think that the Wymore section needs to be added for balance along with quotes from those who believe that the disease is real. Pez1103 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) pez

the date is in the reference, 30 August 2006 Herd of Swine 03:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't argue with a reference like that. Nature is one of the best sources you can cite. --Dematt 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to re-organize beginning

Can we re-organize the beginning of this article? It seems to be breaking the flow to go from the Lead to Morgellons Research Foundation and then to Symptoms. I'll try something and you guys can let me know what you think. We can always cahnge it back. --Dematt 04:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. It's kind of evolved oddly and is due for a re-working. Herd of Swine 05:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dematt - Please read the other remaining issues and comment. ThanksPez1103 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)pez

There is formal research in progress. The result have not yet been published. It isn't that no one is researching this issue. I can think of 4 scientists who are currently doing this. Pez1103 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Great... can you name them and cite sources for that claim? That is helpful information.--Caliga10 14:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Three are mentioned above: Wymore, Citovsky, and Karjoo. The fourth is Dr. Staninger.... sorry for the delay. I had to look it up. Pez1103 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem.--Caliga10 15:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New Lead

I think that the lead needs to specify that there has been no formal reserach to date. Otherwise, the piece is biased. The conclusions that the disease does not exist are speculative, regardless of where they are cited. Pez1103 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)pez

Also saying "most experts" deny the disease exists is too broad. The article says dermatologists. If this is an infectious disease, then the opinion of infectious disease specialists are relevent. If this is a parasite, the opinion of an expert in that field would be relevant.

How about this for the lead? "Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease" is a controversial name that has been given to a speculated and equally controversial modern day condition. Currently, there is no known etiology or treatment, and the diagnosic criteria has not yet been formally established. Patients who claim to have the disease describe the polysymptomatic syndrome as primarily characterized by skin lesions and the appearance of fibers and granules coming out of the skin. Most dermatologists deny the disease exists. [1] However, there has been no formal research to date to conclusively prove one way or another. In June 2006, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began a thorough investigation of this claim.Pez1103 13:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)pez

"Most Experts" is a direct quote from Nature, you want to re-write Nature? Herd of Swine 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that there has been no formal research, if added, needs be be in the correct context. There has been "no formal research" into a lot of fringe medicine, that does not make the MORE likely to exist, it makes them LESS. Please don't try to skew the facts to support your opinion - reflect the prevelent opinion of the medical community Herd of Swine 14:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You sited "most dermatologists" above. I can't read the article because I do not subscribe. Would you reproduce it somewhere so that I can read it? Pez1103 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is ongoing research -- just no finalized formal research. The fact is you don't know whether or not this disease exists. No one knows and no one will know until research is done. The article needs to be clear on that. Doctors are giving their opinion -- you only want to cite the ones that think its DOP. There is a real possibility that it exists. The preliminary research supports that it exists. Pez1103 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote from above: "the president of the American Academy of Dermatology saying "There really is no scientific basis at this point to believe that this is real"" NOTE it says AT THIS POINT. They are not dismissing the possibility that future research could change this. Pez1103 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there specific areas of the current article that, in your opinion, discount this claim?--Caliga10 15:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Caliga - I don't understand what you are askingPez1103 15:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking if, in your opinion, there are areas of the article as it is currently written that make it clear that future research could change the medical community's opinion of the disease one way or the other, or not? In other words, do you think the article as written presents a viewpoint suggesting that Morgellons is clearly a hoax?--Caliga10 15:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

as I stated above, I can't view the article. How could it possibly "clearly be a hoax"? The CDC is spending a lot of money bringing in 100 people who claim to have this disease and running tests on them. I would like to see the article. Pez1103 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Pez... I meant the Wikipedia Morgellons article (this one), not the Nature article. Sorry to confuse you with that question.--Caliga10 16:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - I still think that the article is biased. The whole Schwartz thing is in there to make the doctor look as crazy as possible, the controversy section is completely distorted, there is no mention of doctors who believe in the disease, only those who think it's DOP. It's better than it was on Friday, but yes, I still think it's biased -- not that it says it is a hoax, but that it is a mental illness. Pez1103 16:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did a re-read and I would agree that it still seems like the article is a little biased toward it being a mental illness (sorry, you are right, 'hoax' was a poor choice of words on my part). I think the Harvey and Schwartz references show that the article as written makes the argument that the disease could be biological in nature and not purely a case of DOP. Let me think on the section wording in there and see if I can suggest modification addressing your complaint that currently it makes Schwartz "look as crazy as possible".--Caliga10 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To see the quote from Nature, go to nature.com, and type "morgellons" into the search box. There you will see the summary of the article, which says "SUMMARY: Most experts deny the disease exists". The article appeares in print (Nature Medicine 12, 982 - 982 (01 Sep 2006)). Herd of Swine 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the actual article say "dermatologists" or "experts"? I'd like to see the whole article, not just the summary. Pez1103 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The article uses both "experts" and "dermatologists". But the question is: do you actually deny that "most experts deny the disease exists"? Is that not what you are fighting against? It's obviously true, Nature says so, the president of the American Academy of Dermatology says so. Every dermatologist, psychiatrist and entomologist quoted in articles on the subject says so. It's not just "derms", it's the whole field of experts. Do you want me to find some more quotes to illustrate this? Herd of Swine 16:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why won't you reproduce the article so that other people can read it? Pez1103 16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Herd - Please refrain from using expressions like "morgellon believers" -- it is condescending. There are a lot of people who would like more research -- even the skeptics. Please mention your changes in the discussion page before making them on the article.

That was not me, that was Chairboy's edit you just reverted without discussion, perhaps you should talk to him? And what term would you prefer?

Here's the Nature article: User:Herd_of_Swine/nature - just put it up there temporarily for discussion, as it's copyrighted. Herd of Swine 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A further suggestion

I think one of the problems here is that the article layout isn't ideal for a controversial, disputed item such as Morgellons. I created an article a while back on a controversial archeological item called The Skeleton in Armor. I tried to maintain a very strict NPOV when I wrote this article. Why don't folks take a look (I'm not trying to toot my own horn in doing this, but it was an example that immediately sprung to mind) and see what you think re: the layout? Note how I laid out sections for each possibility, including 'fraud'. No editor should feel they 'own' specific sections of an article, but given the fact that there is debate regarding this condition "in real life" in addition to on this talk page, I see no harm in making the article clearly reflective of this fact.--Caliga10 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

feel free to do whatever to make this article more neutral. Think about it. If this turns out to be a real disease, people with this affliction are damaged by a biased wikipedia article saying that they are mentally ill. If they go to their doctor or their legislature looking for support, and the doctor or staff look up Wikipedia, the person will be dismissed as crazy. A biased article can be very damaging to a group of people who may well be suffering from a very devastating physical illness. I'm not suggesting that Wike take a stand that the disease is real. I'm suggesting that it be neutral because the truth is without the research, there is too little known about the disease to make a determination. You can quote doctors who say its real, you can quote doctors who say it isn't, you can compare the credentials of the various doctors, and go round and round. It's the research that will ultimately determine the truth. There isn't even a formal case definition yet for this disease. Franky, I think that the article should be very brief and very nuetral, or maybe it shouldn't even exist until the CDC has finished their investigation. Pez1103 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect the current neutral status, and the current neutral status is "Doctors see this as a psychiatric disorder, but some non-doctors disagree". It's not a conspiracy against Morgellon believers, it's just a statement of fact. If a study finds that it does exist, then doctors will no longer label this a psychiatric disorder, but many of your changes employ weasel words (the official Wikipedia name for it) to improperly bend the conversation away from neutrality and towards a credence which is not currently correct. - CHAIRBOY

(☎) 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of repeating myself. There are many doctors who believe that the disease is real. REAL Doctors. There are several doctors who believe that they have Morg. REAL Doctors. There are reputable scientists who have looked into this and believe that it is real. Your statement isn't remotely neutral. "some non-doctors disagree" that is just insulting and shows that you have not read the discussion above. Pez1103 17:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pez, while I can appreciate your sentiment, the opposite effect is also entirely possible: if Morgellons is indeed a mental illness, be it DOP, a manifestation of Munchausen Syndrome, etc. then such people could use this article to actually make their condition worse, if it leans the other direction (i.e. toward suggestion the condition is biological in nature). So there is the potential to negatively affect peoples' lives regardless of the slant--all the more reason for us to try to ensure that there is no slant at all.

