Talk:Morgellons/Archive 14

 Not done: please establish a

This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Morgellons (

Please move the last point of the last sentence of the lead, “; the sores are the result of compulsive scratching, and the fibers, when analysed, turn out to originate from textiles.” Please omit it from the lead and move it to the second paragraph After the line that reference that exact study’s hypothesis, “CDC researchers issued the results of their multi-year study in January 2012, indicating that no disease organisms were present in people with so-called "Morgellons", that the fibers were likely cotton, and concluded that the condition was "similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation".”

So that the first two paragrpahs would read

Morgellons (

skin condition in which individuals have sores that they believe contain some kind of fibers.^[1][2] Morgellons is poorly characterized but the general medical consensus is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis

.

Mary Leitao,

U.S. Congress and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate the condition in 2006.^[5][6] CDC researchers issued the results of their multi-year study in January 2012, indicating that no disease organisms were present in people with so-called "Morgellons", that the fibers, when analysed, turn out to originate from textiles and concluded that the condition was "similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation", hypothesizing the sores to be the result of compulsive scratching.^[7][8]

Cambroo (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please only use this template after consensus has been arrived at for an edit.

talk

) 05:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is an improvement. I support this edit. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I would also, FWIW. Dyanega (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Since we are working this over...

• the summary of sores is not great in the current version and worse in the proposal. What the CDC actually wrote was "Case-patients had a wide range of skin lesions, suggesting that the condition cannot be explained by a single, well-described inflammatory, infectious, or neoplastic disorder. A substantial proportion (40%) of biopsied lesions had histopathologic features compatible with the sequelae of chronic rubbing or excoriation, without evidence of an underlying etiology. The most common histopathologic abnormality was solar elastosis, a degeneration of dermal connective tissue and increased amounts of elastic tissue due to prolonged sun exposure. However, this finding might be expected among a population residing in California and does not necessarily suggest a causal relationship. Histopathologic examination of skin areas with normal appearance were essentially normal, arguing against systemic or subclinical skin abnormalities. Among the differential diagnoses for the skin presentations detected are neurotic excoriations, atopic dermatitis, brachioradial pruritis, and arthropod bites."

So something like: "CDC researchers issued the results of their multi-year study in January 2012. They found no microorganism or virus in the subjects that could explain the shared symptoms. They found that the fibers were skin fragments or textiles, and that there was no single explanation for the sores but that they were consistent with persistent scratching, sun damage, atopic dermatitis, or insect bites. The scientists wrote that the condition was 'similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation'."

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a better summary. Does the CDC have the last word on this? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The article lead claims the pronounciation is (/mɔːrˈdʒɛlənz/). Note the dʒ -- which is the "soft g", pronounced like jam or gin. Wiktionary agrees with this 'soft g' pronounciation but it's unsourced and may simply have come from this article.

The second paragraph of the society & culture section claims "She chose the name Morgellons disease (with a hard g)". A "hard g" would be (/mɔːrˈɡɛlənz/), with ɡ, pronounced like go or get. Note: the 'hard g' claim is not in either of the citations given for that sentence, so I'm not clear where it comes from. However, the OED agrees with this 'hard g' pronounciation and should probably be used as the definitive source.

Cf. Hard_and_soft_G which explains "The sound of a hard ⟨g⟩ ... is usually the voiced velar plosive [ɡ] (as in gangrene or golf), while ... the sound of soft ⟨g⟩ is the affricate /dʒ/, as in general, giant, and gym."

Recommendation: be bold and mark the pronounciation as (/mɔːrˈɡɛlənz/), with a 'hard g', and update the wiktionary pronounciation too. I lack the edits required to fix this protected page, however, so am also hesitating on the wiktionary edit for the time being.

Otherwise, at a minimum these should be marked ^{[[[Morgellons#{{{section}}}|contradictory]]]}

Tofof (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't do wiktionary. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that this new research absolutely needs to be included/mentioned in the main page of the Morgellons illness in some form in order to make it unbiased and factual:

History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition ^[1]

Excerpt from abstract:

....Because individuals afflicted with the disease may have crawling or stinging sensations and sometimes believe they have an insect or parasite infestation, most medical practitioners consider MD a purely delusional disorder. Clinical studies supporting the hypothesis that MD is exclusively delusional in origin have considerable methodological flaws and often neglect the fact that mental disorders can result from underlying somatic illness. In contrast, rigorous experimental investigations show that this skin affliction results from a physiological response to the presence of an infectious agent. Recent studies from that point of view show an association between MD and spirochetal infection in humans, cattle, and dogs. These investigations have determined that the cutaneous filaments are not implanted textile fibers, but are composed of the cellular proteins keratin and collagen and result from overproduction of these filaments in response to spirochetal infection. Further studies of the genetics, pathogenesis, and treatment of MD are warranted.

