Jump to content

Talk:Morgellons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ninahexan (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 21 August 2012 (→Lyme disease reference: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archive
Archives

The CDC Study That Debunks Morgellons Disease and the Stigma of Mental Illness

Interesting article and possible source for content:

Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Max Igan's new film 'Trance-Formation' discusses that Morgellons and Chemtrails are linked and that the Chemtrails have been proved to have nano-particulars that have the same properties as the fibers found in Morgellons sufferers. http://vimeo.com/40806881 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psonik23 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent violation of subject viewpoint neutrality

After reading this article, I am confused about how any claim can be made towards any supposed maintenance of neutrality was maintained towards the article's subject matter and presentation.

I have no axe to grind either way, nor do I particularly care about the subject matter of this article whatsoever, yet I find myself repulsed by the obvious slant given towards a specific viewpoint. The entire lead in paragraph appears designed to cause the reader to disregard the main article. As just a few "for instances", of MANY...

Mrs. Leitao is referred to as a "stay-at-home-mom" in the lead in, yet no reference to any other qualifications (such as her medical science background) are not mentioned until the main article, which would lead the reader initially to disregard the subject at a glance without bothering to read the article itself.

This is further compounded by the following statement that "Doctors, including dermatologists and psychiatrists regard ..." leading the reader to assume that ALL doctors etc.. believe the subject is delusional, yet further in the article the main proponents FOR the subject matter apparently are qualified scientists themselves, though their qualifications are but briefly mentioned at best.

After reading the article, I am reminded more of an opinion editorial, or a debunking piece than an encyclopedic entry. 63.245.138.60 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation leads to more serious doubts... http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morgellons-disease/SN00043

The mayo clinic states outrightly that both they and the CDC consider the condition as yet unexplained. A person would never come to this conclusion based upon the article.63.245.138.60 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this sentence: "But CDC researchers weren't able to determine if Morgellons disease is a new disorder or simply another name for delusional parasitosis," what they are saying is that they are not sure whether to classify it as delusional parasitosis, or some other type of delusional disorder. The article clearly statese that it's not caused by infectious agents or environmental substances. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. I am referencing the whole article, of which the second paragraph contains "Researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have concluded that Morgellons disease, which they refer to as an unexplained dermopathy, isn't caused by an infection or parasites." 'Dermopathy' means any disease of the skin, not the mind. The CDC refers to morgellon's as an unexplained SKIN disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.138.60 (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a misrepresentation. Dermopathy does refer to skin damage, but this also occurs when someone does it to themselves. It's "unexplained" because they haven't been able to show if there is an infectious agent, or if it's a form of self-harm. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with sentiment of user 63.245.138.60. Reading this article it seems to me to be a debunking attempt rather then encyclopedic entry. I don't know much about wikipedia rules of conduct, nor spent here enought time to feel need to explore this subject. But in case neutrality of a article might be dispiuted with some sort of voteing, I add my voice to add a "neutrality disputed" label on this article 89.70.85.133 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia maintains neutrality from the currently accepted scientific/medical viewpoint. Neutrality does not mean "both sides get equal time to tell their side." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality doesn't mean portraying both sides as being equally valid, but presenting available evidence on the matter without trying to prove either side. As it so happens, the evidence does make it sound like it is psychological, but that is not our fault, we do not bend evidence to produce a false narrative of equally valid sides, we present evidence and let it speak for itself. Complaints that reality is biased, that the sources are wrong, etc, should be taken elsewhere as we do not engage in WP:original research, but rely on WP:reliable sources reporting on the matter for our content.AerobicFox (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To directly quote the Wikipedia guideline npv(neutral point of view) stands "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This is further stated to be non negotiable. In other words breaking this concept is not an option. ALL SIGNIFICANT VIEWS which have been published by reliable sources are to be shown. The mayo clinic article I quoted earlier states out-rightly that the subject is disputed among medical professionals, in fact three different professional viewpoints are shown. IE not all doctors think it is a mental issue. Refusing to show this is clear bias and MUST NOT be done here at wikipedia, whether or not an editor agrees with the validity of the subject matter.63.245.138.60 (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New study being repeatedly re-added