I agree. Because this article has the potential to do so much damage, we should repeal the article entirely. It is premature. Wait until the CDC finishes its investigation. Pez1103 17:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wording question

Pez, in this edit you added 'formal' to study, which implies that informal studies have been made. Please provide a citation to a reliable 'informal study' (which seems like a contradiction) to avoid the appearance of using weasel words to lend credibility to the subject that's not appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm using formal to distinguish it from preliminary research. I've cited some of the preliminary research above. Pez1103 17:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about changing it to "No clinical studies have been done on Morgellons", which is a direct quote from Dermatology times, Oct 1st, 2006 [31] Herd of Swine 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeal the article

Please read the comments in "further suggestions"

I support repealing this article until the CDC finishes its research. The potential damage of the exisiting article far outweighs any benefit. Pez1103 17:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "delete" the article?--Caliga10 18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

yes. Pez1103 18:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You are free to nominate the article as a candidate for deletion, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, I would not advise this at all. Herd of Swine 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually about to post the exact same response.--Caliga10 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Caliga - Can you make the article neutral? Pez1103 19:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I am not willing to commit to a substantial re-write at this time, because it seems like both you and Herd of Swine are content to make substantial changes without gaining consensus on the discussion page. See my further comments below.--Caliga10 19:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The CDC is conducting a full investigation.

According to the NY Times article last week - they are conducting a "full investigation." I think that should be stated in the lead.

Please stop

Pez, I notice that you have again begun to delete content en masse without gaining consensus on this talkpage, specifically content that supports a view different from the one you appear to hold. If you want the article to be deleted, as you previously stated, then please put it up for deletion review, rather than mangling it. Since I also note that Herd of Swine has been reverting/changing your work without gaining consensus, I am considering requesting that the page be protected for now to prevent this from becoming an all-out edit war.--Caliga10 19:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should discuss the lead. I think I'd better go and read up on "how to write a good lead". BRB Herd of Swine 19:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is here: Wikipedia:Lead_section Herd of Swine 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are constant changes being made -- i'm certainly not the only one. No one else is making any comments to the discussion page before making changes. Each time I look, someone has rewritten something, even though there is very little commentary. Go ahead and freeze it. This is riduculous. Pez1103 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone else added two full paragraphs without even mentioning it, so I deleted them. Pez1103 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

and I put them back. It's the large scale deletions that need to be discussed in advance, not additions. Discuss why these paragraphs should be deleted. Herd of Swine 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't put them back. You need to discuss them before you added them in the first place. Pez1103 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please freeze this article until we can get a neutral third party to mediate!!! Pez1103 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Caliga10, I understand the situation. However I have made only minor deletion of very old and out of date material, and for each deletion I have added and explnation in the edit summary. Herd of Swine 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's untrue. And it says to discuss things on this page before making changes and you are not following that rule. You keep making major changes and not a single one of your changes did you bring up here. I've written volumes trying to get consensus, and you do whatever you want. You are really abusing the forum. Pez1103 19:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pez, that's not a rule, this is not a forum. I'm trying to add a paragraph that lists the symptoms of Morgellons as listed on the MRF case definition, and also a paragraph that quotes the CDC spokesman discussing the aims of the study. What are your objections? Herd of Swine 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you notice the statement on top of the page? "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." PLEASE FREEZE THE PAGE UNTIL WE CAN GET AN ARBIRATRATOR Pez1103 19:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss this change:

The Morgellons Research Foundation published a Case Definition for physicians. This was described by the Los Angeles County Department of Health as "vague and covers many conditions", and by the CDC as "hopelessly broad".

Are there any other opinions published about the case definition you would like to add? Herd of Swine 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Caliga10 PLEASE FREEZE THE PAGEPez1103 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What, you don't want to discuss? What is wrong with my proposed additions? What about just that one? Herd of Swine 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss the 4 changes that i proposed days ago, before we move on to new ones. I really think we need an arbitrator. Pez1103 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletes and disingenuous editing

Pez, what are you doing here? I've been busy in the real world, come back and within a couple minutes discover that you are mass deleting well-referenced stuff. That's an absolute no-no! If stuff is properly referenced, you have no right to do that. When you find another editor restores it, that is even more reason to leave it alone, rather that engage in an edit war. While you are actively engaged in such behavior, you have no right to request that the article be locked (to prevent your own behavior)!

This edit is particularly disingenuous. It is a quote! Don't add your own POV to it: [32] -- Fyslee 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We were told that we have to discuss changes before making them, and Herd didn't follow this instruction and I'm being blamed??? I am not mass deleting well referenced stuff. I'm deleting stuff that was added without any discussion whatsoever. It wasn't my idea to lock it, but I think it is a good idea. I made several proposed changes days ago and have been waiting for someone to agree before I made them. Meanwhile Herd just makes changes without consulting anyone. Can I go ahead and add my quotes that I discussed Saturday? Pez1103 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pez, I'm trying to accomdate you, I've posted my proposed change, and I'd like some comment as to why you feel it's out of place. If you don't comment, then I'll assume you just deleted it as a point of order, and now that I've "discussed" it, I can go ahead and post it?

You should go ahead and add the quotes you mentioned earlier, it's a lot easier to judge when they are placed in context. Herd of Swine 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pez, why did you add words to the quote mentioned above? -- Fyslee 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

the second sentence of:

The Morgellons Research Foundation published a Case Definition for physicians. This was described by the Los Angeles County Department of Health as "vague and covers many conditions", and by the CDC as "hopelessly broad".

was all mine, pez just deleted it. I added the sentence to give the reaction of the medical community to the case definition. I wonder though if there shoudl be a seperate section for the position of the medical community on the issue. Herd of Swine 20:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is protected now. I deleted what herd wrote because he added it without discussing it first. There are at least 4 issues outstanding that have not been resolved and herd added a lot of new text without discussing it first. Pez1103 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with all the four changes you proposed. What about my changes? Herd of Swine 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's too late to make changes -- the pages are protected. I would like an arbitrator to assist us before we proceed. Pez1103 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pez, refusing to discuss proposed changes is not going to help anything. What do you expand an arbitrator to do? Herd of Swine 20:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee - Can you arrange for an arbitrator? (I only deleted stuff because they were added without discussion -- this is what I was reprimanded for; you can't possibly condone Herd doing the same thing.)Pez1103 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed additions - please comment

I would like to add to the article, with the intent of clarifying the breadth of the symptoms list, and the reaction of the medical community to them.

Firstly I would like to add a paragraph that summarizes the MRF's case definition, under "Symptoms":

• The Morgellons Research Foundations also published a case definition which lists the symptoms of Morgellons as: skin lesions, intense itching, pimples, crawling sensations, the presence of insects and parasites, fatigue, cognitive difficulties including memory problems and "brain fog", behavioural effects, fibers, granules, specks, fuzzballs, changes in visual acuity, numerous neurological findings, gastrointestinal symptoms, neuropsychiatric symptoms and sights, attention deficit disorder, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, psychosis, acute changes in skin texture and pigment, multiple hyper-pigmented macules, increase in vellus hair, joint pain and co-morbidity with Lyme disease, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Secondly, I would like to either delete the line "The Morgellons Research Foundation published a Case Definition for physicians." as redundant, or ensure it retains context by changing it to:

• The Morgellons Research Foundation published a Case Definition for physicians. This was described by the Los Angeles County Department of Health as "vague and covers many conditions", and by the CDC as "hopelessly broad".

Thirdly, since the CDC study is about establishing a case definition, I would like to add the following paragraph

• In October 2006, the CDC announced the group was about to embark on an in-the-field epidemiological study in Southern California aimed at possibly establishing a case definition. CDC spokesman Dan Rutz said:

  "Morgellons as it stands doesn't mean anything scientifically. It is purely the creation of people who feel they have it. Their definition is hopelessly broad at this point, which doesn't help clinically. We hope to get an objective analysis of what this is, starting with a case definition of those who share common symptoms."

The case definition (or insufficiency thereof) is the pivotal issue in the debate surrounding Morgellons. The article as it stands does not reflect this, and I feel the above changes quite clearly demonstrate what the initially proposed case definition is, what the medical community and the CDC feel are the problems with it, and how the CDC study aims to resolve these problems. I would appreciate feedback on these proposed changes, and suggestions as to how to improve or extend them. Herd of Swine 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. As long as you source it properly, it's OK. -- Fyslee 20:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The case definition states: (1) skin lesions, (2)crawling sensations, (3) fatigue, (4) cognitive difficulties, (5) behavioral effects, (6) fibers. Other commonly reported symptoms: (1) change in visual acuity, (2) numerous neurological findings, (3) gastrointestinal symptoms, (4) neuropsychiatric symptoms and signs, (5) acute changes in skin texture and pigment, (6) skin examination reveals crusted lesions with fibures, (7) arthralgias, (8) associate diagnoses.

I disagree that the case definition is pivitol. If you want to include it, stick to what the case definition actually lists, rather than your own version of it. You picked things and left other things out and distorted stuff. ("pimples" for example is NOT listed. It says "pimple like" lesions.) Where is the source of Rutz's quote? Pez1103 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The full case definition [33] is too long to include in full, so I listed the fourteen headings, and where the heading alone included several sub-symptoms, I included them. You can hardly say that "neuropsychiatric symptoms and signs" alone is descriptive, so I included what is in the case definition "Attention Deficit Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and occasionally frank psychosis". Just leaving in things like "associated diagnoses" without saying what the case deintion means by this only makes the case definition look even more vague, which I'm sure you would not want. Do you propose that we use the list of 14 exactly as you have it above?