 Not done not

talk

) 06:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

When the actual microscopy photographs do not serve as a scientific evidence, I do not know what does. When reviewed literature and research is not reliable, I do not know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.17.186 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't reddit or some blog; there are standards for sourcing things here. If you want to work here, you need to engage with the policies and guidelines here. The source has already been analyzed under the policies and guidelines here. You will find that discussion in the archives. (Look in the mustard-colored box at the top of this page - enter "Middelveen" into the search box, and read what you find. If a policy or guideline is linked in the discussion, go read it so you understand it. This is how Wikipedia works. See user:Jytdog/How for the deeper background if you like. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And continues with explanation: "The biggest problem are the authors who are blinded by the speed of realizing work, which they always need for something (vacancy, work, progress),"... so the continued existence of these journals is in part fuelled by researchers "who can't afford the time" to wait anywhere between several months and FOUR years for the publication of their findings. The second reason is pure convenience. 

This entire article is outdated and expresses a view point that is no longer the one held by the medical community at large. Citation for this claim can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ Do note that it is a Pubmed article from the National institute of health. On a personal note: the threats that have been given here regarding banning, the aggressive dismissive regard given to data not from the assumed unverified pure opinion of those who have moderated it has caused real human suffering.

00:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.137.209 (talk)

“Morgellons (/mɔːrˈdʒɛlənz/) is the informal name of a self-diagnosed, unconfirmed skin condition in which individuals have sores that they believe contain some kind of fibers.”

Why is the the introduction to the Article. It is likely accurate, but it doesn’t fit into nomemclature used by the 2008 cdc study or MayoClinic official description.

The two sources used as to the source of the summary seem, well, arbitrary and carefully selected. It appears to be someone strongly commenting on the topic, which genuinely irks me..

Can we look into cleaning this up? Giving it a more medical and/or neutral tonality.

MayoClinic for reference https://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/art-20044996

“Morgellons disease is an uncommon, poorly understood condition characterized by small fibers or other particles emerging from skin sores. People with this condition often report feeling as if something were crawling on or stinging their skin.”

What would be the problem with this as an introduction. It is more accurate and certainly carries less of the writers bias.

Thoughts? Cambroo (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't use Mayo Clinic for medical stuff, per

WP:LEAD here (please read that). It just summarizes the content in the body (the part below the table of contents). Jytdog (talk

) 01:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think the Mayo Clinic description is not as accurate as the current lead. I'm not sure that Morgellons is characterized by actual fibers, as opposed to supposed or perceived fibers. I could get behind changing "unconfirmed" to "unexplained" because people who claim to be suffering from Morgellons clearly do have symptoms of some kind. "Unexplained" is the term used in Pearson et al. 2012. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I understand, but that is my point. The reality is, is there has yet to be any “true” consensus on the topic. From my research the four camps you find the studies in are 1) 100% Delusional Parasitosis 2) Largely Delusional Parasitosis and some genuine auto-immune disorder 3) Largely Delusional parasitosis and/or some degree of Nocebo effect, in combination with actual Lyme diagnosis or symptom and then the fourth camp is 4) It’s real.

Based on that, and again, I do not necessarily disagree with you, I don't don’t think enough consensus has been met to state it the way it is.

Think of it another way, the point I’m making is let flash forward ten years. Let’s say we recognize, yes its all in these people’s minds. The next step in the process would be to identify precisely “Why?” - The why has no consensus or original hypothesis even.

Due to these reasons any many others I feel, out of respect to the scientific method and to even to the skeptical community—to everyone— it needs to be a non-declaratory and unbiased as possible. I think you can agree it can be improved just a hair. To the people who genuinely believe they have this thing, delusional or not, the bias of the lead would lead to potentially more psychological trauma that could otherwise be avoided.

The goal is to improve quality.