New information has been added to the lede by User:173.15.170.86 three times,[3][4][5] and reverted three times by two different users, me and User:Yobol. I agree with Yobol, that the addition violates Wikipedia policies regarding medical reliable sources, undue weight, and neutral point of view, among others. I would request that 173.15.170.86 consider making a case here as to why the information should be included, and how it meets the rules (particularly WP:MEDRS) before continuing the current edit-war. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to the case against inclusion: the publication in question is written by the former president of the Morgellons Research Foundation, and presently affiliated with the "Charles E. Holman Foundation" (Randy Wymore's Morgellons splinter group at OSU) and NOT a neutral third party. The conflict of interest is even mentioned in the paper, though not elaborated upon. As such, if the citation is to appear at all in the article, it should appear where the "alternative views" expressed by Stricker and his old MRF colleagues (several of whom he acknowledges at the end of the paper, such as Savely, Wymore, and Casey) are presently discussed. These are extreme minority viewpoints, not confirmed or supported by anyone in the medical community who is NOT affiliated with the MRF or its splinter groups (past or present), and need to be given very significant "red flags" to alert readers to this fact. It is not even clear, for example, whether the article in question was peer-reviewed (the acknowledgments of peer-reviewed papers usually include a statement thanking the anonymous reviewers). Given how much money these people are making from Morgellons sufferers, they obviously have to fight back against the Mayo Clinic and CDC studies that laid the "Morgellons controversy" to rest. Dyanega (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new sudy was groundbreaking, the CDC is aware they screwed up, and the study proves beyong any reasonable doubt that the disease is caused by an infectious agent. Read the study, the fibers are UNDER intact skin, anyone who wants to dispute that fact, obviously has a political agenda or cannot read, or does not have sufficient IQ to understand basic science. I personally know two physicians, who were doubters like some of you, and when i showed them the fibers UNDER intact skin with a dermascope on 100X, they were so stunned, they look like they had seen a ghost. Morgellons is not a parasite, it's not chemtrails, it's not nanobots or bugs, or any other nonsense....it's not a government conspiracy. the REAL scientists working on Morgellons, believe it is an issue with the Keratinocytes. It's not supernatural. It is a disease, like any other disease. CNN is already all over this new study, and if Wikipedia and it's wiki mafia, wants to live in the land of make believe, and block reference to a profoundly well done study (the first of it's kind) and the most stunning work in the last 10 years on Morgellons, then you should question what your true mission is, on wikipedia....No one is making any money off morgellons. I personally have spent tens of thousands of dollars on research, and i can assure you, this disease is bad, and it's getting worse. Live in denial, or read the study and stop casting asperison at decent hard working researchers who have committed their LIFE, to investigating this horrendous disease, while you gutless cowards hide behind fake names, and throw around information, that is totally outdated and with little merit. Mary Letao? please....lol....she is irrevelant. Real researchers have taken over, the "A" team is now in the building, and we can assure you, Morgellons is real, the fibers are growing UNDER intact skin, and it relates to something gone awry in the keratinocytes. It's not supernatual. The collective IQ of the WIKI editors is clearly not able to process how cutting edge this study actually is. It's the biggest thing to happen in Morgellons, for long long time. Stay tuned....There are alot of people running around the CDC today, after that study was released, embarassed, trying to figure how in the world they screwed this thing up. How do i know that?.....I know alot of things (wink). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.196.98 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that Wikipedia has turned into a joke, and the morgellons page is ample evidence of that fact. In November 2011, a discovery was made that showed that Bovine Digital Dermatitis (which cost the dairy industry millions of dollars year) had remarkable similarities to Morgellons, and a paper was published. For people in the know, doing morgellons and lyme research, it was a stunning discovery because it calls into question the notion of delusional parasitosis (cattle cant be delusional...lol....) and the symptoms are virtually identical to morgellons) This major finding, completely flies under the radar on Wikipedia. Impartial? please....get over yourselves. Now, a new study, adds further evidence, that the CDC study was a joke, and that the CDC is now going to have to roll over, and admit they screwed it up, and the wiki mafia editors want to block one small tiny reference to the new ground breaking study?....(a highly placed source at the CDC, when the deficiencies of their study were pointed out, is reported to have said "why was i not made aware of this?" The reseacher said "i sent you information and concerns on the study before it was published and you never responded" and the CDC official was reported to have said "Somebody kept your concerns from reaching my desk, I was not aware of it...."......I can assure the readers of this talk page, even the CDC doesnt believe their own study. They are getting inundated with doctors claiming where they used to see a handful of patients a year with strange lesions, now they see 10 a week. The new study, is a step in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.196.98 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's discuss the science. The paper makes the stunning case, that the fibers, are made of KERATIN !! That there is a problem in the keratinocytes....Not nanobots, aliens, meteorites, chemtrails, cotton fiber conspiracies or any other hocus pocus, by the typical knuckleheads that orbit this morgellons controversy. The paper, which some are trying to block, is FINALLY a breath of fresh air. Real science, with a well thought out hypothesis. Now think about that for a moment: Over the last 10 years we have had every knucklehead wacko running around the internet talking gibberish, and FINALLY someone does some real science, and draws some down to earth rational hypothesis, and the wiki mafia, blocks it !!.....you cant make this stuff up boys and girls.....lol....A real paper gets published, and you block it, and include absurd speculations in the Morgellons page....It's all good. CNN is going to run with it, wikipedia can be 5 years behind, and continue on it's well documented and well demonstrated path to irrelevancy...lol....just read the entire paper, and stop worrying about who wrote it. Just read it. It's a breath of frsh air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.196.98 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MEDRS. The article does not qualify as it is a primary study (not secondary source) and it is published in a journal that is not even MEDLINE indexed - a big red flag. You will also find that being brief and to the point will get you further than writing long posts. Yobol (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well YOBOL, Im sorry if real discussion does not suit your chicken mcnuggets fast food version of scientific debate. By the way, the CDC folks I spoke too, an hour ago, are not laughing. They have a copy, and they are taking it very very seriously. If you would like to go point by point through the current version of the Morgellons page, i will be most happy to point out all your inaccuracies and violations of Wiki policy....lol....There are only 3 groups doing Morgellons work at this time, and you would object to all three of them, based on your interpretation. Kaiser funded the CDC study, and that is not a secondary source. I work for a global consulting firm, that quietly does cutting edge research into Morgellons, and believe me, we know alot more than we are even saying. It's not bugs, parasites, aliens, chemtrails, nanobots, and it's definitely not delusional parasitosis....lol...Am i a primary source?...Im not aligned with anyone, and Im telling you the paper is spot on. And i have been on the cover of 3 magazines. Do i qualify by your standards? I read the paper, it's good. A fine piece of work. IF I THOUGHT THE PAPER WAS BAD, I WOULD NOT BE POUNDING THE TABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE WIKI PAGE. There are people mentioned in the morgellons page, that are complete and utter frauds, and not relevant to a scientific discussion of an emerging pandemic. Here is what I am going to do: I am going to give an interview to CNN, and then I will mention the latest paper, and then you won't be able to block inclusion, how is that, num nuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.196.98 (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pound the table all you want. WP:MEDRS and consensus are what determines what gets included in an article, not pounding. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These two comments above are interesting: "Mary Letao? please....lol....she is irrevelant. Real researchers have taken over, the "A" team is now in the building" and "Over the last 10 years we have had every knucklehead wacko running around the internet talking gibberish". The funny thing is, the primary person who wrote this new paper (Stricker), is the same "knucklehead" who's been behind the wacko stuff on the internet, along with Mary Leitao and a bunch of the people in that paper's acknowledgments, for the last 10 years. This isn't some new team with fresh ideas, it's the Morgellons Research Foundation and the Charles Holman Foundation, the SAME OLD TEAM that's been behind this stuff all along. Same people, different "theory". YAWN. Dyanega (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paper makes the stunning case, that the fibers, are made of KERATIN !!"
You mean the same keratin that makes up skin, fingernails, and hair? "Filaments have been observed protruding from and attached to a matrix of epithelial cells", yeah, this sounds like hair. I'm curious as to why they are observing these specimens under 100x, we had 1000x in my microbiology class utilizing a 100x oil immersion lense with the 10x objective. Even a normal microscope should at least go to 450x, but really, you can't see jack at 100x. I still can't wrap my head around this, 100x?!AerobicFox (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Googling Raphael B. Stricker (the senior author of the paper in question) is an instructive exercise, though. MastCell Talk 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approaches should be taken to find out the cause