The Rutz quote comes from: [34], which I reference when I added it to the article (before you deleted it). Herd of Swine 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not list the 14, you picked things to make it look as stupid as possible -- like fuzz balls and pimples and insects and emphasized anything that had to do with mental illness. Either list the 14 as I have or include the case definition in its entirety. Pez1103 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Michael, you made the news. Congrats Pez1103 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? What news? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just the 14 then. But don't a lot of Morgellons people have fuzz balls and insects? Surely that should be mentioned somewhere, maybe in another sections? Herd of Swine 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And what about the other two changes? Any comments on those? Herd of Swine 23:42, 31 October 2006

The last quote is overkill. It's redundant and serves no purpose. The MRF proposed a draft definition, the CDC said it was too broad and they'll come up with a new one. Whoopie! It's hardly pivitol; it was expected that they would review and change the definition. That's why it was it was labeled "draft." I don't see a point to adding any of this. At the most, it should say, the MRF proposed a case definition and the CDC is reviewing it and plans to modify it. Pez1103 00:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan Rutz's quote neatly encapsulates what the CDC is doing and why. It seems like the best way of communicating this would be to include the quote. Here's the quote again, so people know what we are discussing.

• In October 2006, the CDC announced the group was about to embark on an in-the-field epidemiological study in Southern California aimed at possibly establishing a case definition. CDC spokesman Dan Rutz said:

  "Morgellons as it stands doesn't mean anything scientifically. It is purely the creation of people who feel they have it. Their definition is hopelessly broad at this point, which doesn't help clinically. We hope to get an objective analysis of what this is, starting with a case definition of those who share common symptoms."[35]

You see it's very different from your paraphrasing. They "hope" to get a "case definition of those who share common symptoms", which is very different from simply coming up with a new case definition. Rutz also said "It is likely that for many of these people, they can be helped through another case definition".

And, how can you possibly say the case definition is not important? The case definition is the ONLY thing that is important, the very existance of every disease is based upon a case definition. Either it has an accepted case definition, or it's not a disease. It's a huge part of the story, and needs to be given appropiate weight. Herd of Swine 00:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the case definition is important and may be a link that this article is missing. I also agree that the 14 points are the way to go and it is good to show that the CDC is trying to narrow them down. That is the apparently a step in the right direction and probably good news for patients and those who are trying to help. The process is far from over, but that may be as far as we will be able to take it until something new comes out.

I'm okay with Herds additions. --Dematt 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I would like to add two quotes to the controversy section. I have sources for both. I think this is pivitol because the existing article implies that there may have been wrongdoing.

"I am confident that the long-term goals were the same among the various board members — a cure for Morgellons — but the short-term goals and day-to-day operational visions were not shared," says Dr. Wymore, assistant professor of pharmacology at Oklahoma State University's Center for Health Sciences (OSU-CHS). "I am confident that there was no wrong-doing on the part of anyone."

"Randy Wymore has resigned as director of research for the Morgellons Research Foundation, a position he held on a temporary, volunteer basis. Wymore, assistant professor of pharmacology at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa, said his decision was based on schedule and a need to focus more on his university-based Morgellons Disease research.”

Herd - above you stated that you were fine with all four of the changes that I proposed. So unless someone else objects, I will make this change when the page becomes unprotected. Pez1103 21:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, be bold. Herd of Swine 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-diagnosed illnesses and syndromes

Is there an article or anything else here at Wikipedia dealing with self-diagnosed illnesses and syndromes? There are a number of them, and this is just one more. That is not say that such cannot at some point in time become recognized as real diseases, but it refers to the nature of their diagnostic origins. In these internet times they can be expressions of cyberchondria. -- Fyslee 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The irony is that cyberchondria itself is not a medical diagnosis either, though it sounds good;) --Dematt 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

hypochondria is though [36], as is Medical student syndrome. Cyberchondria is the unfortunate byproduct of lots of easily accessible medical information on the internet. There is a stub on Self diagnosis Herd of Swine 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

True enough. It is just a modern form of hypochondria. If we in earlier times thought hypochondria was "contagious" through the newspapers, radio, and television, the advent of the internet has propelled hyperchondria into the space age with astronomic speed and only the gargantuan proportions true fanaticism can produce:

• "The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion."

• "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies." - Mike Royko

• "It has been said that if you place an infinite amount of monkies by one typewriter each, one of them will eventually write a literary masterpiece. The Internet has proven that this is not the case."

-- Fyslee 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is amazing isn't it. I can't imagine what our kids are going to do with all this information. The thing is, I think they already look at it as all bull. I'm not sure they believe anything they read anymore. I'm not sure which is worse, believing too much or not believing anything at all. It's like a mental anarchy. BTW, hypochondria and medical student syndrome and self diagnosis are not really diagnoses. There are no diagnosis codes for them in other words, something like Morgellons, there are other disorders that those patients would be diagnosed as having. --Dematt 22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, hypochondria IS a real diagnosis DSM-IV 300.7 [37], the others are just subsets of that. However, Morgellons often seems like 297.1 Delusional Disorder [38] Herd of Swine 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Touche! Good shot. Thanks for setting me straight. Though surely cyberchondria is no more a diagnosis than Morgellons is at this point. --Dematt 02:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Morgellons" is in danger of simply becoming a useful term for Delusional parasitosis Herd of Swine 04:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No doubt about that. It would certainly be more pallatable to those who have it (or either or whatever). --Dematt 12:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, one of the major distinctions between DOP and Morg. is that DOP wounds are self induced and Morg are not. A second distinction is that Morg produce fibers that burn at 1700 degrees and don't match police database for fibers and are uniform among patients. Morg suffers must be pretty well organized to come up with a brand new fiber and implant it into their own skin. There are a host of other symptoms that Morg have that DOP don't. 204.115.33.49 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are some very specific claims, but are really just anecdotes. One fiber does not burn. The patients CLAIM their wounds are not self inflicted (although they admit to constantly scratching them). The fibers are not ALL uniform, just some fibers are uniform (obviously). The police fiber database had only 800 fibers in it. And doctors are starting to us Morgellons as a term for DOP in the medical literature. Herd of Swine 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And of course not all DOP patients complain o fthese fibers, yet. Have there been no observations of these fibers that can be considered "credible" by research standards. IOWs, has someone who is not biased investigated them besides Wymon? --Dematt 15:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the CDC, they will examine the fibers as part of the clinical trials. That's one reason all this speculation seems somewhat premature. 204.115.33.49 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's call "speculation". What's premature is "diagnosing" Morgellons and "treating" it with antibiotics like Savely and Stricker do. Herd of Swine 17:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article in the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology it says that when they treat the lyme disease in some patients, the Morg symptoms go into remission. 204.115.33.49 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

IOW, it's most likely Lyme disease. -- Fyslee 19:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the writers of that article (Savely and Stricker) seem to be overly prone to diagnosing Lyme to just about anyone, and then selling them expensive and unproven long term antibiotic treatments. Savely was unable to practice in Texas because of this. The "Lyme" connection is because the patients mentioned proably come from Savely's extensive patient base of "chronic Lyme" sufferers. See here: [39] and [40] and [41]. Herd of Swine 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For more on the often bogus Lyme diagnosis:

• Lyme Disease: Questionable Diagnosis and Treatment

• Caution Regarding Testing for Lyme Disease

If Savely has been involved in dubious behavior, I suggest that you contact Barrett: sbinfo AT quackwatch DOT com

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this syndrome didn't attract (and get exploited by) dubious fringe MDs and other alternative medicine flakes. -- Fyslee 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Flakes? Google for "Morgellons", and check the six sponsored links on the right. [42] Herd of Swine 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A promising theory

I did write the followng section, which has since been removed because it references a blog, which isn't allowed in most Wikipedia articles [43]:

While most cases have so far been classified as psychological disturbances or mistaken cases of known conditions and diseases, another theory may cover the minority of cases that are not covered by these previously mentioned classifications. It is based on the finding that some fibers removed from patients are of apparently inorganic (and sometimes as yet unidentified) material. There has been speculation regarding possible asbestos fibers, or fibers that have been washed in borax. Since such fibers cannot be produced by the body, the theory proposes that environmental contamination may be the culprit. (It is known that foreign objects that have earlier entered the body through the skin or lungs can sometimes be transported through the body tissues and finally leave the body through the skin.) If this theory is confirmed by further research, it may resolve the disputes between this minority group of patients and skeptics, and also answer many current questions. [44] [45]