Vote to remove the bias? Cambroo (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree changing unconfirmed to unexplained changes the context of the lead significantly. I would also say that saying the “general consensus” is it is a delusional parasitosis is a oversimplication. I would suggest maybe “The majority of medical professionals, including the CDC, believe it is a form of delusional parasitosis” — or something to that effect.And I’ve actually read probably 15 different explanations of why the sores are there and how significant they are, so I would probably say removing the entire last sentence— or moving it further down the article, would probably be the most honest summary to lead the article Cambroo (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think WebMD summarized the condition perfectly, as it stands today, IMO, https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/morgellons-disease-what-is-it#1 Cambroo (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The Mayo web page has been discussed previously. See, for instance, Talk:Morgellons/Archive 12#the term "delusional" is NOT neutral. Basically, it's a potential-patient-facing pamphlet, published by a for-profit institution staffed by good clinicians. As such, they recognize that calling self-diagnosed Morgellons patients delusional up front isn't a good way to guide them to seek effective treatment. Instead, Mayo soft-pedals the etiology and encourages patients to be (ahem) patient, and to be willing to consider mental health interventions alongside other clinical approaches in the context of a mutually respectful doctor-patient relationship. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This entire article is outdated and expresses a view point that is no longer the one held by the medical community at large. Citation for this claim can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ Do note that it is a Pubmed article from the National institute of health. On a personal note: the threats that have been given here regarding banning, the aggressive dismissive regard given to data not from the assumed unverified pure opinion of those who have moderated it has caused real human suffering.

00:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.137.209 (talk)

I have moved this post to the bottom of the page, where it should go. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a reliable source imho, due to COI of the lead author, despite no declaration. Bad form. ADD, also note the discussion directly above. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Testing

Morgellons has been associated with Lyme Disease. Laboratory testing is suggested. 134.197.0.21 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Says

who? Tgeorgescu (talk

) 23:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Citation not provided; also see (from the article:)

Some people have linked Morgellons "to another illness viewed skeptically by most doctors, chronic Lyme disease".^[1]

—PaleoNeonate – 23:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I know that Im probably using improper format or not adding this in the appropriate place, but I keep reading about sources people have tried to use as being not good enough or they are from a biased source.

  In regards to the lead section of the morgellons page, its not that its outdated (although it is)  its more to the fact it is written in an obviously biased way.  The CDC study plainly states "We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features." Page text.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

A study publish in the Clinical Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology^[1] claims "rigorous experimental investigations show that this skin affliction results from a physiological response to the presence of an infectious agent."^[2] 108.162.148.115 (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Declined. See previous conversations here about Middelveen papers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The National Institute of Health: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328066/

"Morgellons disease (MD) is a complex skin disorder characterized by ulcerating lesions that have protruding or embedded filaments."

[...]"recent studies indicate that MD is a true somatic illness associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are keratin and collagen in composition and that they result from proliferation and activation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in the skin. Previously, spirochetes have been detected in the dermatological specimens from four MD patients, thus providing evidence of an infectious process."

Page needs revision. Sagémoto (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done See talk page archives. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, National Center for Biotechnology Information is just a database of journal article. It does not endorse or approve content. The world would be a much better place if they'd put a disclaimer at the top of the page. EEng 06:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• One of these days, I'm going to write WP:PubMed is not a publisher so I can link to it every time one of these comes up, usually on a alt-med or fringe-med talk page. I can't do it until I have a snappier shortcut in mind than WP:PMINAP, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  WP:PUBMEDISJUSTAREPOSITORY -- long but memorable. EEng 04:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  WP:PUBMEDISJUSTASUPPOSITORY -- long and memorable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Blow it out your ass, Roxy.^[FBDB] EEng 21:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This information is outdated and proved incorrect. I site this article by https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/#!po=1.42857 174.207.200.135 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please read the archives of this talk page where that study was brought up and discussed multiple times. --McSly (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

the information in this article contradicts websites like the mayoclinic. it is ridiculous to not even include this study on the page. 142.186.107.182 (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not our fault that "the mayoclinic" chooses to ignore the scientific consensus. Wikipedia is based on reliable information. Dubious studies get mentioned only if reliable sources mention them and if they are relevant enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent peer-reviewed review articles cement Morgellons status as a somatic illness associated with spirochetal infection. This is entirely separate from delusions of parisitosis which is a different, although very real, diagnosis altogether. This Wikipedia article needs to be updated as it is disseminating false and misleading information.

Grimm, J. (2021). Morgellons Disease and Its Association with Spirochetes and Lyme Disease. Asian Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 10, 38-41.