I guess those suffers might be for whatever reason, their immune systen is weakened, so they developed the formication. In order to find out the reason. I would say the first thing have to do is to explain the mechanism of felling itchineww. After that, find out at the molecule level what is the source of the formication. And then after that, find out what can produce those agents. And then eventually, find out the environmental factors. 59.59.235.154 (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a general discussion about Morgellons. As you can see in the article, research has been done. So far, it appears to be a psychological issue rather than a physiological one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Max Igan's new film 'Trance-Formation' discusses that Morgellons and Chemtrails are linked and that the Chemtrails have been proved to have nano-particulars that have the same properties as the fibers found in Morgellons sufferers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psonik23 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm

Chemtrails? Yeah, that right there makes it a non-reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to dispute this sort of scientific research

http://www.omicsonline.org/2155-9554/2155-9554-3-140.php

http://www.timesunion.com/business/press-releases/article/Morgellons-Study-Cited-by-Faculty-of-1000-3644237.php

http://f1000.com/716597867

But I know somebody will come along and say it isn't true, valid, or something. Which would be original research on their part. FX ☎ 07:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See two sections above, here, to see discussion on why this source is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that somehow somewhere there would be somebody here doing original research, rather than just adding a new source of information. Remember, we are not trying to determine the truthiness of an article, but providing sources and information, even if you think it's wrong. It's original research for you to tell me why a credible source is wrong, and you are correct. Stop doing it. 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That source is not "credible", it does not meet our guideline for reliable sources for medical claims. Yobol (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not a medical claim, it gives no medical advice at all. The multiple secondary sources mentioning it are good sources, which you seem to ignore. It's nonsense like this that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Please stop it.FX ☎ 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It obviously is a medical claim which we're using it for. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease reference

"Randy Wymore, a former MRF director, has claimed on his website that some Morgellons patients who test positive for Lyme disease obtain symptom relief using aggressive, long-term antibiotic treatment similar to what is used by some doctors to treat "chronic" Lyme disease, another proposed but medically disputed condition.[76]"

The source here has nothing to do with Randy Wymore, or Morgellons. Where is the source for Wymore's assertions? Any source that is meant to support this assertion has to directly make this link to Morgellons, otherwise it is effectively original research. Who are the editors of this page to say what treatments are used in each case and how equivalent they are? It has to come from a source. I am going to remove the reference to the source again, and without that the initial sentence stands unsupported. This is, I assume, why an inappropriate source was inserted in the first place.Ninahexan (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgellons&oldid=508536532"