Your thoughts please. I know this is OR, but we can discuss it here. -- Fyslee 14:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think the last section is accurate. While I leave open the possibility that this is in fact an emerging disease, it does seem unlikely and certainly delusional parasitosis remains a strong contender for the real cause. My guess would be that, even if testing of that theory bears out any sort of conclusive evidence, a number of the persons claiming to be suffering from Morgellons will still insist that no, their fibers are caused by a bacterium. So basically, the language you've written in that last assertion would work if describing someone who is looking to find the truth behind a condition based on evidence, but not someone who is looking for specific evidence to prove a conclusion they've already come to.--Caliga10 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there is no commonality between the patients. See the huge list of symptoms. They don't ALL have fireproof fibers, in fact that test was done on ONE fiber. So at best the theory explains one case out of 5000. There are a lot of different things going on, the common factors are the belief in "Morgellons", and a rejection of mental involvement. The actual physical and mental conditions vary a lot from patient to to patient. Herd of Swine 15:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The same theory crossed my mind. The skin is considered a secondary mechanism for expelling waste products, especially if the kidneys and liver aren't doing their jobs. I'm sure if this turned out to be the case, Morgellons patients would be thrilled, as long as you weren't calling them delusional:) If we did use this, maybe we could put it together similar to the way Caliga10 did on the skeleton article like he said. Then we could place several hypotheticals - as long as we referenced them as opinions, possibilities, etc., because so far I don't see any reason to draw any conclusions yet, even if DOP is running a strong first right now. Also, there may be a lot of DOP patients that think they have Morgellons that are messing up the data. Just a thought. --Dematt 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely... the article cannot equate Morgellons with DOP or any other psychological condition until such time as there is conclusive evidence that this is the case. It can certainly describe how the medical community at large considers it to be delusional, it just can't state "Morgellons is a manifestation of a delusional condition" or anything of the sort.--Caliga10 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we ALSO need to avoid weasel words being used by Morgellon believers to tacitly discount those descriptions. I've spoken with Pez about this, but this is one of those things we'll all have to keep an eye on. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed we all need to watch out for them. Keep in mind that phrases like "mainstream medicine", "most dermatologists", "scientific community" are all examples of weasel words. --Dematt 17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there enough evidence to state that many of the cases are diagnosed as DOP or a type of somatoform disorder? -- Fyslee 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be the diagnosis for all of them for now, right? At least until somebody is able to differentiate the two by some criteria (i.e. fibers). --Dematt 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I see no conflict between what I have written and your comments. (But since part of it has been misunderstood or overlooked, it apparently needs to be worded better.) My comment above only applies to a small minority of cases, while the majority of cases are still explained by things like known dermatological or mental conditions. The few cases are in the UMPs category (which I have earlier mentioned) -- Unidentified Morgellons Phenomena. So far nearly all (if not all) objects provided for examination have been identified as known fibers, specks, dandruff, skin, etc.. Until identified we can just call them UMP.

The problem with this line of thought is that my proposal is original research. We need to find a good source where someone essentially says the same thing. -- Fyslee 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, there is bound to be something out there that mentions something like this. Surely Wymon thought of this. And surely the MRF? Anybody? --Dematt 16:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What other than asbestos fibers have such a high burning point? Certainly nothing biological, which excludes any form of parasite or other biological disease, or even alien! Asbestos has some rather irritating qualities. This could explain some (very few!) of the cases where individuals in the same family exhibit symptoms with the same type of fibers that have such a high burning point. Maybe there is asbestos in the house. Basically I'm seeking a natural (biological, environmental) explanation, rather than a supernatural one, for a number of cases. The rest are psychological, and many are possibly a combination. -- Fyslee 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiberglass, carbon fiber and ceramic fibers have very high melting points. I think it's a bit of a wild goose chase to seek explanations when you only have a very limited amount of details of an unknown number of cases. Sure, you can theorise that some people might have fiberglass embedded in their skin from hot tubs, but where does that get you? How many cases does that cover? It's just speculation, and while it's very possible, it's not got any place in the article. The bottom line is that whenever the fibers have been examined by dermatologists, they say they are environmental - that could be any of hundreds of things. Herd of Swine 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can assume the Morgellons fibers have any of these qualities until an independent unbiased investigation is made. It is also possible that the fibers are made by cells that have been altered in some genetical way that causes them to produce some sort of protein strings, who knows. The list is endless. I suppose speculation is pointless. Maybe we better stick with what we know and report what is claimed by the verifiable and reliable sources. The question is whether MRF is a reliable source or for that matter, a dermatologist? --Dematt 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

MRF may not be reliable, but what it says is very notable, since it basically invented the idea of Morgellons as a new infectious disease. So we need to report what the MRF is claiming - it just needs to presented as such, and not as fact. we can't, for example say "The sympotoms of Morgellons are ...", since that implies that there is an accepted set of symptoms. Instead we could say, "The case definition proposed by the MRF include the symptoms ....". Likewise, with the reports of physical properties of fibers, they need to be put in the proper context. Right now the fiber evidence is entirely anecdotal, and that needs to be noted. Care should also be taken when dealing with media accounts of scientific evidence, as they tend to greatly generalize from individual statments. Herd of Swine 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dermatolgists are not fiber experts. I know that the CDC plans to use the military as their fiber expert. 204.115.33.49 17:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The military are fiber experts? Who will they use as their skin experts? Herd of Swine 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

People who believe that they have Morg are diagnosed with MANY different things. It's only when someone in this country says "crawling sensations" that the DOP label is affixed. This is not true in other countries -- like Russia and China. 204.115.33.49 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the findings of the Tulsa Police department are antidotal? I'm sure all of the things listed above made their list of the 8000 things they compared the fibers against, so we can say that they are not fiberglass, ceramics, etc 204.115.33.49 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is another possible explanation for the fibers which no one has mentioned -- they may be the result of biotechnology. Dr. Citovsky's research that this may be the case. 204.115.33.49 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many Morgies who go to pychiatrists and are told that they do NOT have DOP. 204.115.33.49 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly that is always a consideration, but does it explain the diversity of where all these patients live? Wouldn't that show up mostly in one place? --Dematt 17:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Crawling sensations" (formication) are a symptom of a very large number of physical diseases (anything from menopause to diabetes), not DOP. It's the belief that the formication is caused by some undetectable parasite that causes the diagnosis of DOP.

And yes, the Tulsa PD story is anecdotal. They took one fiber and checked it against a database of 800 (not 8000) fibers, and found no match. They did FTIR against a database of organic compounds and found no match. That's it. One fiber. Anecdote. Probably fiberglass. Herd of Swine 17:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Citovsky was a passing reference on CNN. He was just trying to get publicity for his unusual gene-transfer theory. Herd of Swine 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of promising theories. Did you know that the MRF's symptoms of Morgellons almost EXACTLY match the symptoms of menopause? [46]. Maybe that explains a few cases? Herd of Swine 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've spoken with Citovsky several times and read material about his research which will be published in January. What you are saying is untrue. 204.115.33.49 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It was NOT just one fiber and I'm sure that they looked for fiberglass.

"He recruited two Oklahoma State faculty physicians. They tweezed fibers from beneath the skin of some Morgellons patients who visited the Oklahoma State Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa in February, Wymore said, and sent those samples to the Tulsa Police Department's forensic laboratory.

The police checked the samples against carpet and clothing fibers and other materials, and conducted chemical analyses and other tests. Nothing matched, said Mark Boese, the police lab's director."204.115.33.49 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this Pez? If so, would you mind signing in when you post? It'll make it easier to keep track of your thoughts.--Caliga10 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that derm slap a DOP diagnosis on people a lot more readily than you are saying. I don't think you have to have the belief that there is a parasite involved, just the crawling sensations in the absence of any other known disease. The whole lyme disease theory presupposes that this is bacterial, not parasitic, for example. 204.115.33.49 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Flysee -- can you explain "the majority of cases are still explained by things like known dermatological or mental conditions" ? The two most common symptoms of Morgellons are (1) itching, crawling, biting sensations, and (2) skin lesions which appear spontaneously (not self induced) with grandules or fibers. What known condition explains these two conditions occuring simultaneously? 204.115.33.49 18:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fill yourself in. The New Morgellons Order has published a case description written by medical doctors. It does not just include the fibers, it includes other conditions including neurological disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, dyspepsia, etc., be a thorough researcher, read all the research! RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Formication is caused by lots of things. neurotic excoriations, compulsive skin picking and dermatitis artifacta often occur despite the denials of the patient, which explains the "spontaneous" lesions. The deratologist often note the lack of primary lesions - gaping holes in the skin do not studdenly appear en masse. Excoriations on the other hand, have no primary stage. But, as noted, it's COMPLEX. Lots of causes. e.g, Look up acne excoriee. Herd of Swine 19:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pez, please remember to sign in:

"Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits. I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated.--Jimbo Wales 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)" source

-- Fyslee 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not log onto this computer. I log on when I am at home. I didn't realize that I lose my civil rights as a result. I asked you a question; it wasn't a complaint. The theory that you all are suggesting is that 7000 people from all over the world, men, women, children are all self inflicting sores on their body and are either unaware of it or are lying. The majoriy of morgies are teacher and nurses, not drug dealers. Herd - you say that open wounds don't spontaneously appear. But what if the fibers underneath the skin are causing the wounds? What if the fibers underneath the skin are causing the crawling sensations? 204.115.33.49 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, the theory that everyone here is suggesting is called "confirmation bias" against Morgellons sufferers and that is why I am having the article flagged as non-scholarly and asking for it to be scrubbed.RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does that seem unlikely to you? Why is it improbably that 7000 people have a similar mix of mental and physical ailments? Are nurses and teachers somehow immune to normal skin disorders and mental illnesses? How do you know they are a majority - the MRF survey and the USP survey do not ask for occupation, so how can you possibly claim this?