69.3.179.154 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Does not pass

WP:MEDRS. It's not even indexed for PubMed, let alone MEDLINE. tgeorgescu (talk

) 16:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Jase Grimm University of the People · Health Science Bachelor of Science

He does not even have a Master's degree, let alone a PhD. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Primary source on the face of it, and thus unreliable for our purposes. See

WP:MEDRS which describes acceptable sources for medical claims. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF

13:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Unless those studies have been positively received by secondary sources, it does not matter. Read

WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk

) 10:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

See the Archives, Middelveen comes up a lot. They seem to "review" their own research, making it a primary source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It bears mentioning, in the sense of "full disclosure", that Raphael Stricker, one of the co-authors of this work, is not only the founder of the defunct "Morgellons Research Foundation" as well as "ILADS" (so not an unbiased source), but was also under investigation by the NIH in 1993 ("found to have falsified and misrepresented data in a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Immunology, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and a grant application submitted to the National Institutes of Health" - [1]), a claim which he did not dispute, and instead voluntarily accepted a 3-year period of ineligibility for funding. I'll say this again to emphasize the point: he was found, by the NIH Office of Research Integrity, to have routinely falsified data. That is about as large a red flag as you could possibly ask for, and this is the man who almost singlehandedly has put both "Morgellons" and "Chronic Lyme Disease" on the map. He is NOT a reliable source. Dyanega (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you're gonna hold a little thing like research fraud against a guy ... EEng 23:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not only

• ORI NEWSLETTER VOLUME 1, NO. 2, APRIL 1993 OFFICE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, but also
• FINAL FINDINGS OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT, NIH GUIDE, Volume 22, Number 23, June 25, 1993: "The publication, 'Target platelet antigen in homosexual men with immune thrombocytopenia' in the New England Journal of Medicine, 313:1315-1380, 1985 has been retracted (New England Journal of Medicine, 325: 1487,1991)." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Source type reply

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

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

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

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

The medical orthodoxy is that it is delusional parasitosis. You need many, and extremely reputable

WP:REDFLAG. tgeorgescu (talk

) 08:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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

This has already been discussed to death. Search the archive for "Middelveen". Another good quote, by User:HandThatFeeds, from just a few lines above, may help you improve your knowledge of how Wikipedia works.

Please see

WP:MEDRS

. With medical claims like this, we stick with established medical science, which is overwhelmingly in favor of the delusional parasitosis explanation.

--Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

And it's not a "government study". Don't we have an essay somewhere explaining that NLM does not review, evaluate, or judge the quality of individual articles and relies on the scientific publishing process to identify and address problems through published comments, corrections, and retractions (or, as in the case of preprints, withdrawal notices) [2]? EEng 17:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Please consider the following research article:

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

See

WP:PRIMARY. Let's wait until reliable secondary sources agree with Middelveen's newest output. --Hob Gadling (talk

) 07:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not new;

PMID 22253541 is 2011. We already know what secondary sources think of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Unless those studies have been positively received by secondary sources, it does not matter. Read

WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk

) 16:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This entry is criminally incorrect and outdated. Government findings and opinion are completely disregarded. It's currently biased and irresponsible and causing real world negative consequences and an epidemic of undiagnosed lyme disease. It needs to be corrected to help save lives. I've lost 2 people to the illness and 1 to suicide because of the stigma that this entry propagates. It's absolutely critical for the biased individuals editing this page to be removed and an updated entry to be put forth. 76.172.72.212 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Studies searched for organisms and upon not finding any, had to assume the fibers were textiles.

Fibers were never proven to be textiles. 76.172.72.212 (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources cited in the article disagree with this opinion of a random person on the internet. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Any other material would be from the environment or the body, like resulting from repetitive tissue damage inflicted by the patient. Unless it can be diagnosed as an actual more specific disease, infestation or infection (then it would not be called Morgellons). Please see this talk page and its archives for previous discussions, this is perennial. Without providing reliable sources supporting your claims (especially

WP:NOTFORUM. —PaleoNeonate

– 14:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The U.S. National Institutes of Health rare diseases database (GIRD): https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/9805/morgellons refers for Morgellons info only to the sites for the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) and the Charles H. Holman Foundation. Both ID Morgellons as a physical disease. The NIH sets the standard of orthodoxy for biomedical research in the US.

Any ethical definition of "mainstream scholarship" on medicine includes NIH-funded research published in professional journals. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6627092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328066/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8643125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941186/ Here's a whole page of more studies: https://thecehf.org/research/

These are first-page hits from the NIH research database search of the word "Morgellons;" i.e. this is a major accepted position. Whether Wikipedia editors accept any of these studies or not, and whether they are good research or not, to delete any mention of the fact that both the NIH and professional research journals accept them, and the position exists, is censoring the page.