And if the fibers are causing the crawling, why can't the dermatologists, after probably 70,000+ examinations, not find fibers under the skin? Herd of Swine 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Because MANY dermatologists don't even look at the skin closely. I went in recently to talk to the dermatologist about a mole and the dermatologist stood five feet away the entire time. She never once got out a scope, or a stethascope, or any other kind of device to do a full examination to determine if the mole was cancerous, or to check the rest of my skin to see if there were other moles that resembled that mole. At $200 plus an hour, why should they, it is a waste of their time. Most dermatologists walk in, take a quick look, and walk out handing you a prescription. There is also now an article in the Journal of Dermatology dissing Morgellons and telling dermatologists how to make Morgellons patients feel as though they have been heard. This is junk medicine. RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The MRF has the information about occupations. Either derms are not looking or they are dismissing the fibers. The only people who took the time to look - Wymore and his associates -- found them very easily by examining the skin with a microscope. That's not part of a typical derm visit. 204.115.33.49 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please sign in if you expect to be taken seriously!:

"Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits. I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated.--Jimbo Wales 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)" source -- Fyslee 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm home now, so I am logged on... If you tell a derm that you have crawling sensations, the response is, I have a drug for you (anti-psychotic), not let me look under your skin with a microscope to see if you have fibers. You read the current article by Dr. Koo. The woman brought in fibers. He disregarded them and didn't examine her skin and lied to her and dismissed her concerns and gave her drugs. That's a typical derm. Herd - you've brought us more than one article which says that derm think that this is DOP. If they think it's DOP, why would they bother to look? Besides, they are not researchers. They are only trained to look for known diseases. Pez1103 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

When you say 'derm', I assume it's a dismissive term for dermatologist, which is a medical doctor. Is that correct? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. I'm sure there have been certain cases where dermatologists have been unfeeling or otherwise failed to properly examine patients. But normally they will do their job, which is to examine the skin. If even a superficial examination shows no signs of irritation or other skin condition, then it would be normal to expect them to consider referring the patient to the proper professional, which (since no dermatological symptoms were apparent upon examination) would be a psychiatrist. I suspect that is what happens most of the time. (OTOH, if the patient actually does have visible signs of a dermatological condition, then the dermatologist is going to examine the skin.) It is likely based upon the results of a preponderance of no-physical-symptoms cases from the whole dermatologic profession, that their president has expressed such strong doubts. What else can they do in their situation? What would you do if you were in their shoes, and someone claimed symptoms for which there were no obvious physical signs or symptoms? Those are the cases that get a DOP label. -- Fyslee 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

DOP is a diagnosis of exclusion. www.cherokeechas.com, look at the medical protocol. You cannot be diagnosed with a diagnosis of delusion of parasitosis unless you have first been referred to an infectious disease specialist, a parasitologist, a psychiatrist and ANY OTHER clinician as is deemed appropriate to rule out any other disorder. So NO, all Morgellons sufferers should NOT be given a diagnosis of DOP until something else comes along. They should be given a diagnosis of Morgellons disease, especially now that five MD's have been developing a case description. RamyB777 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I write derm, not to be dismissive, but because it's shorter to type. Most Morgs. have physical signs. It's not routine to look at the skin with a microscope searching for fibers. Dr. Koo dismisses open sores as self inflicted. Derms shouldn't be diagnosing people as having DOP anyway, they should be referred, as you said. I don't think that this is always the case, however. Pez1103 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the New Morgellons Order website, www.cherokeechas.com, the medical protocol for a diagnosis of delusion of parasitosis is to refer first to an infectious disease specialist, a parasitologist and a psychiatrist and any other clinician deemed appropriate to RULE OUT any other disorder that could cause such a skin disorder. DOP is a diagnosis of exclusion, not a toss out phrase. To use it in any other way is junk medicine. RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I still strongly believe that anyone who says that they have crawling sensations will be told that it's DOP (if they don't have the diseases that Herd listed), regardless of what may be on their skin. This will be the case until Morg is established as a disease. Pez1103 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, the largest fibers are the size of an eyelash. Most are white. You really need to use a hand held microscope to see them inside a sore or under the skin. This is not a typical part of a derm visit. Pez1103 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dermatologists look at your skin, with a microscope if needed. That's what a Dermatoscope is for. If you have lesions, they will look at them. if they saw foreign material under the skin, they would obviously follow it up. They don't see the fibers because they are not under the skin. What do they find when they look? "He diligently picked his lesions with tweezers and placed the “bugs” on a tissue. We examined these samples microscopically and found skin fragments but nothing resembling an arthropod or parasite. Examination revealed multiple superficial ulcerations, excoriations (many linear), excoriated papulonodules, and scars on his extremities and trunk, but no primary lesions or evidence of infestation."[47]. Herd of Swine 23:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not implying that most derms are unfeeling or failing to do their job or failing to examine the skin. Think about it. You see someone who has lots of "pimple-like" lesions, you diagnose foliculis, or acne, or roseaca, or dermatitis. You diagnose what you know. You don't say, well I wonder if there are Morg fibers under your skin which are causing these bumps. Let me get my hand held microscope and look for them. Let me ask you if you have other (yet undefined) morg symptoms. Derms won't find Morg until it is recognized by the CDC. Morg may well cause all of the conditions that I listed, so the diagnosis may well be correct. It may not be getting at the cause, however, which is that the body is for some reason producing fibers, made of who knows what, for who knows what reason. And maybe that causes a lot of bacteria or fungus to build up too. Pez1103 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, we should use a totally arbitary hypothesis as the basis of diagnostics? Medicine is evidence based for a reason. Herd of Swine 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Herd - that's one example (above), you cannot generalize it to every case. I'm not talking bugs anyway. I'm talking about fibers, microscopic fibers. And as I said above, in many cases there would be absolutely no reason to even look further. Pez1103 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

From a scientific point of view, I would find it INCREDIBLY INTERESTING to find fibers growing under the skin. Any scientist would. Apparently there are 7000 people with these fibers, who have each gone to MANY doctors over the last five years or so, and yet they all continue to get diagnosed with ordinary skin conditions, and sometimes delusions. That just beggers belief - all these 7000 people have some entirely new to science, something that is a major breakthrough in human physiology, and yet even though they've all been examined 10-20 times, NOBODY NOTICED. Nonbody noticed this incredible manifestation of fibers growing under skin. You are telling me that in 70,000 doctor visits, NOT ONE doctor decided to actually take a look. Out of 70,000+ examinations, nobody noticed what is clearly evident to the 7000 patients? really? Herd of Swine 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There are doctors that have seen the fibers. There are doctors who believe in Morgellons. There are doctors who have Morg. There are doctors who see the fibers and dismiss them as ordinary fibers, textile fibers. I doubt many derms are removing the fibers and sending them to a forensic lab for further analysis. I hope that the doctors in the CDC study does just what you are suggesting -- examine the lesions, remove the fibers, send the fibers away for analysis. Then we know if this is real. We won't know before then. I just hope that the CDC goes into this with an open mind. Pez1103 00:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for you: If the CDC determines that this is not real and classifies it in line with that determination, will you accept that? Your answer will be very informative. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So, this is a no then, I guess? Well, thanks for clarifying your motivations. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to give Pez the benefit of the doubt (and I trust others have as well), but I'm close to concluding that he is not attempting to contribute to this article in good faith.--Caliga10 14:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

CDC MADE IT REAL ON JANUARY 30, 2007 AND INCLUDED IT ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF RARE DISEASES AND IS NOW PREPARING A FORMAL RESEARCH PANEL TO INCLUDE THE RESEARCH ALREADY CONDUCTED AT OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY AND STONYBROOK UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK, AS WELL AS MEDICAL SCHOOLS AT THE MAYO CLINIC AND IN BOSTON. RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pez, above you write: "It may not be getting at the cause, however, which is that the body is for some reason producing fibers, made of who knows what, for who knows what reason. And maybe that causes a lot of bacteria or fungus to build up too."

Do you believe that is a plausible explanation? Do other Morgs believe this? -- Fyslee 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pez, please answer my question. -- Fyslee 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a plausible explanation. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have posted it. It seems like the only options are Morgs are (1) crazy/liars, (2) they are actually producing fibers. I never referred to myself as a Morg. My health isn't anyone's business. Pez1103 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What you need to run a search on is the nematode-genetic splicing that has occurred using colored markers that flouresce. Reference the National Library of Medicine in the Hazardous Toxicology section. Just search for nemotode and genetic splicing. There is currently a study being done in Mexico splicing jelly fish flourescent color onto nematodes for molecular marking. Also reference the Maize project and the insecticides created using nematodes and molecular marking. Nematodes are worms... and they go into the skin and multiply. They carry with them bacteria and all sorts of crud. The reason the fibers don't burn at 1700 degrees is that they have hybrided the substance to encase viral substances for genetic splicing (which by the way was on the same article that Fyslee referenced that had a publication date of February of 2007. These viruses, bacteria and nematodes have been released into the environment, to prevent blight in some cases and decay, yet, have proven harmful to humans. Reference again, National Library of Medicine, Hazardous Toxicology. You see, the research is buried, but it is there and if you look hard enough, you will find it. Morgellons is likely a combination of these elements escaping into the environment. But it also multiplies and can be shared to others as families have been infected and cross infected and people knowing those families have been infected. Look at the hard evidence instead of just arguing mute points. RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't the only two possibilities.

If the body is producing fibers, how can it produce fibers that can't burn at under 1700 degrees? Such fibers can only be in the body because of some type of environmental contamination (a third possibility). Besides asbestos, Herd suggested "fiberglass, carbon fiber and ceramic fibers have very high melting points." All of these types of fibers are readily identifiable. -- Fyslee 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Read your whole article that you referenced above... viral components are encased in silica so they can be genetically altered and spliced. RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If those ARE the only opinions, then that needs to be reflected as such in the article. But I suspect you might need to add "mistaken" to the list. Wikipedia's role is to report what is known, and what is said by notable sources. Herd of Swine 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How am I not contributing in good faith? Pez1103 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is inappropriate for Chairboy to ask me personal questions (and I prefer not to be referred to as a Morg). I also think that it would be impossible for the CDC to prove that Morg doesn't exist -- all they could do is say that they cannot find evidence of it, or something to that effect. If that was the determination, there is nothing to say that in the future, with advanced technology, they would be able to discover evidence that would prove it exists -- like finding the pathogen, for example. My motivation is to have an unbiased article in the Wiki. Several people have agreed that last week's article was biased towards mental illness. The article included numerous references which only purpose was to discredit the disease and the MRF. Pez1103 17:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethically, it is inappropriate for Chairboy to ask you personal questions or to be punitive toward you. This is supposed to be a neutral environment. RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who first used the term "Morg" here, and we have just begun to use it, so why the objection? -- Fyslee 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pez, I respect your right to privacy and right to refuse to answer personal questions. However, you certainly cannot delete his question (and even if it was right to do so, you can't really get away with such behavior because anybody can check the change log and see that you did that) just because you don't want to answer it. I agree that we should strive for an unbiased article, and I think everyone else probably wants the same thing (including Herd), and since the page was protected it looks like we're making great progress on building a consensus.--Caliga10 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't think that I could delete chair's comment. I read his comment, thought it was inappropriate, then highlighted and pressed delete. I expected an error messeage. I was surpised when it really disappeared.  :) Pez1103 18:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You stated above that I asked you a personal question. Which question was that? Second, since you have stated that you will not accept any scientific results that may contradict your personal beliefs, perhaps you should end your involvement in this article. It tends to take quite a bit of credibility away from any assertion that you're willing to edit on a level playing field, in good faith, and puts to the test any claim on your part of NPOV. Since your account seems to be a single purpose one with no other meaningful contributions outside of this article, I predict your willingness to do so is unlikely, but would enjoy being proved wrong on this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Pez but I think he thought you were asking if he was a Morgellons sufferer.--Caliga10 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The reality is Caliga10 that you do not want any scientific results presented that may support her personal beliefs. This is what I have seen throughout this discussion and that is why I am putting a lot of effort into putting in comments to balance your discussion. Your comments border on flaming.RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a female Pez1103 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the question I asked was "Question for you: If the CDC determines that this is not real and classifies it in line with that determination, will you accept that? Your answer will be very informative. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)", I find myself flummoxed at the idea that it could in any way be interpreted the way you suggest. If I'm missing something obvious, please let me know. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about -- I didn't state that ("you will not accept any scientific results that may contradict your personal beliefs"). It seems like you are trying to attack me personally. Why not drop it and let's just discuss the issues instead. Pez1103 19:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

THE CDC JUST VERIFIED THAT IT DOES EXIST JANUARY 30, 2007. NOTE NATIONAL LIST OF RARE DISEASES THAT IS UPDATED BY THE CDC. WWW.CDC.GOV. THIS POINT IS TOTALLY MUTE FOR YOU TO FLAME THIS WOMAN. RamyB777 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you finally answered my question (after trying to delete it) you stated "it would be impossible for the CDC to prove that Morg doesn't exist" and "If that was the determination, there is nothing to say that in the future, with advanced technology, they would be able to discover evidence that would prove it exists -- like finding the pathogen, for example". This seems to indicate that you're convinced that it does exist exactly as described and that because of your certainty, any scientific process that says "well, no, it doesn't appear to exist" must be inherently flawed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you still have not said what part of my question was personal or inappropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous information

This morning, someone dropped this at the top of the page:

• October 18, 2006

- New Lab Findings Point To Silicone/Silica and High Density Polyethlyene Fibers Causing Morgellons Disease.

http://www.dldewey.com/morgel.htm -- 216.243.125.135 10:04, 3 November 2006 (sig added by Fyslee)

Who is this guy? And is this credible? --Dematt 14:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The (female) writer of the "paper" is Hildegarde Staninger [48], who seems to have a lot of very dubious and unique qualifications. Like a RIET-1 (Registered Industrial Environmental Toxicologist) from dubious and secretive organizations like the "National Environmental Professionals organization". She publishes her work on Livejournal [49]. She's recipient of "prestigious 7th U.S. Army and Greater Stuttgart Community Award", which I can't find any reference to anywhere. She was assistant professor at "Capital University of Integrative Medicine" [50] which is now closed, but used to give lectures on the anatomy of chakras. [51]. So, Staninger is not a credible scientist. And these "new lab findings" mentioned seem to consist of dubious visual interprestations of photes from a sample from one patient. Saying "A private study to determine the chemical and biological composition of these fibers has shown that the fibers' outer casing is made up of high density polyethylene fiber" is totally useless, unless they can actually show the study.

HDPE melts at well below 400F, significantly below the 1700F they claim. Herd of Swine 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Could your comments be more biased? "dubious and secretive"? The National Environmental Professionals organization is a valid organization. You have no basis to say that she is not a credible scientist. She is also working in conjunction with karjoo whose creditial are included above. Pez1103 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias? Sure. I can easily top that.....;-) No matter what else that is legitimate she might be involved with, she herself provides the "basis to say that she is not a credible scientist." Experience with these types leads to this definition, using her own self-incriminating wording:

• Definition: "Doctor of Integrative Medicine" = "not a credible scientist"

That's an example of what's known as "informed bias." Such types often believe in other forms of nonsense (it comes with the "integrative" title) such as homeopathy. -- Fyslee 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee - Did you read her bio below. ... Harvard, John Hopkins, leading scientist in her field... that makes for someone with dubious credibility. Did you read Karjoo's credentials above -- Yale, .... Pez1103 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, then why does she publish her papers on Livejournal, and not anything recognized by PubMed? Herd of Swine 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Even well-educated and highly recognized serious scientists (I'm not saying she ever was. I don't know) can "go bad." There are so many red flags that keep popping up in her writing that it's tragic reading. The self-incriminating title she used is just one of many "flies in the ointment" -- "ointment" that might originally have smelled very sweet, but has now been in contact with so many woo-woo ideas it stinks.