Here's the Mayo clinic's Morgellons ed page. It shows one way a non-censored report made without accepting the veracity of studies can look: https://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/ART-20044996

The idea of causal Borellia sp. with keratin abnormalities was being widely distributed among professionals at least since 2011: https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/6/prweb9616173.htm. I.E. a subset of researchers has proposed for the past decade to limit the term "Morgellons" to lesions with keratin abnormalities in the presence of Borellia sp. spirochetes, and the NIH is supporting this approach.

Why are Wikipedia editors fighting inclusion of any mention of this fact?

There's a basic problem in the article as it stands: "reliable medical sources" (i.e. non-PsyD MDs) cannot decide what is a mental disorder, just as "reliable psychology sources" cannot decide what is a heart disease. The current article makes the claim that Morgellons is a mental disorder, but the citation needed would be from the mental health field: DSM-5, etc. Instead, the article claims it is a mental disorder which does not exist, and does not give the diagnostic criteria. There aren't any. There's no mental health disorder called Morgellons, or any of the terms like delusional parasitosis being used by people who claim it's a mental disorder. It's a false claim. (I am not saying your opinion is wrong. I am saying it is an opinion, not a fact: a mental disorder is a specific thing.)

This study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171510/ points out that the relevant actual DSM-5 diagnosis is Somatic-type Delusional Disorder, and ANY medical definition of Morgellons would make it exclusive from S-tDD.

I have no personal stake in Morgellons. I'm a professional biomedical research educator, and I am concerned about this level of censorship in one of the most visited educational sites in the world. "Delusional parasitosis" and similar terms are used as synonyms for Morgellons to signal a personal belief that it's a delusion. But mental health professions have never erected a diagnosis for Morgellons. It's only one of many meanings people use for the word.

One of the diagnostic criteria of Somatic-type Delusional Disorder is that the skin sensations are not due to another cause (i.e. if you feel crawling sensations in your skin from nerve damage due to diabetic neuropathy, spirochete disease, etc,--it is not S-tDD. If you believe there is something abnormal growing in your skin because there is something abnormal growing in your skin, it is not S-tDD). The difference between an opinion and a diagnosis is that diagnoses can be differentated; this is important because if I decide all recurrent stomachache is "neurosis," (or it's all "ulcers,") I will be unable to tell the difference between my patients with anxiety and my patients with Heliobacter pylori infection. I believe this is the core problem here: "Morgellons" is being used for at least two mutually exclusive different things: a (maybe non-existent) version of Lyme disease or a related illness, and a (definitely non-existent) mental health diagnosis.

The conflict has a factual answer: only licensed mental health professional organizations can establish and define mental disorders. MDs cannot do so. Patients cannot do so. Wikipedia editors cannot do so. Morgellons is not a mental disorder. It is a word, with an interesting and contested history about what it means to various user groups. This means the page needs revision for basic accuracy, both to clarify that neither "Morgellons" nor "delusional parasitosis" are mental disorders, and to give the history of the Morgellons=Lyme definition, the Morgellons=S-tDD definition, and less specific definitions, such as the early social gathering around "I have a mysterious physical cause illness with colored fibers," and the tendency of MDs to coin and use diagnostic-mimicry terms to mean "I can't find anything wrong with this middle-aged female patient and personally think they're delusional."