Just two examples of this phenomenon: Linus Pauling and Hulda Clark. Pauling won the Nobel prize twice and was an excellent scientist, but went outside of his field and damaged his reputation forever, even vindictively ruining the life of another scientist who worked with him and exposed his errors. Hulda Clark was a nobody, but did have a legitimate PhD. Somewhere along the way she lost her way, took a correspondence course in naturopathy (red flag!), got busted in a sting operation, immediately fled and became a fugitive from justice, got off on a technicality after she was finally caught, went to Mexico's quack heaven/haven, and is now one of the biggest quacks in history, with some very dangerous ideas. It just goes to show that one fly in the ointment can ruin the whole thing. -- Fyslee 20:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"damaged his reputation forever" - not enough to dismiss his naive standard molecular clock hypothesis, as turned out last year. All that work for nought - but then, with paleobiogeography coming to age these years, just right on time :) Dysmorodrepanis 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hildegarde Staninger, Ph.D., RIET-1

Industrial Toxicologist/IH and Doctor of Integrative Medicine

Dr. Hildegarde Staninger, author of the international environmental bestseller the Comprehensive Handbook of Hazardous Material: Regulations, Monitoring, Handling & Safety, Lewis Publishing/ CRC Press, is among the leading international scientists in the field of industrial toxicology. She pioneered the use of biological monitoring tests for targeting organ exposure to parent compounds, metabolites and their xenobiotics. Her research has opened the door of proteinomics, enzynomics and genomics as recognized by John Hopkins Univeristy/Pandey Lab and Harvard University’s Medical College’s small molecule genome project.

Former president of the Florida Chapter of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and president and founder of the International Academy of Toxicological Risk Assessment (IATRA), which celebrated its 25th Anniversary in 2005, she was the first Industrial Environmental Toxicologist Registered by the National Registry of Environmental Professionals, ( http://www.nrep.org/ ). Dr. Staninger is a Certified Safety Executive by World Safety Organization and Inspector General for the International Environmental Intelligence Agency (IEIA) a division of World Life Research Institute.

Her former academic appointments include Research Coordinator and Assistant Professor for the Research Department at Capital University of Integrative Medicine, Washington, D.C. and present research activities include the applications of far infrared and oak wood charcoal vinegar in maintaining cellular integrity and cellular detoxification via lymphatic and molecular endocrine systems.

In addition to decades of research involving the signature harmonic reflectivity of cellular resonance for increasing cellular integrity, she has focused on addressing the appropriate countermeasures for cell dysfunction, injury and death through cellular tera hertz phono photons- “cellular cosmic star bursts.”

Dr. Staninger is recipient of two Presidential Awards from Mr. Walter Lowry, Martin Marietta Orlando Aerospace President , for her work involving “Pregnant Women in the Workplace” and the “Increased Risk of Genetic Mutations in Contaminated Ground Water.”

She received the prestigious 7th U.S. Army and Greater Stuttgart Community Award for her work during Operation Desert Shield in preventing increased chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from the Kuwaiti burning oil fields during Desert Storm. Pez1103 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Google for "Registered Industrial Environmental Toxicologist" [52] 1 Result. Google for "Genetic Mutations in Contaminated Ground Water" [53] 2 results Google for "Comprehensive Handbook of Hazardous Material" [54] 1 result Google for "7th U.S. Army"+"community award" [55] 2 results. etc. etc. Staninger's "qualifications" do indeed seems a little dubious. Herd of Swine 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the woman in the study: "All of the burn experiments were done by me and I used fibers from my own body. I know that people are still skeptical or afraid to believe the findings from Dr Staninger but the kinds of tests she did were replicated in several labs, not just one lab and the results remained the same. The silicone photos were of me. Slides with my tissue were made at my local hospital after my knee surgery by the regular pathology staff at the hospital. Believe me when I tell you that they did not do anything out of the ordinary or even know what the slides were going to be used for. All they knew is that I requested them to be done for a researcher who was working on a project. I have paperwork that has not been published that authenticates these slides. The good news is that something showed up on the slides. There was a chance that nothing would be found. The bad new is that I am full of silica crystals and silicone . That means that I can add silicosis to my Morgellons. You will be hearing more from Dr Staninger and Dr Karjoo soon. Please be assured that anyone who has contacted them will be hearing from them in the next couple of weeks about samples. They had to check all the protocols for dealing with contagious disease and CDC requirements before they could begin. They wanted to be sure that all the information they gather is done precisely according to standards that cannot be questioned or discounted later. As with all things there is a process that has to be adhered to. They are working on all the particulars now and will make an announcement soon." Pez1103 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I just got off the phone with Dr. Staninger. She is sending me a package of information in the mail. She thinks that the fibers may be man made nemotodes. They are currently in the second phase of the research. I can share the information when I get it. Pez1103 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... please do! Do you mean nematodes, though?--Caliga10 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget man-made nematodes. I have some experience in molecular genetics (sufficient I think) and it's not possible to "make" them. Also, I think Leitao would know a nematode when she saw one. And of course, Morgellons is a godsent for people prone to develop DOP; it's new, it's icky, it's dismissed by "mainstream" science. But speaking of science, I'm entirely with Popper on science being what can be proven wrong. An that has not been done for Morgellons as a whole, individual cases nonwithstanding. Wymore seems to maintain much dignity in the whole crap, doing the good scientific work: get samples, identify samples, analyse unidentified samples. Does he have his spectometry results already?

Actually, I wouldn't put much trust in the number of MDs who dismiss this vs the few who accept it. Lyme disease had a nearly 70-year period in which it was either dismissed or diagnosed as something else until it was recognized as what it was. Without implying bad conduct, I would really not expect most practicing MDs to correctly diagnose a truly new disease if it did not jump right at them - because this would mean they'd have to admit they don't know it and can't treat it (which is both not the easiest thing to do if you're an educated professional). I got treated for half a year for all sorts of stuff, tested for everything between HIV/AIDS and echinococcosis, until some doc recognized my case as an exotic form of aspergillus allergy usually only found in pigeon breeders. Rare enough to show me off to some med students, who, presented with my case report, couldn't diagnose it either. Got rid of my vivarium, and away went the disease. So the scientific way would be to try and exclude DOP, not to prove it, but the practicing MD's way would be to look for a possible cure, and as the symptoms closely resemble known conditions (and in most cases probably are), they're entirely right in doing so. One should simply not expect university-grade research from your doc.

From what I've seen here, there appear to be fibers present in lesions of "Morgellions" cases. In many cases, these are apparently environmental contamination as would be expected. In some cases, they cannot be identified as such. I find this very interesting. Are those fibers carbon compounds (i.e. organic)? This would point towards them being produced by an organism, or being some sort of plastic (i.e., from garments). Inorganic fibers would be a tough one. Excluding classical forms of environmental contamination, one would think that they'd be ingested with food for example. I'd really love to get my hands on some of these fibers and talk the guys down at the lab into giving me some SEM time.

The Agrobacterium link is... weird... Quite implausible from what I know about that critter - it's been around forever, and it should not all of a sudden cause pathogenicity in humans. It is not impossible, but the "we found some DNA that doesn't belong there" claim... well, I'd like to see sequences and run a BLAST search against them.

This is very interesting stuff; one word for people who think they suffer from this... thing: Have you recently bought some new garments? If yes, did you wash them before first wearing them? In Europe, we don't seem to see this "Morgellions epidemic", incidentially, but it seems to catch hold in the UK (which certainly smells of DOP in these cases). But there has been concern in recent years about "sweatshop" clothing being treated with chemicals that are banned in most Western countries for medical reasons, and there have been reports of contact dermatitis caused by wearing such garments out-of-the-box. If such cases were examined medically, I'd think one would find the stereotypical Morgellions symptoms... complete with fibers in the upper skin layer... just a thought, 'kay? But since contact dermatitis was not on the list of possible explanations, I did add it. It is certainly a possibility. Dysmorodrepanis 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you a Ph.D. in parasitology? I know of two Ph.D's who have looked at slides of these worms. One in Nairobi, Kenya and one here in the US in Baltimore, the latter has a Ph.D. in Jungle Nursing and both said, these things are worms. There is a whole slew of research using nematodes and genetic splicing and genetic markers, especially those that flouresce. Run a search using "nematode genetic" and read the entire bunch of studies using nematodes (as listed in the National Library of Medicine) in every kind of research study from preventing blight in all cereal crops, to turf grasses, to protecting children from cat and dog allergies. It is there. They are using genetic molecular markers (which by the way, the colors all coincide with the colors that show up in Morgellons patients) that can be seen by satellite so the researchers can detect from the air where their nematodes are travelling, either by crop field that has been selected for study or wherever the researchers have selected for spraying. You cannot dismiss nematodes as a plausible cause for this disease, especially man-made nematodes that would continue to reproduce no matter what chemical was placed on them, so as to permanently get rid of blight (an honorable goal of a researcher, yet very dangerous). When I ran a search on "nematode genetic" I came up with 3,000 plus articles (recorded in the National Library of Medicine) on the hazardous toxicology to humans. There are far too many links to include them here, but they are notable. Let's get into a serious scientific exploration here. Unless you are a Ph.D. in molecular genetic or parasitology, or have a significant graduate degree in another field that qualifies you to dismiss this discussion of nematodes, then please, do not exclude valuable information. RamyB777 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nematodes made of glass? While this is all highly entertaining speculation, it's NOT HELPING the Wikipedia article. we need to focus on established and accepted facts, and realy what has been reported by medical journals and the media. Half-baked quackpot theories have no place in the article. Herd of Swine 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is helping the article because it looks at causes and if you know the cause, you know how to fight it and that is what good reporting and good writing is all about. A good research writer will present all the evidence pro and con, not what one person deems important.RamyB777 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote Dr. Keating, some people "have no crap-detectors," [56] and their weird theories (akin to David Icke's reptilian humanoid conspiracy theories) don't belong here. -- Fyslee 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you just posted about "crap-detectors" is exactly just that. You are ignoring relevant science relevant to the topic of Morgellons.RamyB777 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm detecting crap alright. Pez1103 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you defending her? -- Fyslee 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you particularly dissing Dr. Staninger? Do you have the earned Ph.D. to counter her published research?RamyB777 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

She's not the source. Pez1103 20:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you want to discredit Karjoo too while you are at it? First you say that she's not credible. Then I list her credentials, and you say, well if she credible now, she's not credible anymore -- based on what -- the fact that she's doing morgellons research? I think that these findings belong in the article under a section regarding preliminary research findings. The paper will be published in a pathology journal. You can wait until they are published. Pez1103 20:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Much of her research is validated by nematode genetic research already conducted an published in the National Library of Medicine.RamyB777 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My skepticism of her is for the reasons stated, and has nothing to do with her Morgellons research. That's a weird straw man. -- Fyslee 21:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think she was ever credible. And yes, I would like discredit Karjoo, think you. His bio says "Dr. Karjoo has many published papers", yet a search of PubMed reveals nothing. One need only search google for "karjoo silicone" [57] to get an idea of Karjoo's credibility. But yes, let's wait until they are published in a reputable journal. Herd of Swine 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

PubMed is not exhaustive. Try the National Library of Medicine. Be careful, just because you can't find it online, doesn't mean that the research that has been published doesn't exist.RamyB777 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The research mentioned above will be published in the Journal of Pathology. Pez1103 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well we'll wait for it. In the meantime, I found Karjoo's "Many published papers" - he was a contributing author to two case reports, one in "Cancer" in 1966, and one in the British Journal of Surgery in 1979. Herd of Swine 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are the four listings at PubMed [58]. She must be pretty old by now. -- Fyslee 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Karjoo is a male. I thought that Herd said that they weren't published in PubMed..... Pez1103 23:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Must had searched wrong. Anyway, the point here is that you are quoting "research" that has not been published, by someone who has not published anything in nearly twenty years, and seems very much on the fringes of medicine. So it's not yet appropriate material for the article. Herd of Swine 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but just because she has not published in 20 years is not a criteria of exclusion. Please get scholarly.RamyB777 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"[karjoo]has been The Laboratory Director and Pathologist of Doctors Hospital of West Covina, CA, and of: American Medical Diagnostic Labs of Santa Ana, and concurrently, the past ten of those years has been a Clinical Instructor in the Pathology Department at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. " -- doesn't seem fringe to me. Herd - you're retired. You still going strong. That's no reason to diss him. I disagree that the article cannot contain this information. Actually, I changed my mind. We can site the source that was anonymously added to the page today and specify that it is pending publication. Why is this any different than siting any other newspaper article? As long as we're clear.Pez1103 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about it -- the article contains Duval county's conclusion that it is DOP based on a "literature search" -- it's completely unreasonable not to include a pathology study because it is not yet published. It seems like the standard is much higher for anything that does not support that this is a mental illness. Pez1103 12:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just write about articles that are for and against. Has any of you listened to the psychologist's presentation yet at www.cherokeechas.com from the University of Wyoming???RamyB777 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fibers

I think that we need to discuss what is known or speculated so far regarding the fibers. I prefer to limit the discussion to sources who have actually analyzed the fibers. (I don't believe that the derms are really doing any kind of analysis.)

Listen to the June, 2006 interview of Randy Wymore at http://www.cherokeechas.com/audio0.htm

The fibers are commonly brown or darkish. The blue ones are almost electric blue. The red are deep/magneta. They are not dyed. (The disease is contagious, but not highly contagious. There seems to be a genetic predisposition and an environmental cause -- bacterial, virus or parasite.)

October 18, 2006 - New Lab Findings Point To Silicone/Silica and High Density Polyethlyene Fibers Causing Morgellons Disease. http://www.dldewey.com/morgel.htm filled with pockets of genetic material. -- Pez1103

Perhaps it IS a good idea to include some of the more interesting theories regarding Morgellons. You should include the Frass2 meterite with the evidence of the Martian Exobiology [59]. Also there seems to be a lot of evidence in favor of Chemtrails as the source [60]. Many people have proposed evidence of an accidental GMO release [61]. Some kind of Chinese hookworm [62]. One doctor proposed French bottled water [63]. There are other theories as well: Leishmania, Lyme, Mold, Fungus, Scabies, Mycoplasma, Stealth Viruses, Radioactive dust, Crank, Coffee, Vaccines, bird mites, biological weapons, bacterial nanocombination and global warming. [64]. It might be useful to include all these theories in one section? Herd of Swine 16:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Herd, I'm afraid your sarcasm was overlooked. Have you looked at the site mentioned above? A big red flag pretty much pounces out and hits one in the face immediately: Jeff Rense, named by the Department of State as an unreliable source of information, not that we needed them to tell us. It's pretty obvious. His site is so far out it's rather entertaining, but certainly not worth believing. I would suggest that morgs. disassociate themselves from him immediately, if they wish to retain any semblance of credibility. -- Fyslee 21:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The MRF actually did try to disassociate itself from the more open-minded factions of the Morgellons world - that's one area where Leitao seemed quite smart. But after the schism, most of the active MRF members left and founded the New Morgellons Order at cherokeechas.com - unfortunately they seem to embrace chemtrails and beyond. See the message board of the their "Chief Science Officer" Cliff Mickleson [65] Herd of Swine 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is bizzarre, look at this page at the New Morgellons Order: [66] what are they trying to say? Herd of Swine 21:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, include the more reasonable ones. What is nanocombination? Is there any other source for these, other than your website?

What I was asking for was a discussion of what is currently known about the fibers from researchers -- their composition, their appearance. Pez1103 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is defining "the fibers". Did Wymore just keep looking at fibers until he found some he could not identify? It sounds like these are just some random fibers. Tests on random fibers don't really mean anything.

I'm an inclusionist. But information needs to be verifiable. We need to strike the right balance between science, and the reporting of pseudoscience. It's okay to include information about fringe theories, so long as it is made clear that they are fringe theories. Herd of Swine 18:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, how would you include this in the article? : [67] Herd of Swine 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It can only be done if it's cited on a WP:RS. Few of them would qualify, and a comment above is relevant here:

• "We can site the source that was anonymously added to the page today and specify that it is pending publication. Why is this any different than siting any other newspaper article?" (Pez1103)

Following that suggestion would violate so many rules here at Wikipedia it makes me dizzy. These policies must not be violated: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. -- Fyslee 21:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[[68]] "[One] medical school is taking Morgellons very seriously. Most of the research on Morgellons is being done at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa. Doctors and scientists at OSU said this disease is real, and it's frightening. "I am 100 percent convinced that Morgellons is a real disease pathology," said Dr. Randy Wymore, an assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology at OSU. Wymore has spent the past year studying hundreds of fibers from Morgellons patients. "The samples do look very similar to one another," he said. Wymore added that the fibers don't look like anything found in textiles. He has also determined that the fibers are not rubbing off from clothing, because doctors at OSU have found the fibers inside the body. "We were able to observe fibers under completely unbroken skin," he said. Dr. Rhonda Casey has examined more than 30 Morgellons patients. "There's no question in my mind that it's a real disease," she said. Dr. Casey has extracted fibers from under the skin, and examined them under a microscope. "If it were not for the fibers, the patients would all be taken seriously. So I think even though the fibers may be a key to helping us diagnose this disease, they have also been a hinderance to it even being accepted as a real disease in the past," she said. Even thought the lesions and fibers are the most visible symptoms, doctors said the more damaging effects of this disease are the nerve and neurological damage, which affects the ability to think and move. "

Back to the original question, what are the fibers? the MorgellonsUSA site has lots of photographs, many of which involve these fibers. Without anything for scale in the background, their length and diameter is hard to guess. Over the past several decades I've occasionally looked at my skin under a microscope, or I've laid Scotch tape on my skin and then have used a microscope to examine the stuff the tape picked up. I've never seen anything like these colored fibers.

It says above that the fibers are not dyed. I'm guessing, but lots of brilliant colors in nature (such as the brilliant blue color of some butterflies) are the result of the interference of light. That explanation would be consistent with the fibers' appearing to be translucent and of a constant diameter. One thing that remains unclear to me is whether these fibers are gtowing out through the skin, or are appearing in the blood or serum from a sore. P0M 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)