Biased articles erode the credibility of Wikipedia as a neutral source of reliable info. The answer is not to argue over which way we should completely bias the article, or to pretend Wikipedia can (or should try to) define only one true meaning for this word. The answer is to write an accurate encyclopedia entry. I can edit the page for accuracy, but I won't waste the time if people are going to revert or change all the edits to make the entry erase every definition and citation they don't believe in themselves. I have no interest in "proving" what Morgellons "really" means. Wikipedia cannot make that decision. Morgellons is a word. Like most words, it has multiple definitions. I think giving a neutral, citation-supported overview of the various definitions, with the primary user groups and the history of primary arguments for and critiques of each definition, is the one thing everyone can get behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panoramagram (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• In linking to https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/9805/morgellons , you apparently didn't read the NCATS disclaimer: Any materials that GARD provides are for information purposes only and do not represent endorsement by or an official position of NCATS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any Federal agency ... The information, data, opinions, and statements linked to from this website are not necessarily those of NCATS, NIH, or any other Federal agency and should not be interpreted, acted on, or represented as such. I sampled the rest of your links and they all appear to be by Marianne Middleveen, a self-employed veterinarian. EEng 01:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Enough. The article is based on reliable medical sources. Until the medical community changes their diagnosis, there is nothing further to be gained from this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article is clearly written with bias by a skeptic and is worded to convince the reader of the delusional parisitosis explanation without leaving room for uncertainty or alternative explanations. This is very disappointing and a great disservice to sufferers. Firstly, there is no evidence that confirms delusion being involved. Secondly there is no evidence lesions are self inflicted. Thirdly there is no evidence that Morgellons fibres are textile fibres. All of these are presumptions and there is much evidence that is contrary to them. The claim that the fibers are "consistently" found to be cotton or other textile fibres implies multiple cases of conclusive analysis. The only case with such a finding I'm aware of is the CDC investigation which lacks any methodology or evidence to support it in a conclusive way. There is more recent research which has applied a specific methodology in harvesting and analysis which concludes that the fibres are not consistent with any known natural or synthetic fibres and are dermal in origin as consistently professed by anyone with the condition. How can such a definitive position be put forward when the evidence for it is so weak and while there is completely contradictory evidence in existence? Where is the objectivity and diligence here? This causes real harm and must be re-examined. 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC) The article currently cites multiple published sources, you cite none. We don't base articles on random assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Please see WP:MEDRS. With medical claims like this, we stick with established medical science, which is overwhelmingly in favor of the delusional parasitosis explanation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Nice one So you block anyone that disagrees and don't allow them to respond with citations as requested. Drunk on power. 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC) No, we simply have WP:RULES for sourcing. If your reason is able to comprehend these rules is another matter. We do nothing arbitrary around here. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Well, at least one person here (the person who started this section) understands that Wikipedia isn't about information, but rather about the power struggles of editors trying to get their world view reflected in the articles. As for Morgellon's disease, I suspect they will conclude that it is caused by some kind of mite not dissimilar to scabies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Funny. What Wikipedia definitely will not do is base articles on the hunches of editors about what will be found out later. And we will not just ignore the rules about about reliable sourcing because somebody imagines "power struggles" and somebody else agrees with that. Go publish your ideas in a scientific journal, convince the scientific community, and then come back. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC) It was just a guess on my part that it might be a mite. I would never write that into the article. But if you think, Hob, that Wikipedia is all about facts and science, you are wrong. Editors have agendas, and they unashamedly push their agendas on the articles. I was a good editor for years, and I was pushed out in one of the power struggles. Many Wikipedia articles are filled with bias. This article may be one of those. The approach being taken in this article is "If it can't be proved, it isn't true" -- but as you know (or should know) humanity's knowledge is always evolving. I have no doubt that a physical agency will be found for Morgellon's eventually.~~24.38.185.65 The comment about there being a mite involved ignores the history and reality of parasitology and epidemiological science; it helps to know that the scabies mite was recognized as a mite in the late 1600's. That was in fact the last confirmed recognition of a new human parasite that belongs to the kingdom Animalia. It has therefore been over 300 years since anyone has discovered a previously-unknown parasite of humans, and we sure as heck have a lot of scientists like myself who have been looking, so I think we can be quite secure in saying that there are no more left to be discovered. Finding a new mite on, say, giraffes would not be a surprise, because no one is looking at skin ailments of giraffes. Finding a new parasite on humans would be like finding that there is another planet the size of Mars in the inner solar system, overlooked because no one had ever pointed a telescope at it, purely by chance; it would be the biggest scientific surprise in centuries. The other crucial thing to bear in mind here is that anything that is a human parasite has to be transmitted, by definition, from one human to another. You can't spontaneously manifest a parasite, it has to be passed TO you, meaning there would need to be hundreds of thousands of people carrying that parasite before you (especially if you are someone who has never set foot in some exotic place like the African jungle) could possibly acquire it. Basically, if there was ever to be a new parasite discovered, it would have to be harbored by some group of humans that has been completely uncontacted by anyone in the outside world since the 1700s. Of all of the "first contact" scenarios that HAVE occurred since the 1700s (like various "lost" Amazon tribes), not once did that lead to the discovery of anything new. Some fantasy world claim that "science doesn't know everything" does not apply in a case like this. Dyanega (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC) If it's a mite, maybe ivermectin cures it. The wonder drug of the age! EEng 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Headline - "Veteran Wikipedian Spreads Misinformation" -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC) You mean "veterinarian Wikipedia editor"? EEng 22:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC) I'm not a medical researcher or a doctor. I was just taking a guess. But it needs to be pointed out, Dyanega, that your certainty that all the mites infecting humans have been identified is probably wrong. Science keeps evolving; there is nothing certain in science. You should know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Science keeps evolving — that's a truism for all educated people, and cannot be used to provide evidence for your claim when there is none. And the reason for your ban: all Wikipedians should kowtow to mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy. To the extent they cannot do that, they should refrain from editing, e.g. as I do in respect to abortion. I already know I'm unwanted at that article, there is no need to learn it from a topic ban. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC) My God, you don't even know what article I was editing that got me banned, and you presume to suggest that it was right that I was banned? You don't know what you are talking about, and you also don't know what's going on here on Wikipedia. On any controversial topic, the information that gets into the encyclopedia is the information that is promoted by the most aggressive and populous clique of editors. That's the only true standard here. A good example is transgender ideology, which is a crock of shit. But because there are a lot of pro-transgender ideologues on the site, Gender Speak (as I call it) is the norm, and the cockeyed notions that trans people have (like gender = gender identity) are accepted as fact, when in fact it is entirely unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM. Could we please now wrap up and hat this (very interesting) discussion? I find it unseemly to taunt believers in Morgellons, and I hope we would find it equally unseemly to taunt those who have any form of delusion. It's unproductive to argue with those who have firmly entrenched delusions-- even more so, those who also don't accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk ) 01:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC) It sounds to me like you just taunted Morgellons sufferers (by calling them deluded) at the same time that you said it was unseemly to do so. People like you shouldn't be writing a grocery list, much less an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC) I didn't call them deluded; reliable sources are clear that morgellons is delusional parasitosis, which is "a mental disorder in which individuals have a persistent belief that they are infested with living or nonliving pathogens such as parasites, insects, or bugs, when no such infestation is present ... classified as a delusional disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)." And reliable sources explain why arguing the case with those who have the condition is unproductive. So much for asking others to play nice; if you want to continue using this page as a chat forum, that can be addressed as necessary on other pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC) The whole point of this discussion is that the article appears to be biased. It is a well-known habit of doctors to ascribe unexplained ailments or symptoms to a patient's imagination. You keep stating that it is a mental disorder as if that is a fact, but that's not a fact. With thousands of people reporting symptoms, the likelihood is that there is a disease process at work which simply hasn't been identified yet. To be unbiased, the article should give all sides of the discussion and then state that the cause is presently unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Then all you need to do is find those reliable sources that agree with you. WP:OR is policy. We cannot just ignore them and put your opinion in the article on your say-so. --Hob Gadling (talk ) 10:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC) And my answer is: their suffering is real; the cause of their suffering is the porn addiction. tgeorgescu (talk ) 11:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Google scholar coughs up a new review

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

There's a good recent review in there, that could be used:

• Beuerlein KG, Balogh EA, Feldman SR (August 2021). "Morgellons disease etiology and therapeutic approach: a systematic review" (PDF). Dermatol Online J. 27 (8).
  PMID 34755952. SandyGeorgia (Talk
  ) 01:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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

So, there is 'scientific evidence' we should base this article on, but you aren't going to tell us where to find it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What Andy said. We have a higher "inclusion" standard for medical subjects than most medical journals, which likely contributes to why Wikipedia is the first source used by most doctors nowadays.[3][4][5] The relevant policy is

cherry-pick

which research articles to include, even if they document top quality peer reviewed research. We usually require reviews and meta-analyses of many such reports. That way we get what comes closer to a consensus view. Anyone can cherry-pick good research to push a fringe and false agenda, so we stop that practice by requiring a better approach to sourcing of our medical articles.

So what is this "scientific evidence" of which you speak? Please provide the sources for our consideration. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we please not reply in the middle of a six-month-old thread? Start a new topic if you have proposed changes to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

You have to use medically reliable sources,

WP:MEDRS, by policy, and I'm afraid Middelveen does not meet those requirements. - Roxy the English speaking dog

12:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I just want to point out that by extinguishing the light of science we're helping combat greenhouse gas emissions and consequent climate change. EEng 13:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@EEng That is one of the most irrational and illogical statements I've heard in a long time. it's very contradictory when you think of it— If there wasn't any scientific enlightenment then how would you know about climate change going on? Edmbugger (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

<Stares in slack-jawed amazement> EEng 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Why is it not medically relevant? What a bunch of sad quibbling over qualifications and accreditation. Scientist is not defined by piece of paper but by their adherence to strict empirical observations. Science does not give a damn about accreditation and pieces of paper; it cares about the results. Nullius in verba. If this woman who actually had to learn about biology in her occupation, is as a veterinarian, is not qualified to talk on illnesses in general then who is? How is it not medically relevant when you actually consider evolution? One can see not only correlation but strong associations between animal-born illnesses and human illnesses. Edmbugger (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Middelveen (2016) has been thoroughly discussed, as have other articles she has published (please see archives 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 for this talk page) and a consensus exists that it should not be used as a source. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Science is about finding new ideas that better fits the observations we see in nature. Wikipedia shouldn't be censoring what are competing valid hypotheses in the what is an evolving discovery in my opinion. In the 1980s people were mystified by what was going on in gay men like myself ( hiv-aids). What if the discussions by scientists to figure out what was going with what was then an emerging disease at the time were censored? Pedanticism can be very harmful. You shouldn't be afraid of other people's arguments unless you believe your argument isn't valid. Rational people can draw their own conclusions. Edmbugger (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Rational people would understand that Wikipedia policies set out that it is a tertiary source that reflects existing consensus on scientific matters, rather than a forum for debates that should be taking place elsewhere. Go convince the scientists, and we'll change the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, rational people who are familiar with the specific way Wikipedia works, i.e. that it seems to aim not at giving a summary of the facts about a subject but at giving a summary of what a specific category of published sources say about a subject. I'm not sure that the average Joe Public that checks Wikipedia for a quick run-down of something they've read is aware that Wikipedia has this rather particular policy of acknowledging only things that appear in certain types of sources, no matter how widely publicised they may be otherwise. From that point of view, writing as if contradictory professional voices simply don't exist - not only are possibly not reliable, but don't exist - might seem like downright misinformation. (I'm referring to the Middelveen and Stricker 2016 review, not the general non-professional chit-chat). Wombat140 (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's true. We do like what we write to be supported by reliable sources. - Roxy the dog 08:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Right. And fringe stuff is kept out (or included only when contextualized by mainsteam sources). Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

might seem like downright misinformation You are saying that it might seem that way to someone who does not understand how Wikipedia works. It might also seem that way to someone who does not understand how science works. Some scientific papers are bad, and those are left at the roadside. Wikipedia just reflects that. If it did not, and cited those bad papers as if they were good papers, that would not just seem like misinformation to misinformed people, it would actually be misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny you should pick HIV for your example. Peter Duesberg to this day claims that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, but I have a feeling you won't be advocating that WP present his crackpot ideas as valid alternatives to the scientific consensus. EEng 21:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You went on a transphobic rant back in December, so you shouldn't be arguing about what "rational people" think. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I said it was not medically reliable as a source. - Roxy the English speaking dog 21:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Let us lay out all the possibilities in this article and try to arrange the possibilities based on data that supports or rejects each respective hypothesis. Us? Nosotros es mucha gente; please review

blocks are preventative. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 14:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• you could be formally uninvited from participating at this talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk
  ) 21:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  get bent. Wikipedia is bad as Reddit now Edmbugger (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't get much better than gay guy Ed Bugger telling you to get bent. EEng 22:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article on Morgellons from the National Institute of Health needs to be included in Further Reading section of this article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/#!po=8.06452 Morgellons Help (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, please check the archives of this talk page. You'll se that this article has already been discussed multiple times. --McSly (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

And it's not "from the NIH". The NIH's National Library of Medicine simply indexes papers, whether they're good or bad, reputable or otherwise. Maybe we need an FAQ on this (not that it will stop people from posting this request over and over, but it saves time in responding). EEng 19:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I just read that Middelvwossname paper again, I have no idea how she comes to such a conclusion, nor how she can claim no COI. However, I may be straying into

WP:NOT

territory so I'd better stop.

The true believers in this condition just need to show that the fibres that are so critical to the issue are not textile based, and there are methods, relatively easy with the right equipment, to identify exactly what type the fibres are. At least one active wiki editor has these professional skills (ahem) and it always surprises me that sufferers haven't had this fibre identification done. Actually perhaps they have and dont want the results made public. All this silliness could be put to bed. Our Textile testing article, very naive and newly created, has a section on Fibre Identification (Note that burn tests are not reliable, and are just field methods) but it is sorely missing much. Just sayin'. -Roxy the dog 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

This recent review gives the detail on why "one group's" work is not held in high regard; we might work some of that in to an FAQ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)